HOME
ORGANISATION
COMMUNIQUES
REPORTS
ANALYSES
EVENTS
REACTIONS
CONTACT
 
NEWSLETTER
Analyses

An analysis of the events in Iraq and their regional implications

.: June 20, 2014

In this article published by Middle East Monitor, Bassem El-Emadi analyses the events in Iraq and their causes.

There is no doubt that ISIS, a Salafist Jihadist group with alleged territorial claims in Iraq and Syria, has gained control of largely tribal Sunni territories in Syria and northern Iraq as of late. Political analysts were surprised to find the speed at which the ISIS coalition managed to gain territories and spread its army all over Iraq and this is due to the assumption that the Iraqi government should have been equipped with the military tools and man power necessary to repel such an attack.

Yet, in reality what has happened is not all that surprising considering the seeds for such events have been sown and the necessary factors have been interacting for quite some time. According to Sunni leadership in Iraq: "The sectarian and undemocratic policies adopted by Nouri Al-Maliki, with Iranian and potentially Western support as well, has distracted Sunni politicians from actively participating in the political arena and military. Moreover, the government has falsely accused many Sunni politicians of committing crimes and thrown them in jail. Sunni politicians are treated quite unfairly due to sectarian politics and policies. This has become a thing of every day life."

All the factors mentioned above have lead many Sunni populations to sympathise with any political movement that seeks to counter Al-Maliki’s sectarian regime. In today’s Iraq, Sunni populations are treated as second and third class citizens in comparison to other populations concentrated in the south.

Due to the Sunni Iraqi population’s absence from the political arena and the military, many people have now begun to support, if only symbolically, political groups such as ISIS because of the fact that they are otherwise unable to counter or confront the numerous popular military fronts found in Iraq. The strong Shia presence in both the political arena and the military further exacerbates this situation. Many Iraqi Sunni’s have pledged their support for ISIS due to their sense of frustration over the worsening situation in Iraq and their political and military weaknesses.

Moreover, many tribal factions have formed their own militias with the hope that they will be able to confront Al-Maliki’s government. These militias no longer view Al-Maliki’s dictatorship of Iraq as an acceptable outcome, especially in light of his intention to renew his tenure for a third term.

In addition to all of this, one cannot forget the efforts of pro-Assad Shia militia groups in Syria, which go against the Syrian people. It is now clear that these militias are financed and supported by Iran, which seeks to increase its control and influence over the region by controlling Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. It is able to politically and militarily interfere in these countries’ affairs directly thanks to the help of its henchmen.

Iranian interference in Syria and Iraq grew strong due to American and Western support and it continues to grow strong because no party attempted to stop it. The West’s decision to enter into negotiations with Iran is the first since Khomeini’s revolution. The recent Iranian-American rapprochement was due in large part to America’s bitterness and hostility towards Al-Qaeda. Thus, the US now seeks to strengthen the Shia zone of influence in order to balance the over-whelming Sunni majority. Not only will the creation of a strong Shia political power lead Sunni countries to enter a long conflict with Iran, but it will also help Iran achieve its dream of reviving the Persian Empire.

Moreover, the deteriorating economic situation has placed many Sunni Iraqis in a state of despair with no hope that they will experience any economic reforms or changes under the Maliki regime’s policies. Many people believe that Al-Maliki and his government have taken advantage of a vast amount of Iraq’s resources, primarily by pocketing a large amount of the country’s petroleum profits in their efforts to maintain control of the country.

According to Sunni Iraqis, the Iraqi Army’s withdrawal from the confrontation with ISIS exposed the army as "a Shia army loyal to Al-Maliki and his regime and not one that is willing to defend the Iraqi people and the country as a whole". According to Sunni leaders and observers, Al-Maliki is training the Iraqi Army to be a sectarian army, one that defends the policies and goals of the regime, much like their Syrian counterparts. Thus, the army has been specifically designed to protect the country’s leader and to follow all of his orders as opposed to defending the country (as a whole) from external threats. Al-Maliki has placed all of his henchmen in high-ranking positions in both the army and the police force. It has become quite clear that the army has pledged its allegiance to the sectarian regime especially after it became clear that Qasem Soleimani, the commander of Iran’s Quds Force, has ordered several battles after ISIS gained control of Mosul and other areas.

