Iraq, USA and Iran: Common Enemy as Weak Bond

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. That is a convenient leitmotif of politics in the Middle East, because one always finds someone there who is enemies with one’s own enemy, and thus perhaps not a friend, but a useful ally.

America and Iraq are a good example of this. For years the Iraqi tyrant Saddam Hussein was a partner of the U.S. because he contained the mullahs in Iran. Now, because Islamist terror gangs threaten Baghdad, in Washington they ponder how to stop the onslaught — if need be, with help from Iran. One had to act in concert with Stalin in order to defeat Hitler, said a U.S. senator.

Washington and Tehran have common interests in Iraq at the moment. The U.S. wants to — no, must — prevent the emergence of a Sunni terror state there which sends assassins out across the entire world. Regardless of how very tired U.S. President Barack Obama is of Iraq, he cannot allow this development.

In Iraq, Both of Their Interests Coincide — in the Short Term

Iran again wants to — no, must — prevent the fall of the Shiite government in Iraq. This has religious — Iran is the power that protects the Shiites in Iraq — but above all, geopolitical grounds: Iraq is the bridge between Iran, its ally Bashar al-Assad in Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon. The United States’ overthrow of Saddam Hussein was a strategic gift to Tehran. Because Iran’s foreign policy is made not only by pious mullahs, but also by cold calculating officers of the Revolutionary Guard, one may confidently assume that this present will not be returned.

In the next few weeks it may indeed come to military cooperation between Washington and Tehran, whether open or secret, coordinated or coincidental. U.S. airstrikes against ISIS-terrorist positions, followed by ground assaults by the Iraqi army, by Shiite militia or even Iranian military units, are not inconceivable.

From America’s perspective, it would be not be a completely far-fetched alliance. For years, Obama has sought to improve relations with Iran. It hasn’t worked; however, ever since the mild, sensible Hassan Rouhani became president of Iran, the relationship has become warmer. One result of this is progress for the first time in the conflict over Tehran’s nuclear program. There are several foreign policy experts in Washington who think that Iran is a better partner for America than the fundamentalist Saudi Arabians. Should Obama be able to use the Iraq crisis to forge a lasting alliance with Iran, it would be a veritable diplomatic stroke of genius.

Washington Abandoned the Idea of an Exemplary Democracy Long Ago

Still, one should not be naive: The fight against ISIS may unite the U.S. and Iran in the short term; beyond that, both counties have very different ideas about how Iraq and the region should look in the future.

Washington has long since given up the idea of establishing an exemplary democracy in Iraq. Still, the U.S. wants a somewhat stable and pro-Western Iraq that is governed in a halfway representative fashion. Iran, by contrast, wants above all a Shiite-ruled Iraq.

It should not be forgotten that Tehran helped prepare the ground for the advance of ISIS terrorists. Iraq’s Shiite head of government, Nuri al-Maliki, is Iran’s man. His severe moves against the Sunni minority, who have been excluded from political power, happened with Tehran’s approval. The gulf between Shiite and Sunnis in Iraq was thereby deepened, and the ISIS zealots profit from it today. Washington rightly pushes Maliki to change his authoritarian behavior. But does Tehran press as well?

The talks with Washington over whether U.S. troops could remain in country longer than the end of 2011 were allowed to fail by Maliki, due probably to pressure from Tehran. In previous years, Iranian-supported Shiite militia in Iraq killed hundreds of GIs. It’s clear that, in the long term, the regime in Tehran, for which hatred of the U.S. is part of its raison d’être, wants no American influence in Iraq.

That holds similarly for the entire region. Iran has no interest in seeing the U.S. remain as a hegemonic power in the Middle East. The struggles between Shiites and Sunnis, whether in Iraq, in Lebanon or in Syria, are part of a larger geostrategic struggle for supremacy between Iran and the United States’ allies in Saudi Arabia and Qatar. In Iraq, the interests of Washington and Tehran coincide in part, but in Syria and Lebanon they stand on different sides of the front; do not expect one of them to change sides.

Sometimes it is just that the enemy of my enemy is still my enemy.