Iraq 'Not Under U.S. - But Iranian' Occupation

The Americans want to ensure Sunni participation in Iraq's political process because, just as with Saddam, they are free of Iranian influence. According to this op-ed article from The New Anatolian of Turkey, 'increasing Iranian influence in Iraq is serving as the glue, holding Turkey, the U.S. and the Sunnis together.'

By Cengiz Candar

December 24, 2005

Turkey - Home Page (English)

I knew this already but haven't disclosed it before, because I was told it was off the record. However the day before yesterday, during a live NTV talk show on Turkish foreign policy that we both contributed to, Professor Ahmet Davudoglu, chief foreign policy advisor to both Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul, put on the record an observation from an Iraqi Sunni leader, who participated in the Dec. 4 meeting in Istanbul in the presence of Gul and U.S. Ambassador to Baghdad Zalmay Khalilzad. His observation was the following: "Iraq isn't under U.S. - but Iranian occupation."

As a matter of fact, it is exactly this perception that defines the most recent improvement in Turkish-U.S. relations and American efforts to include the Sunnis in the new Iraqi power equation. This has never been disclosed in unambiguous terms to the public, but the increasing Iranian influence in Iraq is serving as the glue holding Turkey, the U.S. and the Sunnis together.

The interests of the three are quite diverse, and until very recently they were three hostile and conflicting actors, one global (the U.S.), one regional (Turkey) and one local (Iraqi Sunnis). All as Iraq fell into the Iran's sphere of influence.

This growing influence is even more alarming, now that Iran has a maverick new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has repeatedly called for wiping Israel off the map [See Video Below]. Ahmadinejad’s unwavering, uncompromising anti-Israeli remarks not only imply an intransigent attitude regarding Iran’s intent to acquire nuclear power, but at the same time close the door to a deal with the United States over Iraq.

The historically clumsy result of America's much-contested invasion of Iraq was the ouster of Saddam Hussein’s Sunni-based dictatorship - and as though it were the plan - to hand the country over to a pro-Iranian elected theocracy. At least that's what the election results indicate. But this is not at all what Washington had in mind when it undertook the invasion. That is why Washington needs a Sunni element to counter the Shiite theocratic monopoly on power.

Neither would Turkey like seeing a second Iran emerge in its immediate neighborhood. Iraq has always been the wrestling mat of Turkey and Iran. The region's two greatest powers, they both have imperial backgrounds and a strong sense of statehood. Even the the Ottomans and Safavids (later the Kajars), which were both ruled by Turkish dynasties, fought over Iraq for influence. The game of geopolitics has changed, but it hasn't gone away. Today it is being revived, and this is the main issue around which Turkish-U.S. relations have begun to operate. Historically, Turkey has always been the main Sunni power center in the region, which prevented Iran from pulling Iraq into its sphere of influence.

This is the matrix within which global, regional and local interests converge and interact. The Iraqi election results, obviously, are revealing a strong anti-U.S., religious, and conservative Iraq, complicating the implicit American-Turkish-Sunni cooperation.

The Sunnis are competing with the Kurds for second place in the Parliament. So far, the Kurds have about 45 seats out of the 230 seats up for grabs, and the Sunnis have 35. The Sunni seats are split between the neo-Baathist National Dialogue Council of Salih Mutlak, and the fundamentalist Sunni National Accord Front of Adnan Dulaimi. The Sunnis may catch up to the Kurds, if one adds Sunni deputies elected with Iyad Allawi’s "non-sectarian" Iraqiyya list [SEE PHOTOS].

That means the Sunni bloc will mainly consist of fundamentalist neo-Baathists (meaning staunchly anti-U.S. occupation, anti-Kurdish federalism, anti-Shiite and anti-Iran), while nearly 130 seats will be occupied by the United Iraqi Alliance, a coalition of pro-Iranian Shiites, nearly one-third of whom will be the fiery nationalists of cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

Commenting on the Iraqi election results, Patrick Cockburn, one of the foremost Iraq experts that I trust, wrote, "The breakup of Iraq has been brought closer by the elections. The great majority of people who went to the polls voted as Shiites, Sunnis or Kurds -- and not as Iraqis. The forces pulling Iraq apart are stronger than those holding it together. The elections, billed by Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair as the birth of a new Iraqi state may, in fact, prove to be its funeral."

Bush’s National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley offers a different assessment. Speaking at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), he said that Iraq's recent parliamentary elections are one way to offset Iran's influence in the region, claiming a high turnout on Election Day could help trigger democracy throughout the region.

Pretty complicated, isn’t it?

VIDEO FROM IRAN: IRAN'S PRESIDENT SAYS 'MOVE ISRAEL TO EUROPE'

Iran TV: Iranian President Muhammad Ahmadi-Nejad Suggests: A Jewish State in Germany or Austria, December 8, 00:00:44, MEMRI

"The Europeans can give parts of their territories to Israel."

Iranian President Muhammad Ahmadinejad