The US Efforts to Install Democracy in Iraq - Assignment Example

US efforts to install democracy in Iraq have served the Iranian interests Do you agree that the US efforts to install democracy in Iraq have served the Iranian interests? If yes, then why? If not, then why? Before I state my position on this issue it requires a quick recap of what transpired in this region. During the course of this recollection, my position on this issue and the rationality of it will automatically be clarified. US President George W. Bush had raised the bogey of weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein’s autocratic oppression of the Kurds as a justified cause for invading Iraq. That those weapons of mass destruction were never discovered and that United States had supplied Saddam in the 1980s with weapons that included the much vilified poisonous gas during its protracted war with Iran were conveniently pushed under the carpet. Possibly the unfinished job of the then President’s father, Bush Sr. had motivated George W. Bush to go full throttle in his sole objective of overthrowing Saddam Hussein. It was a foregone conclusion that US will not face any serious opposition from Saddam’s Iraq and toppling of Saddam’s massive statue marked a photogenic end to US Government’s primary objective. However, departure of Saddam created a serious disequilibrium in the fragile balance of power in Middle East where animosity between Shias and Sunnis goes beyond political boundaries and state sovereignties and the latent current of distrust between Arabs and Iranians would possibly last for an eternity. Iran is a Shia state and Saddam Hussein being a Sunni was an inveterate enemy of Iran. The mutual animosity was further fueled by the fact that Iraq, in spite of being a predominantly Shia country, was ruled by Sunni Saddam. Iran had never shied away from publicly declaring its support for the Shiite population in Iraq and had always been a major behind the scene influence in that country. The overwhelming control Saddam exercised during his iron fisted rule in Iraq did not allow Shiites much latitude in influencing the politics of that country and, despite their majority status, were forced to remain in the periphery with Saddam’s Baathist Party calling the shots. Throughout this period, however, Iran continued to maintain its sphere of influence over Shiite political leaders in Iraq. The irony of the entire scenario is most poignantly expressed through the fact that, though bitter enemies of one another, both Iran and US wanted democratization of Iraq. US had different reasons, but Iraq knew this was the surest and most non-violent way through which it could start influencing the politics in Iraq to an extent it could never do before. To this end, it persuaded its Shiite protégées in Iraq to cooperate with US in its effort to install a democratically elected government. The results of the election delighted the Iranians as United Iraqi Alliance (UIA) won 128 of the 275 assembly seats in December 2005 election. UIA consisted of long term allies of Iran like Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) and the Da’wa (Islamic Call) Party as well as new friends like Moqtada Al Sadr (Katzman). This emergence of Shiites was possibly only because of elections held in Iraq under US supervision. Therefore, I fully agree with the contention US efforts to install democracy in Iraq have served the Iranian interests. With respect to the current war in Iraq what role does Iran play in this conflict? The fact that Iran is vitally interested in Iraq is beyond dispute and if one views the situation impartially one would, frankly speaking, not be able to blame Iran too much for it. After all, every country in this world would be interested in what is happening in a neighboring country especially if the neighbor is going through a particularly turbulent phase. In this case, with Shiites forming a sizeable majority in the neighboring country which was ruled only a short while ago by Sunnis, the reason for Iran being vitally interested in the goings on in Iraq becomes crystal clear. If we probe the issue further, we realize that Iran would, however, never want Iraq to reemerge as its rival – either political or ideological – but would not go so far as to cause a disintegration of Iraq as a sovereign country with Kurdistan breaking away as an independent entity. This is something Iran would surely not like since an independent Kurdistan might instigate the Kurdish minority living in Iran to rise in revolt and break away to join the new independent Kurdistan. So, Iran would definitely want Iraq to remain as a sovereign entity but would, at the same time, like to play a decisive role in its internal affairs. Iran had fought a bloody war for eight long years with Iraq in 1980s and its forces had gained a thorough knowledge of Iraq’s terrain. With the added advantage of having sympathies of the Shiites in their favor, Iran had thus been able to nurture and sustain a vast intelligence network in Southern Iraq, Kurdistan and Iraq’s capital Baghdad. Thus, it seems, Iran has done the groundwork very well and is eager to play its new role. The first indication of becoming a dominant force in Iraq’s internal affairs was evident as it opened its borders immediately after the collapse of Saddam Hussein’s government and millions of Iranians swarmed across the border to visit the holiest shrine of Shiites. Iraqi authorities were evidently totally unprepared to tackle such an overwhelming flood of people and for a brief period it seemed that part of Iraq was merely an extension of Iranian territory. This had twofold significance. The first was of course a reminder to the rest of the world that if it wishes it can destabilize Iraq in very quick time, and the second was a not so subtle hint about the religious link between Shiites in Iraq with those residing in Iran. Both these hints were enough for the rest of the world to understand how determined Iran was about maintaining its influence on Iraq. Iran is following a very complex strategy in Iraq. While it has managed to install a predominantly Shiite elected government in Iraq it wants to keep United States preoccupied with the country by sustaining a chaotic situation through sponsored insurgencies and fratricidal feud between the Shiites and the Sunnis and, strange as it may seem, it is also simultaneously supporting competing Shiite groups in Iraq to prevent any future coalition of Shiites over whom it might be difficult to retain control. Iran would thus like Iraq to remain in a perpetually destabilized state but not so destabilized as to implode so that its erstwhile