Iranian "Bases"
Hassan Haidar Al Hayat - 12/06/08//
When Saddam Hussein waged his war against Iran in 1980, he was trying to spare Iraq the image the world is seeing three decades later: Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki sitting silently in the hands of the "Wali Al Faqih," listening to his "reprimands" and his "advice" not to sign a security treaty with the US. In fact, the US did Tehran a great favor when it got rid of its archenemy, who had realized, from the moment the regime in Iran had been overthrown in 1979, that the agreement ratified in Algeria to delimit borders and rearrange relations between the two countries, as well as to defuse the historical tension between the opposing coasts of the Arabian Gulf, would not withstand the calls to "export the revolution" and would not help to ward off the constant danger coming from the East.
After the war ended, Iran began to catch its breath and prepare for the next round. However, Saddam's mistakes spared it the effort, time and money. Indeed, "Mister President" turned his machine guns in the wrong direction, exposing his army and country to murderous strikes and deadly siege, culminating in the American invasion which toppled his regime.
By removing Saddam, disbanding the army, dividing Iraq into provinces and widening the sectarian and ethnic divide, in other words by ridding Iraq of all the fundamentals of a unified, sovereign nation, the invasion had fulfilled its Iranian purpose. Once this had been achieved, Tehran was able to dedicate its borders, funds and weapons to fight the Americans, having ensured that a weak and divided Iraq would no longer be able to resist its influence, nor its instruments.
Today, opposing the security agreement between Washington and Baghdad reveals Iran's deep-seated desire and utmost confidence in its ability to fill the ensuing military and political vacuum when the US troops will withdraw before completing the formation of the state. In other words, it seeks to keep the situation in Iraq as it is. An open-ended civil war, a society in conflict and a state divided up between sects and ethnic groups, plagued by corruption and exhausted by debt, with increasing Iranian control over its internal forces and balances of power, is just what Iran needs to fulfill one purpose: prevent Iraq from recovering.
Iran's pretext, that the permanent American military bases on its neighbor's territory poses a threat to its security, does not withstand scrutiny. Indeed, were the Americans to strike Iran, they would most probably, according to the basics of military action, do so from aircraft carriers in the Gulf and the Indian Ocean, as well as from bases in Europe. On the other hand, protecting their bases in Iraq will in fact represent an additional security burden, due to the expected reaction of Shiite armed factions, which form "permanent Iranian bases" that follow Tehran's orders, implement its policies and defend its interests. This is why the Iraqi government, in case it ratifies the agreement with the US, is expected to face severe military and political jolts, which it may not be able to withstand.
What Iraq really needs is an agreement with Iran, one which would put an end to Iran's interference in its domestic affairs and manipulation of its security, one which would give its people the time to emerge from its division, for its citizens to become Iraqis first and foremost, then Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds and Christians in the second place. This cannot happen if Iran continues to consider Iraq as one of the battlefields for its plans to remove any influence other than its own, and to impose itself as the sole regional superpower.
|
