BI: The Arab League is planning to meet in Iraq in March. What is the significance of this, in your view?

Harb: I am not sure whether they will meet in Iraq after what is happening, but I think the initial idea was to show that Iraq is still an important part of the Arab world. They wanted to restate their Arab nationalism, or at least they thought that this would help them reinstate their Iraqi Arab nationalism.

On the other hand, this is another step against Iran, a step to stop the expansionism of Iran in Iraq. That was the hope, but how much they will succeed now I am not sure about after the collapse of [the regimes of] Hosni Mubarak [in Egypt] and Tunis' Zein El Abidine Ben Ali and the possible collapse of Libya's Muammar Gaddafi.

BI: It's not getting a lot of press, but there are also demonstrations happening in Iraq.

Harb: Partially at least, the world is busy with Egypt and Tunisia and the other revolutions. But [this lack of press is also because of] the new elections in Iraq and [Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri] al-Maliki's attempt to show that his situation is different from Libya and other countries. He thinks that those demonstrations are encouraged by his opponents, those who are against the stability of Iraq. How much we can buy that, I don't know.

Iraq is still in a state of disarray. Every day there are still bombings and people are being killed and the attention is on that, more than the demonstrations. The demonstrations are to improve living conditions, and are not asking for political change. But it seems that these are gaining attention and I think that other political leaders in Iraq, although they are participating in the government, are pressuring al-Maliki to respond.

I think that the Arab summit meeting will not be held in Baghdad this year, but will be postponed.

BI: Obviously, it is difficult to answer this question because things are in such flux, but what are the sensitivities for Arabs in dealing with Iraq after the US invasion?

Harb: I think the Arabs played a very deceptive role in Iraq from the very beginning--deceptive, because from the beginning their role was against Arab national interests. They supported the invasion hoping that it would put an end to Iranian influence in Iraq. It turns out visa-versa--they paved the way for Iranian influence.

I don't see that at the moment they have a very clear policy. The kind of regimes we have are mostly concerned about their own stability, rather than the national interests of the Arabs. That's why I feel that they are confused, they are not influential, they are claiming that they have to put an end to Iranian intervention in Iraq and by doing so, they are encouraging more sectarian conflict between Sunnis and Shiites.

I don't think this will work. What is happening in the Arab world is a logical response to the failure of their policies.

BI: What do you mean?

Harb: I think the Arab publics are revolting against almost everything that these regimes have represented throughout their rules--long rules. There are complaints of all sorts but the main complaint is that the Arab world has lost its influence. The Palestinian issue, for example, was a pan-Arab nationalist issue. But because all the countries aligned with the United States and to a large extent with Israel itself in order to protect their regimes, the Arab public feels that their national interests have been neglected. They have been humiliated.-Published 24/2/2011 © bitterlemons-international.org

Ahmad Harb is a writer and novelist and a lecturer at Birzeit University.

In recent months, newcomers entering Baghdad via the international airport and those who wander around the international zone and its five-star hotels could not fail to notice the ongoing activity of restoration and modernization. The project is supervised by a high-level committee, chaired by Minister of Foreign Affairs Hoshyar Zebari, that is tasked with preparing to host the Arab Summit in Baghdad next month.

More than $450 million have been allocated for these preparations. Tight security measures are also planned. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and several other top officials have pronounced Iraq ready to host the summit. Although the meeting is projected to have a full and diverse agenda, Iraqi interest is in the event itself, which is expected to mark a new phase in Iraq-Arab relations. Its success will send a loud message that Iraq has crossed the river and is on the way to regaining its status as a stable and prosperous state that plays a key role in the region.

Iraq's relations with the countries of the region have gone through several phases since the toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime in 2003.