rival will never be able to threaten it in future while it extends its sphere of direct influence in this region. The most important reason Iran has in keeping United States preoccupied with Iraq is it would help ease US pressure on its nuclear enrichment program. The US would then be so busy with Iraq that it will unable to focus its attention or divert its resources towards scuttling Iran’s nuclear ambitions (International Crisis Group). Tracking the tension between US and Iran: what are the best/worst case scenarios facing the two counties against each other? It seems rather strange when one analyses the current tensions between US and Iran in the backdrop of the history of Iran-US relations. One recalls how US had bolstered the repressive regime of the Shah of Iran while it virtually ruled the country through proxy. Possibly Cold War logic forced it support such a regime as it was preoccupied with creating a barrier against the hegemony of Soviet Union in the Middle East. The pent up anger and frustration of Iranians finally toppled the Shah and a pathologically anti-American regime headed by Ayatollah Khomeini came in its place. That was the beginning of US-Iranian confrontation. The situation took a turn for the worse when Iranian revolutionaries stormed the US embassy in Teheran and took hostage all those who were inside. The entire world thought it to be a symbolic show of defiance by Iran but when the hostages were finally released 444 days later, US-Iranian relations went into a deep freeze from where there are still no apparent signs of the slightest thaw (Porter). The recent tensions have been ostensibly triggered by Iran’s nuclear ambitions and its desire of becoming a significant player in the Middle East. With a host of UN and US sanctions in place and surrounded by hostile Arab nations with an equally belligerent Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in power it seems there is no hope of any easing of tensions between the two countries in near future. As US and its European allies planned to impose a fresh set of UN sanctions, Ahmadinejad warned the US and its allies that imposing of any further sanctions would lead to a point of no return in their bilateral relations. These two countries as such have no diplomatic relations which was snapped during the US Embassy hostage crisis but any hope of an improvement in the situation got bleaker with increased US pressure and commensurate Iranian defiance. While Ahmadinejad stuck to his position that Iran is developing nuclear capabilities purely for peaceful purposes and would not be cowed down by fresh sanctions the ground reality is anti-American sentiments are continuously on a rise not only in Iran but throughout the rest of the Middle East (The Telegraph). In such a situation, the worst case scenario would be a full scale attack by the US against Iran but the going would never be as easy as it was in Iraq as Iran has a government in place that, though has won elections through dubious means, still has majority support in matters of national interest. The other more severe impact of such an attack would be a sudden spike in terrorist activities that would undermine US supremacy all over the world. An attack on Israel would also be a certainty in such a situation and there might be a joining of forces of Sunnis and Shiites and Iranians and Arabs to jointly fight Zionists and US aggressors. Faced with such a surge in terrorism, US allies would also most certainly stop supporting it as wholeheartedly as they had done during the Iraq invasion. Hence, US would be left all alone fighting a losing battle in the Middle East. The best case scenario could be a toning down of rhetoric and muscle flexing by both sides and easing of UN sanctions to a certain extent. Though the world finds it rather difficult to believe Iran’s contention that it is enriching uranium for peaceful purposes, its moves can be closely monitored by UN nuclear watchdogs that might have an unfettered entry once the confrontation between UN and Iran reduces as sanctions are relaxed. In such a situation, Iran would not find a strong enough reason to sustain its defiance and would soon realize that its best interests lie in getting involved in the world community and improve its economic condition through world trade and commerce. Do you think that the video is relevant to the themes of the course Middle East in world affairs? How? And do you recommend this video for the other viewers? This video is absolutely relevant to the theme of the course ‘Middle East in world affairs’. While it focuses on US Iranian relations it does so in the backdrop of Middle East as it provides actors in opposing groups near equal exposure. Thus, the video never seems like propaganda material as Hajibababei and Ahmadinejad are seen putting forward their side of the story with as much vigor as Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice elaborate the American viewpoint. A balanced commentary by Vali Nasr provides the ultimate objectivity one would expect from a video that purports to analyze such a complicated and highly emotive issue. By describing Iran’s initial reaction to 9/11 catastrophe and how it gradually modified it, this video expertly underscores the complexity of US Iranian relations while bringing in Hezbollah and Israel in the discussion to ensure that the situation in entire Middle East is highlighted. The animosity between Sunni Bin Laden and Shiite Iran is also adequately described thereby exposing the basic divide that seems to cut across all countries in the Middle East. How deeply US is entrenched in this quagmire of explosively sectarian politics is brought out very adequately in a brief discussion about US support to MEK which it acknowledges to be a terrorist organization. In spite of its professed fight to eradicate terrorism from the world, United States sponsors MEK which has its headquarters in Baghdad simply because MEK is a sworn enemy of Teheran. The video is sprinkled with similar nuggets of bitter truth which seem to make it an excellent commentary about the Middle East. Works Cited International Crisis Group. "Iran in Iraq: How Much Influence?" 21 March 2005. Internal Crisis Group: Working to prevent conflicts worldwide. 2 December 2010 . Katzman, Kenneth. "Iran’s Influence in Iraq." 29 September 2006. CRS Report for Congress. 2 December 2010 . Porter, Keith. "The US-Iranian Relationship." 2010. usforeignpolicy.about.com. 2 December 2010 . The Telegraph. "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: new sanctions will mean Iran US relations will never be improved ." 5 May 2010. The Telegraph. 2 December 2010 . Read More