Invading Iraq was the Original Sin

The old Middle East—the Middle East that the European colonial powers Great Britain and France cobbled together from what they inherited of the Ottoman Empire in the wake of the First World War and that still exists in that form today—is sinking. The new Middle East that is replacing it is growing out of the ever-increasing chaos in this conflict-ridden region. We mainly have the United States to thank for that state of affairs.

The original sin that brought it all about was President George W. Bush’s military invasion of Iraq in 2003. The neocons that ruled Washington at the time had their heads full of ideology and wishful thinking. What they forgot was reality and, along with it, the answer to the question of how the power vacuum caused by Saddam Hussein’s downfall would be filled—in Iraq and also throughout the whole Middle Eastern region. When the same bumbling characters led by Tony Blair and Dick Cheney now criticize Barack Obama for the situation today, one can only laugh; they are the very people decidedly responsible for the disaster we have today.

Withdrawal Came Too Soon

The second mistake was made by Barack Obama when he ordered a military withdrawal too early, thus relinquishing the power to control the region. Obama remained passive even after the outbreak of the Syrian civil war and is now threatened with the possibility of the advancing terrorists from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant capturing Iraq’s second largest city, Mosul, and Iraq’s possible disintegration. The border between Iraq and Syria no longer de facto exists. Should that situation persist, not only Iraq’s borders are questionable but those of many neighboring states as well. New regional borders would likely be drawn by force and the human catastrophe would assume greater dimensions.

If ISIL is actually successful in establishing a permanent state-like entity in parts of Iraq and Syria, the disintegration of the entire region would be greatly accelerated. The United States will then have lost the “war on terror” and world peace would be seriously threatened. But even if the Iraqi military and its allies prevent ISIL from achieving that goal, the situation would remain extremely unstable and the Syrian civil war would still be a highly volatile source of infection, since what is happening in Syria is no longer a civil war. It is the stage for the battle being waged between Saudi Arabia and Iran for regional hegemony. The struggle is fed by the ancient conflict between the majority Sunnis and minority Shiites.

The Kurds and Iran are the Winners in the ISIL Advance

The Kurds were also a part of that legacy consisting of the remnants of the Ottoman dynasty but they have thus far been denied their own state. They reside in Iraq, Iran, Turkey and Syria and have been fighting for decades for their own homeland. In Iraq’s north, they have wisely been restrained in their demands because they have had bad experiences since Saddam Hussein’s downfall. They have been satisfied with their current autonomous status but have built northern Iraq into what amounts to a state that is politically and economically independent. With their Peshmerga which was born out of the Kurdish resistance movement, they possess a militarily experienced and powerful army.

Kurdish forces are now profiting from the ISIL victories and the capture of Mosul. In one fell swoop, all contested and explosive territorial questions between the central government in Baghdad and the Kurdish regional government have been decided—in favor of the Kurds. The Iraqi army fled, abandoning its positions in Kirkuk and leaving them to the Peshmerga. Kirkuk is once again in Kurdish hands and the Kurds now control enough oil in northern Iraq to be economically independent. Neighboring Iran and Turkey along with the United States will urgently need the Peshmerga forces to oppose ISIL, thus opening a surprise window for the creation of a Kurdish state. The Kurds can be a stabilizing factor in the new Middle East, something much in line with their national ambitions. On the other hand, the Kurds also need good relations with Turkey and Iran because it’s only through them that they will have access to world markets.

In this new Middle East, the United States will be forced to cooperate more with Iran, despite the fact that Washington and Tehran still outwardly strongly oppose these developments. But even today, direct negotiations between the two powers are no longer out of the ordinary and are becoming part of the new normal. The two mortal enemies are now fighting against the same jihadis who are supported by the Gulf region Sunni states who were previously America’s allies. With the invasion of Iraq the United States opened the door not only to Iranian regional hegemony but also simultaneously ushered in a shift in alliances in the region that benefits the Shiites and Iran. Now the long-term effects of this change will begin to become apparent, including the effects on nuclear negotiations with Iran.

Jordan Plays a Key Role

One of the central future questions is whether Jordan will survive these geopolitical changes undamaged. The country has taken in several hundred thousand refugees from Syria and the radical Islamists are also active trying to expand their influence there. The kingdom plays a key role in the dynamics of the region. If Jordan collapses, the entire balance of power in the classic Middle East conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is threatened—with ramifications that are difficult to predict.

The new Middle East will therefore not be in any way more peaceful than the old. The risks remain for international politics and for their nearest neighbors in Europe. They will have to adjust to the fact that the Kurds and Iran will be important players in the new Middle East.

The most immediate risks for Europe are twofold. First, the danger that the returning jihadis will bring terrorism they learned in Iraq and Syria with them. Second, the idea of jihad may take hold in parts of the Balkans. For the sake of their own security, the southeastern European region will demand a good deal more attention from Brussels and other EU capitals than they have previously paid.