Iran has become more open about its cooperation
with the Iraqi government. On his latest visit to Baghdad, Eshaq
Jahangiri, the Iranian First Vice President, stated that “Iraq’s security
equals Iran’s security”. He assured all concerned that Iran would continue
backing the Iraq government in its fight against Islamist groups and militias.
In recent months Iran has not only provided
economic assistance, it has also supplied military equipment. Although
Iranian officials have never confirmed the exact quantity of arms that have
crossed the border, Mehdi Tayeb, head of the Ammar base, suggested a figure
close to $16 billion since June last year. Quds Force fighters have also been
sent to Iraq to train local soldiers, and in late November last year, Qassem
Suleimani, the Quds Force Commander, led Iraqi Kurdish fighters, Shia
militias and Iraqi Security Forces fighting in the Diyala region. Earlier that
same month, Iranian fighter jets had carried out air strikes targeting the same
area.
This increased support from the Iranian
government stems in part from its fear of Islamist
groups crossing over into its own territory. For Tehran, it is better to assist in
fighting the militias now, than to wait for a potential spillover. Perhaps more
importantly, Iran’s involvement in Iraq has the potential of strengthening the
former's credibility within the international community. There is also hope that
the military equipment and economic assistance provided will guarantee future
bilateral cooperation between Iran and Iraq.
Some Iraqi officials have expressed concerns that Iran might overstay their welcome when ISIS is no longer a threat. The
Iraq government is weak, and Tehran might take
advantage of the situation. However, there are dangers far greater and more
disturbing than Iran infringing on Iraq’s sovereignty. Instead of worrying
about the potential actions of Iran, those concerned should be figuring out how to rebuild the country and work to ensure a peaceful
environment.
1 comment:
I would like to question "there are dangers far greater and more disturbing than Iran infringing on Iraq’s sovereignty" or at least the implications of this. Just because there are things worse than X does not mean that X is desirable or even acceptable.
The influence of the Iranian regime on the previous Iraqui administration was a disaster. It contributed to the division between Sunni and Shia, the loss of national identity and the disintegration of the army as an effective national force.
The Iranian democratic opposition, which had taken refuge in Iraq, was harrassed and attacked by Nouri al-Maliki's troops and to this day members of the PMOI are languishing in the so-called Camp Liberty outside Bhagdad and remain vulnerable. The Iranians would like nothing more than to eliminate this threat to their current theocratic regime.
Iraq was once a proud, independent country and could be again. On balance, I suggest Iranian influence makes that outcome less likely.
Post a Comment