The Role of U.S. Collusion with Regional Powers in Returning al-Maliki to Power

Finally, the theatrical drama known as the Iraqi “constitutional crisis” has ended by way of the election of Mr. Jalal Talabani by a vote of two-thirds of the members of parliament present for the vote (as opposed to two-thirds of the total official number of members of parliament). Talabani’s election comes in the wake of the anticipated differences that arose between the many parties participating in this political process. While there is an internal struggle for power, all throughout this process the United States has remained dedicated to ensuring the participation of regional states, trying to impede the normalization of Iraqi sovereignty.

This has had an effect on the independence of the state and influenced the manner in which the political system will be rebuilt it in the future. These factors in turn lead to the theory that the cards are being reorganized in the region, coming from a regional conspiracy to ruin Iraq and effectively remove it from the geopolitical map. Aiming at the success of this game, the countries of the region at the highest levels have managed a compromise among themselves at the expense of dividing up the sovereignty of Iraq. This is with the goal of affecting the political realm so that there will not be a sphere for anyone who represents a nationalist, independent Iraqi force.

The Iraqi domestic scene has been divided and manipulated ethnically and politically, creating centers of sectarian power that hold the reins. Many Iraqis have been changed into mere puppets after the Iranian gamble on Nouri al-Maliki (with the help of Moqtada as-Sadr). As the Iranian system has encouraged sectarian blocs in line with its ethnic strategy, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt are moving on the Sunni sectarian axis and in brief convinced them of the necessity of increasing their acceptance in the formation of a new government that includes them in important decision-making positions.

There is no exaggeration here in my reading [of the situation], as this domestic dust-up is in fact a regional conspiracy best explained by the U.S. green light for [a process of] marginalizing Iraq and dividing it for the benefit of piratical countries in the near vicinity. The truth of the matter over which there is no dispute is the important role of the American occupation in establishing regional concord at the price of Iraqi national will. With this, it has become clear that the success of the Iraqi parties in choosing the Iraqi government does not rest upon domestic Iraqi politics whose foundation is process of agreement among Iraqis as an expression of their unity. Rather, the opposite is the case as the rule of Iraq is an American and a regional concern.

Tehran, Turkey, Damascus and Egypt have foundational roles in passing whatever solution Washington suggests. It has been established that there is no room for doubt that the new American administration negotiated with these states and requested their help to ensure the safety of U.S. forces whose withdrawal is being accelerated from Iraqi territory. Yet the completion of military withdrawal from Iraq will not alter the continuing domination by the United States over the third-largest petroleum reserves in the world.

In return, the American administration has taken difficult steps to produce a formula for the countries clashing in the vicinity of Iraq by having them take shared positions on the question of formulating a government, with the idea of creating a precedent of a shared intention that gathers the countries of the region without exception. Yet, the desire of great powers of the Middle East are waiting for the moment of the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq to assault the crumbs of the Iraqi cake that the West will leave at the expense of the victims and the despoliation of this rich country of its wealth.

Recent events have widened official positions in the game of dividing positions of authority with the inability to form a coalition government since the expulsion of the Iraqi List party from the halls of parliament. The reality of an emerging partition of Iraq reflects the different goals of these states. In the time that Turkish–Syrian political and diplomatic priorities have crystallized in the Iraqi theatre on the political and economic levels, the first goal of the Iranian policy in Iraq is including the establishment of a system that will be beholden to them. That will assure the domination by the Iranians of authority in Iraq and the distancing of Iraq from the circle of Iran’s first enemy in the region, represented by the Saudi effort and their firm relationship with the Iraqi List Party headed by Ayad Allawi.

In this context, there is no doubt that we should take another look at the reasons for the Allawi’s failure, despite his warm relationship with Washington and the success of Nouri al-Maliki. Without a doubt, it comes back to the refusal of Iran. The reason for this is the strength and the depth of Ayad Allawi’s relationship with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and has nothing to do with any notion of him being “an American agent.”

The most recent visit of Nouri al-Maliki to the Islamic Republic highlighted the clear interest with which he was celebrated and welcomed on the part of the ruling theological hierarchy represented by Khamenei and Ahmadinejad. This is after an announcement of Nouri al-Maliki being crowned the candidate of the Islamic Republic to rule Iraq on its behalf. In this way it appears to each who has the ability to understand the dimensions of the American game that by placing an Iraqi government according to the conditions of regional concord, the countries of the neighborhood realize and enforce their aim throughout the region by realizing their agendas in Iraq. All the while they participate in crystallizing the formation of a government that does not bear any traces of its national characteristics.

The events of the most recent session of parliament were a tautology that established the success of Nouri al-Maliki in remaining in the position of prime minister and thereby the existence of an American–Iranian agreement. By installing a personality close to Iran, the U.S. hopes to ensure the completion of the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq by the end of 2011 on the condition that it is accepted at the same time by the regional powers.

This deduction is also merited by the visits that al-Maliki has undertaken to Syria, Jordan, Egypt and certain countries of the Gulf, while at the same time he has refused to visit Saudi Arabia. Not to mention the failure that has afflicted the latest Saudi initiative after it was refused by the allies of Iran and the United States from the Kurds and the Dawa Party. Together with the ability of Massoud Barzani in the end and with the support of the Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmed Davutoglu from the success of establishing the final meeting and from there the agreement between contending parties over “the position” in accepting the new-old solution of dividing authority: The United States of America was no stranger.

The latest agreement that the political parties have arrived at was a result of an American deal with regional countries surrounding Iraq, enacting a Turkish role and a similar one for Iran. They would not have been able to act and succeed in the Iraqi theatre if it were not for the American cover on the Turkish side and the permission for them to engage the Arab street after the events of the Freedom Flotilla. Turkey’s actions were answered by a popular echo from the people of the Arab countries on the one hand and the centers of Iranian power that have spread throughout the region by way of Hamas in Palestine and Hizbollah in Lebanon on the other.

Hence, the unconditional agreement by the Americans for a Turkish role and Turkish involvement in the region has marginalized the Saudis, placing them outside of the game. In return, an official dialogue with Tehran, a dialogue that has not been broken for even a single day, has continued throughout the occasions according to necessity that demands a carrot-and-stick policy. Accordingly, the American view of the Iranian nuclear program has permitted Tehran conditional employment of its Bushehr nuclear reactor in return for Tehran agreeing to a government headed by Nouri al-Maliki and supporting it throughout the period that will bring American withdrawal from Iraq.

Looking ahead to what we can expect in the wake of the American withdrawal, conditions in Iraq will return to what they were before. Iraqi affairs will become complex once again, reflecting the conflicting interests of the same powers such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey as they try to establish a well-maintained venue for extending their influence and power. This goes on while the Iraqis are still waiting to live in peace in their country, having lost control of its destiny after 2003. The United States was able to ensure its safe withdrawal from the Iraqi mire with agreement of countries surrounding Iraq, starting off by moderating the national interests of every country. The Turks, Syrians and Iranians have succeeded in exploiting the opportunities to dominate Iraqi parties and endorsing them according to their own interests in the wake of the eclipse of Iraqi sovereignty. The Iraqi List Party has failed to produce the crystallization of Iraqi national will, despite their credibility and integrity, because they are not in positions of independence and because they are building a state and a government in an Iraq occupied by the U.S. and Iran.