The message from the unexpected turn of events in Iraq last week couldn’t be clearer: the US-Iranian detente over the new prime minister in Iraq is back. This raises a number of questions, not the least of which is how wide-ranging this thaw would be, as seen in the political moves of the new PM Haidar Al Abadi.
In an opinion article for Abu Dhabi’s daily Al Ittihad, the columnist Abdul Wahab Badrakhan said: “It is common knowledge by now that Iraqi prime ministers are jointly appointed by Washington and Tehran, therefore, their accords over Iraq mustn’t remain secret and shrouded in interpretations and surmise. On the contrary, they must be transparent and made public.”
There are other parties that are involved in the US and Iran’s dealings in Iraq: Iraqi parties, Arab parties and regional parties that are influenced by the country’s events, which have recently shook the region.
“In the spirit of honesty, it must be said that the US and Iran, which had appointed former prime minister Nouri Al Maliki and supported his mistakes and infractions until the last minute, are partners in his failure,” the writer added. “Although he is dispensable and they aren’t, they are both required to rectify the bases of their agreements and their vision for the new Iraqi system, which has yet to be completed,” he said.
And in this sense, the inevitable question is: why wasn’t the US-Iranian accord able to protect Iran (and Syria) from the catastrophe that is the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isil – now renamed the Islamic State)?
Both powers have been explicit in their rejection of the extremist organisation and its expansion. Iran has presented itself as the spearhead in the fight against takfiri forces in Syria and offered its so-called jihad there using Hizbollah and the Iraqi militias under its command against terrorists.
“But, it soon transpired that it was a war against the Syrian opposition and it didn’t involve any confrontations with the Islamic State (IS),” suggested Badrakhan.
Speaking along the same lines, the columnist George Semaan wrote in the pan-Arab daily Al Hayat: “Ending Mr Al Maliki’s rule wasn’t easy. At times, it seemed like an impossible task that started two years ago when he began waging his offensives on all fronts against most political powers in Iraq.”
In fact, to remove one individual from the prime minister’s office, all warring factions inside and outside Iraq had to mobilise all their energies and all the diplomatic and not-so-diplomatic tools at their disposal.
But, along the way, they provided the circumstances, grounds and policies that allowed for the emergence and the proliferation of the Islamic State.
How long will Iraqis and the region have to wait before they finally remove Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi, the proclaimed leader of the Islamic State?
“The ball is now in Haidar Al Abadi’s court. The man’s appointment has been acclaimed in Iraq and abroad, but acclaim alone doesn’t suffice to bring down the Islamic State,” the writer noted.
No state has demonstrated willingness to die defending Iraqis or Syrians, not the US, Iran or any other country in the world. President Obama managed to ignore the Iraqi events for two months and when he finally stepped forward, he made it clear that he intends for his country’s intervention to be limited to defending US citizens living in Irbil, protecting the Kurdish province and putting a stop to the genocide against minorities. Those were his limitations, also shared by the Europeans.
“The US president was skilful in imposing his terms. He drew a red line this time around. He warned against any advances towards Kurdistan and fulfilled his ultimatum. Iran no longer has a weakling for a partner in Baghdad and it had acted reasonably by acquiescing to the will of its partners in Iraq and saved itself from more losses in politics and on the battlefield,” Semaan suggested.
Only the upcoming weeks will show whether Iran’s change of heart came out of a genuine will to follow new and more balanced political lines based on dialogue and reason. Iraq’s new prime minister is as close to Tehran as his predecessor was, but he did state that he has different political plans.
rmakarem@thenational.ae
