The American Strategy to Surround Iraq

America’s mobilization of part of its Navy in the Mediterranean Sea, near the coast of Libya, means that it wants to convince all the states in the region, the majority of which are eroding under strikes from young rebels, that America is standing up on behalf of those helping to create change, and that America will support that change even if it is compelled to intervene directly.

This message has different dimensions — numerous and varied dimensions — from one country to another. What concerns us about the fate of our country, Iraq, is that America will not make any statement regarding her now because they are convinced that change is inevitably coming to Iraq. Yet they believe that change in Iraq is insufficient unless accompanied by change in Iran. And there is no doubt that in the last few days America has communicated with several Iraqi opposition figures involved in the political process, in order to take their pulse and get a sense for their ability to absorb the new variable. When they were not convinced by what they found within these communiqués, they engaged in dialogues, through intermediaries, with some of those Iraqi opposition leaders who are outside of the current political establishment: the ones that left Iraq in the ‘80s and are still in exile, and likewise the ones that left Iraq following the American occupation, including recognized military leaders that Washington convinced not to be present in Iraq this year, and who must form a national council to lead the anticipated change.

What most concerns Washington now is coordinating the new council and the Iranian opposition and helping them to work in unison. Washington also wants to create demonstrations, using all the human energy and mass mobilization possible within Iran and Iraq, during the first week of the coming month, on a date that they find appropriate.

Prior to this, the U.N. Security Council, or one of its institutions, will give a statement demanding the release of reformist Iranian opposition leaders, and likewise uncover the presence of radiological zones in secret areas of Iran in some way or other, despite Washington knowing that there are no radiological zones or atomic bombs. This is a convenient justification, which the world will accept in light of the generalized, popular agitation against despotic political regimes. And when the spark ignites at the beginning of next month, Washington will announce to the Mullah its condemnation of Iraqi politicians and incriminate them with documents to be disseminated by international organizations. The United States will demand that Iraqi politicians refer to the international courts. This is all Washington wants: a 360 degree shift.

It may press the new leaders to keep some of the provisions of the American-Iraqi agreement, including keeping some of the bases, the oil privileges and the nature of the system of governance.

Those that Washington met with through friends agreed that they do not exercise any authority enabling them to confirm America’s theory that the revolution is, by nature, a revolution of the Iraqi people and not one of political figures. The intermediaries have explained to America’s friends that the occupation of Iraq brings tragedies for the people, their existence and the cultural heritage of Iraq. Therefore, there is not a glimmer of hope that a U.S. presence on Iraqi soil will be accepted. These figures also requested, in a letter written from Washington, for there to be at least an appreciation of the neutrality between the people and the government, because Iraq is not like Libya; Iraq has in reality been under occupation for eight years and is threatened every day by the American military machine.

Now Washington is waiting for Iranian demonstrations to perhaps coincide with widespread Iraqi protests, in which case Washington would not be embarrassed to support an Iraqi youth revolution and bear down on the current Iraqi leadership as the direct cause of all the negative things that have occurred in Iraq. And the United States believes that it will return to governing Iraq from this angle; this is preposterous, because Washington lives outside of the apprehensions of national figures and outside of the hopes and dreams of the young Iraqis.