America’s Exit from Iraq: An Opportunity or Challenge for the Islamic Republic?

Hossein Alizadeh (46) former iran’s charge d’affairs in Helsinki,  was a career diplomat in the Iranian Foreign Ministry for 22 years. In protest to Islamic Republic repressive treatment to its innocent people, he resigned form his career  in September 2010 declaring his support for Iran’s Green Movement. He received a master’s degree in International Relations from the School of the Iranian Foreign Ministry. Alizadeh has published many books and articles before and after his defection. He speaks Persian, English and Arabic fluently.He  has recently written an open letter to the UN Human Rights Rapporteur in iran evaluating the Islamic Republic’s refusal to allow the Rapporteur enter Iran’s territory as an evidence on horrible and wide spread violation of human rights in Iran.His contact information is:[email protected]
Farsi Translation of the Article

Introduction

US President Barack Obama has announced that American military forces will leave Iraq by the end of this year. This means that the US will end its eight-year long presence in Iraq two months before the end of 2011.

Considering the Iraqi central government’s vulnerability, such a step will pose a big challenge for the Iraqi government, but what about for the Islamic Republic of Iran? Because of the Islamic Republic’s influence on Iraqi Shiites and part of the Iraqi government, does the US absence bring opportunity or challenge for the Islamic Republic?

Although the American absence in Iraq appears to be an opportunity for the Islamic Republic, this paper argues that it will be a challenge because of the militaristic approach of the IRGC which dominates relations between the Islamic Republic and Iraq. The changes after the US exits Iraq will severely exacerbate tensions between the Islamic Republic and Saudi Arabia—the Islamic Republic being blamed for the ever-intensifying instability in Iraq. This argument is elaborated below.

Iraq: The Islamic Republic’s Swamp
The Iraqi government is not single-minded (or unified), but c0mposed of different currents. Iraqi Shiite factions are very inclined to support Iran against accusations from Iraqi Sunni factions. Since the good and bad [developments] of the situation inside Iraq have been attributed to the US until now, the Islamic Republic will later be scrutinized as it has been overtly expanding its influence in Iraq.

Because Iran’s domestic economy is unstable—the rate of inflation, unemployment, and bureaucratic corruption has skyrocketed—the Islamic Republic must decrease its big assets in war-torn Iraq if it wants to further deepen its presence there. It’s obvious that payment for such big costs will come straight out of the Iranian people’s pockets, despite the fact that Iran can request billions of dollars worth of reimbursement from Iraq (held accountable for the eight year war in the 1980s). Not only has the Islamic Republic failed to claim its reimbursements from the war, but it will be obliged to fill the vacuum following the US exit from Iraq.

At the same time, it’s worthwhile to examine the first development after the US announced its exit—when the arrow of accusations was pointed towards Iran. Shortly after the US announcement, there were bombings in different places throughout Iraq on October 6, 10, and 13, cumulatively killing 60 people. A group called the Ansar al-Islam claimed responsibility for the bombings; one of the explosions targeted the Shiite district of al-Sadr. It’s interesting that some Western media sources stated simultaneously that the Ansar al-Islam is an Iran-backed terrorist network.

Given that the IRGC handled Iraq’s case from the very first day (after Saddam’s government collapsed, both Iranian ambassadors, Hossein Kazemi Qomi and Hassan Danaeifar, were selected from IRGC membership), Iraq’s internal developments after the US exit will undoubtedly go in such a way that similar explosions will threaten Iraq’s internal security and stability.

Although Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki thinks Saudi Arabia is behind the instability, his rival Iyad Alawi also considers Iran responsible for the instability. Therefore, a confrontation between Iran and Saudi Arabia will again happen. These two countries have also clashed over the Bahrain and Lebanon issues.

In a clear reference to what the Islamic Republic will do after the US exit from Iraq, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated, “Iran would be badly miscalculating by taking advantage of the American military’s exit from Iraq.” The US Secretary of State’s statement testifies that America is not ignorant of Iran’s intention—but then why America is so determined to leave Iraq?

It is believed that Obama wants to achieve two goals in leaving Iraq. The first factor is that, as promised during his first presidential campain, Obama pledged to return the troops home. On the threshold of his second presidential campaign, Obama wants to show to the American people that he’s keeping his promise. More importantly, the responsibility for any future instability will be blamed on the most important country influential in Iraq.

Since the Islamic Republic is a Shiite (therefore sectarian) country, it will undeniably continue its sectarian approach after America’s exit from Iraq. We saw how Iran vehemently protested the crackdown on Shiites in Bahrain but remained silent about Assad’s crimes. With the Islamic Republic’s ideologically sectarian approach in Iraq and the IRGC’s military approach, Iraq will experience sectarian conflict similar to what was seen in Lebanon.

Therefore, the prospect of civil war in Iraq as a result of these sectarian conflicts is not far from consideration. In essence, this war will bear a heavy toll to the Islamic Republic and the Arab countries supporting Saudi Arabia’s challenge to the Islamic Republic’s sectarianism.

A Wounded Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia feels wounded about the instability going on its own Shiite regions and blames the Islamic Republic for it. In the contest to save the Al Khalifa’s power in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia has played along with the story about the Islamic Republic’s involvement in the assassination plot against the Saudi ambassador to the US. The US recently made an announcement about it and, at Saudi Arabia’s request, has referred this case to the UN Security Council. In the ongoing changes in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia will soon be a [key] actor when it uses its ability produce extra oil in order to hurt the Islamic Republic.

It is strongly believed that after the US exit from Iraq, the Islamic Republic will employ an IRGC-style militaristic approach. Both the IRGC and Saudi Arabia will view the Iraq of tomorrow as a scene of sectarian dispute—although the Islamic Republic’s domestic, regional and international problems will complicate its mission to challenge Saudi Arabia.

The Islamic Republic is now suffering from internal turmoil (power conflict), serious disputes with the EU and US, and increasing sanctions. Therefore, the militaristic approach (which the IRGC has imbued all parts of the Islamic Republic government) is this regime’s deadly poison. After the 2009 presidential elections, the IRGC’s militaristic approach used an iron fist and blind crackdown to respond to the people’s civil protests. Hence there’s no doubt that this same IRGC militaristic approach will be the Islamic Republic’s general tactic in Iraq after the US leaves.

Conclusion
The US exit from Iraq seems like an opportunity for the Islamic Republic to deepen its influence through the Iraqi Shiites; however, because of its sectarian approach on the one side and the IRGC militaristic approach on the other, it’s assessed that the Islamic Republic’s increased involvement in Iraq will be a challenge. Without the US, Iraq could become a swamp for the Islamic Republic.

Hossein Alizadeh

October 31, 2011

[email protected]

Latest news
Related news