Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Double Standard in Iraq

(Inter Press Service) If politics makes strange bedfellows, then the relationship between Iran, the United States, and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC) is the strangest...

Print Friendly

(Inter Press Service)

If politics makes strange bedfellows, then the relationship between Iran, the United States, and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC) is the strangest ménage à trois in international relations today. Violent Shia-on-Shia hostilities officially came to an end this week when a formal ceasefire was declared between government forces of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and radical Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army, but sporadic fighting still continues. And questions remain about the role that the United States is playing.

In testimony before Congress a month ago, Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. troops in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador, characterized the conflict in Iraq as a "proxy war" to stem Iranian influence.

Declarations by both the U.S. and Iraqi governments about Iranian sponsorship of Sadrist activities are often used to paint Iran as a destabilizing force in Iraq—the meddling neighbor encouraging unrest to boost its own influence. Both governments defend the U.S.-backed Iraqi government excursions against Sadr by citing unsubstantiated evidence of Iranian agents’ influence.

But this perspective has yet to be explained in terms of one of Iran’s closest allies in Iraq, the SIIC, which, as part of al-Maliki’s ruling coalition also happens to be one of the closest U.S. partners.

The U.S. military says that it killed three militants in Baghdad’s Shia Sadr City slum on Sunday, alleging that the targets were splinter groups of the Mahdi Army that had spun out of Sadr’s control and were receiving training and weapons from Iran.

Last week, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said it was clear that Tehran was supporting "militias that are operating outside the rule of law in Iraq." Many fear that the rhetoric is part of an effort to ratchet up tensions between the United States and Iran.

But the constant barrage of criticism lobbed at Iran and the so-called "special groups" of Sadrists still fighting against the government and U.S. forces tends to overlook the fact that the parties in the coalition ruling Iraq are largely indebted to Iran for their very existence and continue to be closely connected with the Islamic Republic.

There seems to be no solid explanation about the double standard of U.S. denunciation of Iranian influence and U.S. support and aid to one of the strongest benefactors and allies of that influence—the government coalition of al-Maliki.

"I’m not confident we know what the hell we’re doing when we’re making these actions," Brian Katulis, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a Washington think tank, told the Inter Press Service (IPS).

The two strongest parties in al-Maliki’s coalition, his own Dawa Party and SIIC, have both been based out of Iran and are both Shia religious parties.

SIIC, formerly known as the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, was born in Iran and its fighters, the Badr Brigade militia, fought against Iraq in the bloody Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. The Badr Organization has been widely incorporated into the Iraqi security forces that receive U.S. training and equipment.

While these groups were living in exile, Muqtada al-Sadr’s father was building a Shia movement within Iraq. The Sadrists are the only major Shia political block that can be properly considered an indigenous movement.

The SIIC had initially participated in the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an exile group led by Ahmad Chalabi that the neoconservative architects of the Iraq War had hoped to form into a government-in-exile that could swoop in and take control of Iraq after the United States toppled Saddam Hussein’s regime.

Of its participation in a December 2002 INC conference, Ghassan Atiyyah, an Iraqi democracy activist, declared that "[SIIC], for its part, was keen on the idea of a conference to prevent America dominating the Iraqi opposition and the future of Iraq."

After the collapse of Chalabi’s bid and the reign of the Coalition Provisional Authority, elections made SIIC the most powerful bloc in Iraq’s parliament. In December 2006, SIIC leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim was invited to Washington to meet with President George W. Bush at the White House.

Hakim’s visit to Washington coincided with the withdrawal of the Sadrists—once al-Maliki’s kingmakers—from the ruling coalition. At Washington’s behest, Hakim threw his support to al-Maliki to allow him to hold a ruling coalition.

The recent fighting between Sadrists and the government has only strengthened that bond. Al-Maliki’s offensive in Basra and engagements in Sadr City have benefited from U.S. air support and training—leading to accusations that the United States has picked sides in what is essentially an internal Shia political issue.

Soon after the aborted advance on Basra, Petraeus said that al-Maliki had prematurely moved on a plan that the United States was hoping to carry out in the summer. Last month’s offensive is widely viewed as an attempt by the ruling coalition to weaken Sadr ahead of this fall’s provincial elections, and though the attack Petraeus discussed will not happen, the plan to undertake it is notable.

But with the framing of the Iraq War as a struggle between the United States and what Washington considers the nefarious influence of Iranians, the inherent contradictions of supporting SIIC run deep.

Of the various political disputes dividing Iraqis right now, a key one is that between nationalists who believe in a strong central government and those who want to subdivide the Iraqi map and society into a loosely federalized system.

It is Sadr and his followers, in fact, who—in spite of Iranian aid—represent the nationalist view, and they even push some policies that the United States supports.

"Sadr took a lot of Iranian guns and ammunition and money, but Sadr clearly didn’t change," Middle East Institute scholar Wayne White told IPS. "Sadr clearly remains a nationalist."

The SIIC and Iran, on the other hand, support a Shia super-region in the south as part of a loosely federated Iraqi state. The homogenous super-region would likely facilitate Iranian influence. Both Sadr and the United States oppose the idea in favor of a strong central government.