What happens in Iraq goes beyond its borders, especially since it is considered an integral part of the region, one that greatly affects other countries within its proximity. ISIS’ leadership in Syria greatly benefitted from the weapons that it captured from the Iraqi army because this enabled them to attack their opponents Deir Ez-zor (east) and Aleppo (north). They were able to maintain control of areas they had been previously forced out of a few short months ago.

Syrian activists released a statement last week confirming that ISIS leadership were able to successfully smuggle both armoured vehicles and weapons that it had captured from the Iraqi army. The weapons were transported via the border between the two countries and were intended to arm ISIS fighters in Syria.

ISIS’ morale has grown stronger in light of the recent events in the Iraqi arena because of the fact that it now sees itself as a force that is able to combat Iran’s initiative and its support for the Assad regime. Moreover, they also believe that they are capable of fighting Shia militias in Syria along with Bashar Al-Assad. This newfound view of ISIS comes in light of the absence and failures of the Free Syrian Army and their inability to defeat the Assad regime and its supporters after more than three years of violence.

As for Al-Assad, he will try to take advantage of ISIS’ advancements by convincing Western governments that he is engaged in a war against terror and that if his regime falls, Islamist organisations such as ISIS and others will gain control of Syria. This will necessitate the West’s recognition of the staged Syrian presidential elections that have been going on all of this month and require them to suspend their support for the Syrian opposition. It does not matter that the election’s results have been fabricated or that the head of the Syrian parliament Mohammad Jihad Al-Laham falsely claimed that Al-Assad won the June elections with more 88.7 per cent of the vote. Initially, these results were rejected by other Arab and Western countries, as well as the Syrian opposition, who claimed that these elections were nothing more than a farce.

However, the reality of the situation will be far different from what the Syrian regime would like because the United States knows full well that the Syrian regime gave ISIS a carte blanche to gain control of areas that the Free Syrian Army had liberated from the regime. In exchange for its newly acquired territory, ISIS vowed not to reciprocate by attacking the regime’s forces.

Perhaps one of the consequences to come out of the events in Iraq is the US decision to lift its siege off of the "moderate" Free Syrian Army, which initially banned all parties from arming them or supporting them financially in any way. America’s reaction to the events in Iraq came much quicker than its reaction to the events in Syria as Barak Obama delivered a speech addressing the situation merely a few days after the conflict broke out. Obama sent several jets to the Gulf to support any possible military option. He was also clear on his desire to support the Iraqi government in their struggle against ISIS; however he acted upon this desire in a way that strengthens the current anti-Sunni status quo, one that gives Sunni leaders a position in the current government that does very little to solve the problem that was created by recent events.

Although Obama has hinted that American intervention in Iraq may not be strong, eventually the truth of the matter will force him to intervene in a way that is more direct than what he initially intended and this is primarily due to the fact that the Iraqi regime is not capable of regaining the territories that it has recently lost. Moreover, Iran is heavily involved in Syria and will not be able to get heavily involved in Iraq. Iran will soon find itself in the midst of a vicious cycle that will be very difficult to get out of.

The main reason for American involvement in Iraq is due to the dire economic consequences that will ensue if Iraqi petroleum is no longer available in the international market. The United States in particular will experience various economic instabilities with the lack of reliable petroleum resources and it is for this reason that Iraq remains among the United States’ priorities. As for Iran, its president will make sure to benefit from every single opportunity and for this reason, it would not be surprising if he announces Iran’s willingness to stand with America in the fight against "terror".