Contrary to Iraq's other neighbors, Iran welcomed the formation of the new, friendly, Shiite-dominated government in Iraq post-2003. Economic relations improved quickly, with Iran second only to Turkey as regional exporter to Iraq. At the same time, Iran assisted anti-American militant groups in Iraq, thus contributing to undermining the country's security situation. Completion of the withdrawal of American forces by the end of 2011 (as established by the 2008 security agreement between the United States and Iraq) is anticipated to further improve Iraq-Iran relations, particularly with regard to the already diminishing Iranian support for militant groups. Iraq's assurances that it will not permit an attack to be launched from its territory against Iran and will not tolerate the existence in Iraq of the Iranian Mujahedin-e Khalq terrorist organization have further eased Iranian concerns. Both governments have expressed their willingness to cooperate and use diplomatic means to resolve issues such as the 1975 agreement, water disputes, oil fields on the borders, and Iranian claims for compensation for the 1980-88 war.

Turkey has in recent years overcome its concerns about the status of the Kurdistan region within Iraq. Security arrangements between Iraq and Turkey concerning the PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party) have reassured Ankara. Economic relations with Turkey have developed significantly since 2003; Ankara's annual exports and projects in Iraq are at $10 billion and rising. Iraq exports daily around half a million barrels of oil--produced at the Kirkuk oil fields in the north--through Turkey, and plans are afoot to construct additional export pipelines for Iraqi gas and oil via Turkey. On the other hand, Turkey's water policies have significantly reduced the flow of the Tigris and Euphrates into Iraq--a challenge to bilateral relations that may become exacerbated in the coming years.

At the top of Iraq's foreign relations priority list is Kuwait. A condition for Iraq to be removed from UN chapter seven status (hence to fully restore its sovereignty) is resolution of its disputes with Kuwait: war compensation, recognition of borders, and the fate of Kuwaitis missing since the 1990 Iraqi invasion. A recent exchange of visits by leaders of the two countries indicates the willingness of their governments to move forward despite the difficult political situation in both countries.

While there are huge opportunities for expanded economic relations between Iraq and most other Arab countries, political relations do present a challenge. They were bad during the Saddam era and did not improve after his fall. But as the security situation began to improve after 2008, Iraq-Arab relations also slowly progressed. The Arabs seemingly recognized that the new political system in Iraq had survived, and concluded that it is better to engage positively rather than remain passive or respond aggressively. During the 2010 Iraqi national elections and the ensuing coalition negotiations, Arab countries engaged actively to influence the results and counter Iranian influence. Early this year, several Arab leaders including Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa, the Egyptian foreign minister and the Kuwaiti prime minister visited Baghdad to discuss issues of mutual interest and ongoing preparations for the upcoming summit.

While Iraqis look toward improving relations with the countries across their borders, they are also watching the political tsunami that is overwhelming ruling regimes in the Middle East. Will these changes speed up or slow down the process of Iraqi regional integration? What will be the impact on Iraq itself? Answering these questions may be difficult in these turbulent times, but the winds of change bring hope.-Published 24/2/2011 © bitterlemons-international.org

Safa A. Hussein is a former deputy member of the dissolved Iraqi Governing Council. He served as a brigadier general in the Iraqi Air Force. Currently he serves in the Iraqi National Security Council.

If an observer monitors news coverage of Iraq in the Iranian media, he or she will be surprised at how minimal it is. The scope of news and analysis is limited to a few areas. These include mainly reports on suicide bombings, Iraqi officials' criticism of US policies on Iraq, and occasional praise by Iraqi religious and political leaders for the positive role Islamic Iran has played in that country.

All other events and political developments in Iraq go broadly unnoticed in the Iranian media. The reason for deliberately ignoring them is obvious. Some fundamental developments that have gradually taken place in the new Iraq are not welcomed by Iranian leaders. Political developments and, to be more precise, the birth of democracy in Iraq, are never mentioned by either Iranian leaders or the country's media.

Modern post-Saddam Iraq is by no means an ideal democratic state, but we mustn't forget that in comparison to some of the other countries in the region, the last parliamentary elections held in that country were undoubtedly a milestone in its modern history. