In a remarkable and surprising evolution of positions of President Barack Obama administration officials towards the Iranian role in Iraq, US Secretary of State, John Kerry said , in the twenty-eighth in June of this month that the presence of Iran in Iraq is “useful” for US attempts to repel the threat of regulation “Daash.” The praise has come, calculated for a state that its relationship with the USA was mixed with tense in the Festival ” Aspen Ideas “, where it was requested from Kerry to assess whether Iran was more “useful or harmful” in Iraq.
John Kerry said: “Look, our relationship with Iran is facing challenges as everyone knows, we deal with those challenges,” he said, adding: “But I can tell you that the presence of Iran in Iraq has been helpful in certain ways, and it is clearly focused on Daash, so we have a common interest in reality. “Foreign Minister explained that with his Iranian counterpart, Javad Zarif, they can now solve global crises more easily and communicate directly.
It was understood from this American praise for the role of Iran in the face of the organization Daash terrorist in Iraq that there are signs of change in the “rules of the game”, which recently brought together the United States and the Iranian regime on the Iraqi scene, from the intense competition to expand the influence of each of them there by trying to lead the war on the militant group to the consensus and the distribution of roles and the sharing of spoils on the basis of which was met by the two sides before the US aggression against Iraq and occupation of it on the ninth of April / May 2003. Their conformity led to remove Iraq from the regional equation by weakening the state and dismantle it and the revival of sectarian and ethnic desires of the community . a return to this ground requires from the United States to shift from competing with Iran to lead the war against Daash in Iraq in preparation for the post-regulation to coordinate with them on the basis of sharing gains of that war.
This praise also comes in line with US President Barack Obama’s policy which is based on openness and rapprochement and develop a relationship with the Iranian regime. This policy is based from several accounts, one of which personal motivation for President Barack Obama, which is linked to the so-called the historical heritage of the president , it means that his desire to record about him historically , a president who restored the relationship with Iran, as well as Cuba-after a break that lasted for several decades, and perhaps this is the only achievment in the field of foreign policy. The other motive is the endeavor of the United States of America to reach understandings with Iran over flaming Middle East regions in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen, which helps to reduce the US presence in the region.
In addition to that motivation on direct US interests that would result from the phase after the lifting of sanctions on Iran, including the entry of US investments in the field of Iranian oil, increasing Iran’s oil production, which will lead to increase the supply of this item, and thus the continuing decline in its price in the world markets, which in the interest of consuming industrialized economies, and harm the interests of countries unfriendly to the American States. That rely on oil as a main source of income, such as Russia and Venezuela. The increase in Iran’s production of natural gas will open in front of it the opportunity to export to the European Union, thus reducing its dependence on imports of Russian gas, which is also an American interest. US praise is also linked to the Iranian role in Iraq and to the international developments , and it is a message to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on the back of the normalization of ties with Russia.
In the US praise context, but this time for the militias of popular crowd , Iran’s allies in Iraq, the envoy of US president of the World Alliance against “Daash,” Brett Macgork said , “The Shiite militias backed by Iran, mostly useful in Iraq, although some of it rebel and commit excesses.” Macgork added : “we believe that most of the popular crowd forces operating under the control of the Iraqi state, but about 15 to 20 per cent of them do not operate under the authority of the government, and these groups are the core of the problem.”
“Brett Macgork” Do not you know that these militias, most notably the League of the Righteous (kataib Ahl Al-Haq) and the Iraqi Hezbollah Brigades and the Saraya of Popular Defence and brigade of Abu Fadel Abbas, by the virtue of the large financial and human abilities, which receives support from Iran. They became through their practices and conduct field authority beyond all authorities in Iraq after the 2003 phase. The war on Daash in Iraq, offered to Iran the opportunity to translate its political control over the Iraqi scene to field control through these militias, which is in fact an army Iranian reserve on Iraqi territory, while what Saudi Arabia see, a US ally Regarding the role of the popular crowd at Iraq completely contradicts what was said by the envoy of the US president, when the Foreign Minister Adel Jubair in the twenty-eighth of the current June has called , in a press conference held in Paris at the end of a visit of the Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to it , to “dismantle the Shiite militias fighting alongside the Iraqi army against ISIL, accusing it of igniting the sectarian tension, “and added,” the sectarian popular crowd led by Iran. he continued saying ” “There have been excesses” during the battle of Fallujah, “We believe that these militias must be dismantled and the Iraqi army should fight ISIL.” The viewpoint of American officials towards the popular crowd may be identical with the Iranian vision and contrasts with Saudi Arabia, and this is no congruence and contradiction may be surprising for a short period of time because they represent the essence of political policy that its criterion is the supreme interest of the state.