One reason the United States opposes Sadr is his brutality, says White; the Mahdi militia was responsible for violent ethnic cleansing in many Shia dominated neighborhoods. Yet such violence has not been limited to Shia neighborhoods or delivered solely by the Sadrists.

A more significant reason for U.S. opposition to Sadr is his outspoken hostility toward the U.S. occupation, which also helps explain the support he has received from Iran. Sadr still refuses to deal with the U.S. forces, vowing to only talk to Iraqis.

"He is the most anti-American of the militia leaders," said White, "and [leads] the only militia that has taken on the Americans militarily."

Regardless of Sadr’s opposition to the occupying U.S. forces, isolating him poses a threat to stability in Iraq because of his strong support among the Iraqi population. As Phebe Marr, an analyst with the U.S. Institute of Peace, told IPS, "Looking at the political spectrum, there are few alternatives. I just don’t see much else on the scene."

The war, said Marr, has led to a brain-drain of Iraq’s professional class and an exodus of many secular moderates. As a result, secular and pro-Western political parties have all but disappeared; those who are left have thrown their support to the SIIC. Sadr, however, has been the voice of lower-class Iraqi Shia.

"U.S. nudging and pushing and manipulation becomes a very dicey affair because we don’t know everything that goes on behind closed doors," said White. "Even if [Sadr’s] organization itself is damaged very badly, that street power may still be there. And that’s going to be something difficult to deal with down the road."

Ali Gharib writes for the Inter Press Service and is a contributor to PRA’s Right Web (http://rightweb.irc-online.org).

Citations

Ali Gharib, “Double Standard in Iraq,” Right Web, with permission from Inter Press Service (Somerville, MA: PRA, 2008). Web location:
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/rw/4915.html Production Information:
Author(s): Right Web
Editor(s): Right Web
Production: Public Research Associates   Latest Comments & Conversation Area
Editor's Note: IRC editors read and approve eachcomment. Comments are checked for content and to a lesser degree forspelling and grammatical errors. Comments that include vulgar language andlibelous content are rejected, as are comments that do not directlyrespond to the published IRC article.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Clare Lopez is a former CIA officer and rightwing activist who has argued that the Muslim Brotherhood and a shadowy “Iran Lobby” are working to shape Obama administration policy.


Michael Ledeen, a “Freedom Scholar” at the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has long been obsessed with getting the U.S. to force regime change in Tehran.


Michael Flynn is a former Trump administration National Security Advisor who was forced to step down only weeks on the job because of his controversial contacts with Russian officials before Trump took office.


The daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, Liz Cheney has emerged as the most visible advocate of hardline security policies in the Cheney family.


Bret Stephens is a columnist for the New York Times who previously worked at the Wall Street Journal and the neoconservative flagship magazine Commentary.


Joe Lieberman, the neoconservative Democrat from Connecticut who retired from the Senate in 2013, co-chairs a foreign policy project at the American Enterprise Institute.


Former attorney general Edwin Meese, regarded as one of President Ronald Reagan’s closest advisers despite persistent allegations of influence peddling and bribery during his tenure, has been a consummate campaigner on behalf of rightist U.S. foreign and domestic policies. He currently serves as a distinguished visiting fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

The President went to the region as a deal maker and a salesman for American weapon manufacturing. He talked about Islam, terrorism, Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without the benefit of expert advice in any of these areas. After great showmanship in Riyadh, Jerusalem, and Bethlehem, he and his family left the region without much to show for or to benefit the people of that war-torn region.


Print Friendly

Although the Comey memo scandal may well turn out to be what brings Trump down, this breach of trust may have had more lasting effect than any of Trump’s other numerous misadventures. It was an unprecedented betrayal of Israel’s confidence. Ironically, Trump has now done what even Barack Obama’s biggest detractors never accused him of: seriously compromised Israel’s security relationship with the United States.


Print Friendly

Congress and the public acquiesce in another military intervention or a sharp escalation of one of the U.S. wars already under way, perhaps it’s time to finally consider the true costs of war, American-style — in lives lost, dollars spent, and opportunities squandered. It’s a reasonable bet that never in history has a society spent more on war and gotten less bang for its copious bucks.


Print Friendly

Trump’s reorganization of the foreign policy bureaucracy is an ideologically driven agenda for undermining the power and effectiveness of government institutions that could lead to the State Department’s destruction.


Print Friendly

Spurred by anti-internationalist sentiment among conservative Republicans in Congress and the Trump administration, the US is headed for a new confrontation with the UN over who decides how much the US should pay for peacekeeping.


Print Friendly

Decent developments in the Trump administration indicate that the neoconservatives, at one point on the margins of Washington’s new power alignments, are now on the ascendent?


Print Friendly

As the end of Donald Trump’s first 100 days as president approaches, it seems that his version of an “America-first” foreign policy is in effect a military-first policy aimed at achieving global hegemony, which means it’s a potential doomsday machine.


RightWeb
share