• Home
• /
• Opinion

US must strike a balance between Iraq and Iran

For Iraqis who have experienced political upheavals, use of chemical weapons and ethnic cleansing, few things could be less worrisome at present than the presence of a token US military force.

Ordinary Americans who view international affairs through the lens of domestic politics can perhaps be forgiven for thinking that the world is neatly divided into pro-Trump and anti-Trump camps. But it is not as easy to forgive elements in the mainstream US news media whose attempts to portray the current Iraq-US tensions as a heroic David standing up to a meddlesome Goliath smack of liberal bias and Beltway politics. Fortunately, the bureaucrats of the State Department have a much more nuanced understanding of Middle East issues and a holistic approach to problem-solving than they usually get credit for.
The US public and news media can afford to have short attention spans and memories, but US diplomats have to keep in mind the fact that as recently as four years ago, large expanses of Iraq were seized by Daesh in a backlash against institutionalised sectarian bias that pushed the country to the brink of state failure. Furthermore, the diplomats surely have a clear idea of what Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi's failed attempts to find independent-minded candidates to fill cabinet security posts say about the health of Iraq's body politic.
It is simplistic at best and outrageous at worst for reporters or commentators to suggest that in a geopolitical landscape transformed by the fall of Saddam Hussein and the eclipse of Iran's reformists, Iraq should be implicitly recognised by the US and its Arab and Kurdish partners as one of a covey of countries that belong firmly in Iran's sphere of influence.
Such suggestions reek of the proverbial "soft bigotry of low expectations" since there is little empirical evidence to back up the theory that a majority of Iraqis want their multi-sectarian and multi-ethnic country to link its fortunes closely to a theocracy reeling from imperial overstretch. While the defiant tone of Iraq's pro-Iranian politicians may impress American media liberals who have a soft corner for Iran since the glory days of the 2015 nuclear accord, it is of little practical relevance to ordinary Iraqis who yearn for basic services, less corruption, decent jobs and an enlightened, inclusive leadership.
Elections and democracy may be a lasting legacy of the US-led invasion of 2003 that toppled Saddam's Baathist dictatorship, but they have undeniably served to tilt the political pendulum too far in the opposite direction. Indeed, democracy has conferred political respectability on Iraqi militia commanders who not so long ago headed shadowy proxy forces that fought American and British forces at the behest of Iran's deep state. Their presence in Iraq's parliament is an improvement to the extent they now operate partly under the glare of public scrutiny. But the megaphone they possess is still being used to advance their objective of forcing the Iraqi government to hew closely to the official Iranian line.
The presence of a few thousand American soldiers on Iraqi soil and the Trump administration's Iran sanctions have been converted by Iraq's Iran-aligned politicians into divisive issues with more than a little assist from a tactless US president. Never mind that, for Iraqis who have experienced first-hand political upheavals, use of chemical weapons, human-rights violations and ethnic cleansing, few things could be less worrisome at present than the presence of a token US military force which has a well-defined remit to train Iraqi security forces.
Additionally, it is far too early to declare the sharp drop in violence in Baghdad as the beginning of a new era of security and stability given that many of the conditions that contributed to the explosion of violent extremism are still present in Iraq, to say nothing of the unmet demand for stabilisation of war-torn areas. To cap it all, there is no end to the government's unsustainable dependence on crude exports for revenue generation despite low oil prices and few new job opportunities in the energy sector. Evidently, for Iraq to choose sides in the US-Iran wooing contest makes no sense from the standpoint of national interest.
There is a slight chance in the fact that the leaks apparently being orchestrated by the CIA and Defence Department officials through liberal media outlets as part of their ongoing turf war with the State Department could send out the wrong signal to Iraqi politicians who double as Tehran's proxies. The price for any attempt by these actors to take advantage of the divisions in the Trump administration is likely to be borne by the most vulnerable Iraqis, especially those seen as Washington's natural allies like the Kurds, who are already under enormous stress from Iran-backed sectarian militias deployed in disputed areas.
To its credit, the State Department recognises that no good can come from putting excessive pressure on fragile Iraq to comply with US sanctions targeting Iran. At the same time, it has to take the steps necessary to roll back Iran's influence so that the region's delicate power equilibrium is restored and the hardliners are taken down a peg or two. Put simply, to act in the best interests of the silent moderate majorities of Iraq and Iran, the State Department should trust its own instincts rather than heed the admonitions of the elite media-Beltway nexus.
Arnab Neil Sengupta is an independent journalist and commentator on Middle East