This is illustrated clearly that the Americans are the masters of the air in Iraq have declared repeatedly that they do not coordinate with the Iranians and do not support the battles waged by or involving militia that are not disciplined , especially the history of Diyala, Tikrit demonstrated that fanatic, sectarian gangs are saturated with a doctrine of revenge.However, the facts showed that the «lack of coordination» meant that the Americans are doing what suits for them, as well as the Iranians and their militias, even if it leads to a distortion of the objectives of the operation «Liberation». In the case of Fallujah , it should have been cautious for «revenge», which doubled the obsession of the leaders of militias and brought Qasim Soleimani and recommendations of the Murshed ( guide) , They think they did well of the state administration in Iraq and that this is the city that foiled their experience, and therefore they wanted revenge on the population.
The ignorance of the United States the participation of militias of popular crowd at the battle of Fallujah recently announced its completion by Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi , it may lead us to say that there was an American acceptance of such participation, despite the size of the objections and warnings from sliding battle toward committing sectarian abuses which actually happened during the many abuses that ranged from detention, torture, murder and looting of money and property practiced by Shiite militias against Sunnis citizens of the city of Fallujah. Which strengthens this supposition, that the United States has exercised its influence on the Iraqi government to prevent the militias of the popular crowd from involving in the front lines of the battle of Ramadi, and force it to have a secondary role to provide support to the rear lines. and this is what actually happened.
In the battle of Fallujah against the terrorist al Daash , the role of the militias of the popular crowd was great, and it seems that the non-objection of the United States for participation was raising the ambition of its leaders, to go beyond mere participation in the war to the occupation of the city and stay there, according to the statement of the Vice-President of the popular crowd Abu Mahdi Al- Muhandis who said that “the popular crowd forces will remain in all the places of the current presence and will not leave their positions, but will remain stuck to the ground,” adding that “the crowd is not something additional , but it is an essential and important part of the armed forces, and the troops , crowd and the army and police will remain in all parts of the land of Iraq including Falluja. ”
The United States were not obliged to adopt a policy of fait accompli as the lonely choice of the Iranian interference in Iraq and its relationship to what is happening unless it has contributed in making that choice, at the time when it kept silent first on the participation of militias of the popular crowd in combat operations, despite the fact that such participation was the subject of objection from residents of the stricken areas by Daash, and secondly for the abuses practiced by the militias from the crowd in many of the areas that was restored from the grip of Daash most recently Fallujah. So the American tolerance toward militias of the popular crowd is what encouraged the warlords of militia on advertising openly about their project in the ethnic cleansing of non-fear of the charge of committing genocide. And warned that emptying the predominantly Sunni cities of citizens plan is on track, and today there are millions of displaced persons, other than that there is no hope for their return to their destroyed towns , as it corresponds to an official denial of the existence of those displaced.
The salvation from «Daash» and deprived it from controlling over areas , its people , its resources , its heritage and its future areas, thus eliminating it … those goals is not revoked by any sane person, that can not endure any controversy or half-solutions. But is it really the goals of the United States and Iran, and does have an interest in their achievement of it and as long as they are involved in this fray, Is currently working on ending this terrorist case, and never to return? No lesson of Afghan has benefited the Russians then the Americans after them, nor the Iraqi lesson learned Americans something else except a lie «intervention of non-interference» to some extent that is deliberately to be blind , to avoid seeing the Iranian role, not only the intervention which has now become a very debauchery and the public, but especially in the manufacture of these terrorist case that the interferers claimed that they rather came to rid the world of its evils.
The summary of saying : The sharing of roles between the United States and the Iranian regime in Iraq and the conditions offered to it by the Americans to help it reap the rewards of its policies of aggression and sabotage in the Arab world and even rewarded the fight against terrorism, he is the author and sponsored. Perhaps through a deal with the Iranian regime allows the presence of US troops in Iraq, and get the oil monopoly, to remain the preeminent role of the forces of Iran exists, and that Iranian influence remains evident. Based on the game “sharing of roles” between them so it is no longer the goal of the Obama administration in Iraq, but to resolve the battle against Daash and not weaken the Iranian regime’s control over the joints of the system of government in Iraq, and the weakening of the “forces of Iran,” and other sectarian groups that prepared and trained by Iran for decades, and has become part of the new system established by the US occupation based on the Iranian-American understanding, where the United States believes that the military presence is the guarantor of the survival of Iraq “under control”, although the control of Iran’s forces on the system that is prepared by it . But its military withdrawal to impose the hegemony of the Iranian regime on Iraq, through all of those forces, and by direct intervention that it does.
This US – Iran sharing must be learnt from it and built on it, noting that the traditional Alliances are useless to meet the regional challenge like the Iranian regime and its expansionist project in the Arab environment. Especially since the political reality learn us the essential lesson to pay attention to it that the “axis of evil” and “the Great Satan” are exchanging the roles in Iraq and this exchange could be extended in the Arab and regional environment, and why not. As long as the interests are the real standard for convergence of countries and its dispute.
Rawabet Research and Strategic Studies Center