Entry details

MF
Author

Munro Ferguson

Date

March 18th, 2009

Tags

,

Comments

10 Comments so far.
Add yours.

Iran’s influence in post America Iraq

With a rather large exception¹, that has some of his political base less than pleased, President Obama has nailed down his campaign promise for US withdrawal from Iraq. As of August, 2010 Iraq will “officially” enter it’s post America form and uncertainties both internally and regionally abound.

For me one of the more intriguing issues regarding the future of post America Iraq is the measure of influence it’s neighbor and former enemy will have in the coming years. More than a few pundits here in the States have suggested a premature US withdrawal from Iraq might result in the state becoming a proxy of Iran’s want for regional hegemony. I’ve found this assertion both a tad simplistic and indicative of a rather monolithic and naive vision of the two countries and their history.

The presumption seems to be based purely on the two countries most blatant commonality; that the majority of both their populations adhere to the Shia sect of Islam. This presumption is reinforced by the likes of Muqtada al Sadr, his Mahdi following and obvious ties to Iran. Evidence and allegations of Iran arming Iraqi resistance against US forces is touted as proof of the impending Persian envelopment of Iraq.

What’s largely ignored in the Iran will take over Iraq scenario is the ethnic and cultural differences that exist between the two countries, the concept of Iraqi nationalism, the “small” matter of a bloody, eight year war the two countries fought back in the 1980’s and a myriad of other details. As for the complicity of Iran in arming the resistance, well that doesn’t necessarily parlay into subservience for the receiving parties much less indicate Iraq is soon to be a vassal of it’s larger neighbor. See Pakistan’s involvement in first the Afghan/Soviet war, secondly in the Afghan civil war, lastly the current troubles in Pakistan, specifically the Swat valley.

I have little doubt that Iran has been and will continue to assert itself in the internal machinations of the very uncertain state that is the “new” Iraq. What I wonder is, to what depths will this influence reach? I’m curious for some feedback on this and suggest reading this article, which I’ll quote from below, as a mental springboard, if you will. It contains nascent aspects of not only Iran’s potential post American influence but a look at the Iraqi reaction to that influence.

“This is Baghdad,” laments one of the hotel staff, pointing despairingly at the women. “Do you see this? They all look like they are from Iran! What is our country coming to?” he wails.

Reluctant at first, one of the women agrees to talk, but insists it be done away from the crowd.

“Why is everyone dressed like this,” asks this reporter.

“Please don’t misunderstand. We don’t dress like this normally. It is too hot and this is not our style, but if we do not, they threaten us,” she explains. A friend standing by her side nods in agreement.

Another woman, a member of the election committee explained that they were told to dress that way and wear a coat, even in summer if they wanted to be on the committee.

“Iran is taking over everything,” she laments.

Another woman, an Iraqi Assyrian Christian, refuses to partake in a business meeting organized for women, because she is afraid she will be seen.

By whom? Asks this reporter, insisting that this is inside the so-called Green Zone, protected by the U.S military.

“I’m so sorry, but they will see me and it will be a problem for me” says the woman, a hint of trepidation clearly audible in her voice.

Does this mean “they” are watching inside the Green Zone?

The woman becomes very nervous: “They are from Iran,” she says. “They are everywhere. If I am seen they will cause trouble for me. They have hurt many.”

Refusing to accept the notion that Iranians are operating right under the eyes of U.S. forces, this reporter decides to have a look for himself.

Meeting with the Iraqi-American who is coordinating the event I relate the conversation just exchanged across the street.

“I am afraid she may be right,” he says, almost in a whisper.”There are Iranians all over the place,” he adds.

He goes on: “What is happening is that Iranians are coming, but they have Iraqi IDs. We keep telling the Americans that even though they may show up with Iraqi IDs they are in fact from Iran. They don’t want to hear about it. They are everywhere.”


¹ Leaving behind nearly a third of your forces isn’t quite a withdrawal. Indeed it suggests things yet undone. Obama appears to be setting aside the rhetoric of his campaign, to a degree and favoring a more pragmatic course. But that’s a possible post for another time.