Yet, according to recent statements made by the US Secretary of State, John Kerry, America will be hesitant to cooperate with Iran on Iraqi matters because this will give Iran certain cards that the United States does not want it to possess, whether in regards to its nuclear programme or the Syrian issue. Iran’s deep involvement in the Syrian issue weakens it economically on both the regional and international levels and also increases the Arab world’s hatred towards it because it insists on going against the mainstream anti-Assad sentiment, which considers Bashar Al-Assad to be nothing more than an illegitimate president.

As for the Gulf countries, they look to what is happening in Iraq with much cause for concern because it directly impacts the Shia minority populations within them. The Shia minority in the Gulf has long been attempting to make an impact on their governments, especially in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia and even Kuwait to a lesser extent. If what is going on in Syria extends to Iraq, then we can be sure that it will not stop there but that it will go on to affect Gulf countries. In the event that this happens, Iran will be able to expand its influence to these countries and achieve its dream of reviving the Persian Empire.

At the same time, Gulf States are also not thrilled by ISIS’ advancements because they do not work for the Gulf’s benefit. Neither Al-Maliki’s victory over ISIS nor the alternative benefit the Gulf because the first option puts them within arm’s reach of Iranian policies and influence and the second forces them to deal with the same type of extremism that cost them so much in the past. They have yet to get rid of this extremism completely.

The Turkish government finds itself greatly concerned with ISIS’ advancements and looks to them with much trepidation because they not only threaten the country’s stability, but also its southern borders. Turkey has worked hard to achieve a semblance of stability along these borders in their cooperation with the Kurds in Northern Iraq. Turkey is also concerned by many of the events in Iraq because of the kidnapping of its citizens and officials from the Turkish consulate in Mosul. These realities will more than likely encourage Turkey to send certain types of weapons to the Syrian opposition, so that they will have the ability to confront ISIS.

The Kurds have benefited greatly from recent events in Iraq and have taken this opportunity to gain control of the areas that the Iraqi army withdrew from especially in Kirkuk, the city in northern Iraq with the most petroleum. The Kurds have been trying to absorb the city into their territory for quite some time. The Kurdish reaction towards ISIS shall be strong and severe especially since this movement does not recognise Kurdistan. ISIS has had several confrontations with the Kurds in Syria, which have shown that the Kurds are able to defeat them despite their limited number of victories. However, this will soon change if ISIS is able to gain control of a petroleum stronghold, which will finance some arms along with bank assets from Mosul.

What is currently happening in Iraq has greater implications on the region as a whole. The Unites States, Iran and several neighbouring countries must bare the responsibility for these events. Iran is directly responsible for many of these outcomes through the Revolutionary Guard’s involvement in Syria. It is also responsible economically speaking, by influencing its allies in the region with funding and by encouraging Al-Maliki to adopt disastrous sectarian policies in Iraq. The consequences of these policies will not only have disastrous implications on Iraq but on the region as a whole.

The United States has been rather passive in its stance towards the Syrian revolution but they also are against arming resistance groups. This indirectly paves the way for extremist organisations to gain more power and influence in the country by implementing their ideologies on the ground. America’s silence on the Syrian matter has caused the Syrian opposition to exit the political arena and allowed other parties the opportunity to enter it. More importantly, the United States’ passive attitude served as a form of compliance for the joint Iranian-Russian policies that were implemented in the region.

As for the other countries in the region that allowed themselves to be swayed by America’s lack of commitment to a stance on the Syrian issue, they will soon realise that their lack of action has prevented them from interpreting the reality of the regional situation correctly. They should have thought twice before taking any tips on foreign affairs because their positions have further inflamed the situations in both Iraq and Syria. The gaps will grow wider and it will become even more difficult to fill in the gaps in the future, making it close to impossible to restore stability, security and peace in the region.

Bassem EL-EMADI © Middle East Monitor (UK)

The author publishes on the website Middle East Monitor.

BackHome
Anglais Français Arabe Persan Turc Hébreu Kurde