A fateful battle for Iran in Iraq

Listen to the article. The audio text is automated, generated by an automated system

The relationship between Iraq and Iran returns to the forefront. In fact, the question regarding Iraq's position in the region and its role in it comes back to the fore: Is Iraq a member state in the League of Arab States or affiliated with Iran, that is, just a member of the “resistance alliance” led by Tehran?

This return to Iraq comes to the fore in light of the decision taken by the Donald Trump administration to prevent airports, all over the world, from receiving Iranian aircraft... and in light of the final American military withdrawal from Iraq, a withdrawal celebrated by the Iraqi factions, who do not hide their sectarianism and insist that Iraq be a crime orbiting in the Iranian orbit.

There are forces inside Iraq that believe that Iraq is unable to implement what is required by America to tighten the siege on Iran. On the contrary, these forces see that America is withdrawing its last forces from Iraq, from a position of nothing but weakness, and that the future of Iraq is linked to Iran, which has begun to shape the future of Iraq.

It cannot be ignored at any time that Iraq was the first target of Ayatollah Khomeini since the day he assumed power in Iran and established the “Islamic Republic.” The establishment of the “Islamic Republic,” which has refused since its establishment any normal relationship with its Arab neighbors, came only after getting rid of any Iranian personality who possessed a vision different from that of Khomeini. At the forefront of the figures who were eliminated by Khomeini was Mehdi Bazargan, a man of science and knowledge who opposed the Shah’s regime, and who headed the first government formed after the success of the “Islamic Revolution.”

Iran is currently waging a battle in Iraq, whose loss it knows will mean the fall of the “Islamic Republic” regime. If the battle of Yemen, that is, the battle to control Bab al-Mandab by the Houthis, means a lot in terms of proving that the “Islamic Republic” still has cards in the region, then Iraq constitutes a fateful battle for the “Islamic Republic.” It's a life or death battle for her.

The late Iraqi President Saddam Hussein opened a war with Iraq in September after he realized that Khomeini's goal was to overthrow his regime and export his revolution to Iraq. It is not a coincidence that Khomeini worked at that time to stir up the situation along the Iraqi-Iranian border, paving the way for war. It is also not a coincidence that he targeted Tariq Aziz, who was a symbol of the Iraqi regime as a Christian minister in the government, in addition to holding important positions on the party level.

The Iraq-Iran war resulting from miscalculations by Saddam and Khomeini continued for eight years. That war kept Iran within its borders, but it destabilized Iraq and made Saddam make the crazy decision in 1990 to invade Kuwait. By making this decision, he practically signed the decision for his end and the end of his regime... in fact, the end of Iraq!

Iran has benefited to the greatest extent from the presence of an Iraqi neighbor whose president does not have any kind of knowledge of the balance of power in the region and the world. Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was an opportunity for the “Islamic Republic” to rehabilitate itself and make the countries of the region forget that they had never abandoned the slogan of “exporting the revolution.” The American war launched by the administration of George W. Bush in 2003, which led to the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and his regime, marked a new beginning for the Iranian expansionist project.

Iraq, which the Bush Jr. administration handed over to Iran, was the new starting point for this project in its advanced form, which made it more aggressive and more dangerous to the Arab world and its societies, including a country like Lebanon.

Iran knows how important Iraq is to it. You know exactly what it means to close Iraqi airports to Iranian aircraft. You know, especially the importance of the Beirut-Baghdad-Tehran line for the “party” in Lebanon. The “party” will no longer have any direct line of communication with Iran after Syria, in light of Bashar al-Assad’s flight to Moscow, has become somewhere else.

The “mother of all battles” between America and Iran is taking place in Iraq and not in Lebanon, whose affairs Israel now has the right to manage militarily, in light of the understandings between it and the American administration. For Iran, Iraq does not only mean an area of ​​influence, but it also means many other things, including matters of an economic nature related to oil, gas, and hard currencies.

Much will depend on who wins the battle of Iraq, which is at the same time a battle linked to the possibility of the establishment of an Iraqi state that believes that Iraq is Iraq and Iran is Iran. This battle is taking place at a time when it is not possible to underestimate what the Revolutionary Guard has built in Iraq over more than two decades. What he built allowed him to turn Iraq into a model for the Iranian regime, where the “Popular Mobilization Forces,” with its sectarian militias, play the role of the “Revolutionary Guard” in Iran. Moreover, there are militias affiliated with the “Mobilization Forces” launching missiles towards Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan.

What is at stake in Iraq, as far as Iran is concerned, is big, even very big. It will emerge sooner or later. Is there an Iraqi government that can make decisions that are not satisfactory to those in Tehran? Is America's bet on Ali al-Zaidi valid... or has change in Iraq become impossible without change in Iran?