Comments to this entry

Lexington Green
March 18, 2009
10:30 pm
If the USA pulls out, maybe the Iraqis can round up and shoot all the Iranian infiltrators without the USA getting all squeamish about it.
mihnea
March 18, 2009
10:49 pm
I think it's really too early to say either way. More than likely, even with a continued US military presence in Irak, things will go worse before they will get better. Irak's government is still weak and will be mired in an entire host of social and economic problems, to which, most undoubtedly, Iran will participate, stirring the pot, so to speak, whenever and wherever it can. So from that point of view, there will most likely be an increase in influence from Irak's Eastern neighbour.

What the US really should do, in my opinion, is to use the time and forces it has left in Irak, once those 50k troops or whatever are left, to prop up the Iraki regime wherever it can, more as a social partner. It has to couple that with an unprecedented 'war' of soft power. Ironically, the war over hearts and minds has barely started.

As for the Irakis themselves, regardless of Iranian religious intervention, they would rather have an open society than a theocratic regime, that much is obvious. If the US helps prop up the Iraki regime militarily, while developing a working social services infrastructure, as well as following a soft power agenda that centeres on decency rather than a clash of civilizations with the West, then I think in 30-40 years time things might be completely different in the regional perspective.

I mean, eff it, Hamas is just an NGO with a lot of guns, when you come to think of it. Why shouldn't the US try to be the same in Irak, without the ideological and religious attitude?
ElamBend
March 19, 2009
2:00 am
I think Turkey, which is far richer, more populous, and stronger will have something to say to that. It is true that they have worked together against Kurdish irredentist, but that doesn't mean that Turkey would acquiesce to too much interference.

Not too mention the Saudis .
Brian
March 19, 2009
3:40 am
Just let the Iranians get into as big a mess there as the Americans are; and then don't let them clean it up the Iranian way. They'll rue the days they ever tried to expand their influence.
ComingAnarchy.com » Iran’s influence in post America Iraq « MY WP
March 19, 2009
5:33 am
[...] View post: ComingAnarchy.com » Iran’s influence in post America Iraq [...]
Ralph Hitchens
March 19, 2009
3:29 pm
Many regional experts I knew in the Intelligence Community used to emphasize the cultural differences as a strong divide even within Shi'ia Islam -- "Iranians are Persians, & Iraqis are Arabs." I suspect it was in Sadr's interest to have close ties to Iran while he was openly fighting the US occupation force, but might become less so once that force is largely withdrawn and (non-Kurdistan) Iraq falls back on its home-grown political resources.
Munro Ferguson
March 20, 2009
1:14 am
Lexington Green, but can they do it without starting Iran/Iraq War II?

Mihnea, I think that's within the realm of Obama's strategy (certainly hope it is) hence the hefty transitional force.
"I mean, eff it, Hamas is just an NGO with a lot of guns, when you come to think of it." Well said.

Elambend, the Saudi's, Morroco and Egypt have taken diplomatic steps recently to marginalize what they see as a growing Shia/Persian (choose your adjective in accordance to their manifold complaints) regional influence. Specifically the recent Saudi step to thaw relations with Syria and attempt to draw them away from Iranian influence. Turkey seems to have something of a schizophrenic (for lack o' a better term) approach regarding the Kurds. In one respect they feed the autonomous region via trade (seeking, perhaps, stability along their Iraqi border) in another they may fear a prosperous and globally connected Iraqi Kurdistan and what potential separatist issues it may invite. Great food for thought.
Munro Ferguson
March 20, 2009
1:38 am
Brian, I don't think Iran is going to attempt an overt occupation of Iraq, especially with an American military presence there.

Ralph Hitchens, What do you envision as Iraq's homegrown political resources? Monarchy, secular dictatorship with a sectarian flavor (a la Saddam,) sectarian majority rule with a minority resistance?
ElamBend
March 20, 2009
3:18 am
MF,
A wealthy Kurdish Iraq may make a good destination for any Kurds in Turkey who deny their Turkishness...you know, if push came to shove. But, yeah, your right they do seem to be of two minds.
Ralph Hitchens
March 20, 2009
1:59 pm
Munro F. -- I would guess the 3rd option, as no monarchial pretenders are in sight and I doubt anyone (yet) has enough pull to impose a dictatorship. If and when it happens, it would surely be sectarian rather than secular.