DAR AL ISLAM - IRAQ: ARE ARABS CONVINCED OF IRAQ'S DIVISION

***WARNING***WARNING***WARNING***

Article reproduced from DAR AL HAYAT



Are the Arabs Convinced of Iraq's Division?
by Moustafa Zein
Al-Hayat

The Iranian and US delegations were not able to reach an understanding during their talks in Baghdad. But the two parties asserted that they're envisaging to resume dialogue. The US acknowledgement of Iran's role in Iraq, despite the accusations that it addresses to Iran, reassures the Iranians that their moves in Iraq are self-empowering. Moreover, the fact that Bush's administration yielded to meet with them head-on, following a standoff that has been going on for nearly four years, is the strongest testament to its project relapse and upcoming demise. Therefore, it is unlikely that Tehran will make any noticeable concessions, unless it secures its interests and shares power with the US. The opposite may be true, i.e. it might resort to escalation in order to seize the utmost concessions.

Iran knows that the US is negotiating therewith over Iraq from a weak standpoint. It is true that it has thousands of soldiers on the ground, and its fleet is roaming the surrounding waters and doing maneuvers near its shores. But at the same time, it is quite cautions when it comes to Iran and its Iraqi allies who owe both parties the rise to power. All attempts to keep those away from Iran have fallen through. They are convinced that the US armies will leave eventually but Iran is here to stay. Whatever the regime it is under, the allies will watch over its interests, which they consider, with much ingenuousness and in the light of the sectarian outburst prevalent in the region, very much their own.

Under these circumstances, an observer can only wonder about the waning Arab role, since the onset of the occupation till now. Why is it discernible in Lebanon and Palestine and nonexistent in Iraq? Why did the Egyptian and Jordanian Foreign Ministers, or other Ministers for that matter, go to Tel Aviv but not to Baghdad? Why didn't the Arabs keep track of the decisions regarding Iraq in Sharm El Sheikh Convention? Why did the Arab League renounce the holding of a convention for the reconciliation of the Iraqis? Did the Arab countries finally realize that part of Iraq is Persian, despite the rumors swirling around, and another part is Kurdish? And there's nothing left to do but to get hold of some positions for the Sunnites? Are they convinced of Iraq's division?

The resignation text of the Arab League representative to Iraq Mokhtar Lamani last February may be the answer. He stated that he resigned because he opposed negligence and because the Arab countries "were happy to play the role of the spectator" while Iraq is being torn apart.

But the fact is that the answer is much more intricate. The waning Arab role is due to many reasons, the most important being that the US is directly concerned with Iraq and will not let any other nation play any role therein, regardless if it is a supporter. Even Britain, its main ally in the invasion and occupation, is silent when it comes to the political arrangements or the dialogue with this or that party, or the post-occupation era. There is also another reason; the Iraqi federal districts have strayed from the Arabs and are fighting a fierce battle to assert their identity in the constitution and in reality. The fact that the US single-handedly drew the face of the new Iraq is part of a comprehensive strategy followed by Bush's administration since the beginning of the invasion. It ruled out the United Nations, and then it exploited it to reinforce the occupation and try to drive the Iraqis to embrace a constitution that is still controversial to the present day. Washington is exerting pressure to amend it in favor of the Sunnites.

As for Iran, it is a powerful partner that the Arabs are lacking or refrain from resorting to. It is considered a partner in forging strong ties with a major portion of the Iraqis and in vying with the US for power, not to mention its Middle Eastern plan that counters the US plan whether in Lebanon or Iraq or Palestine or Afghanistan. This is why there has always been, and always will be, some kind of dialogue between these two countries, though in the form of a war. As for the projects that complement the US strategy, there is no need to engage in a dialogue with its advocates, except to serve this strategy, even if this leads to civil wars, countries downfall, and reconciliation with Israel without claiming the rights of the Palestinian people.



Pertinent Links:

1) Are the Arabs Convinced of Iraq's Division?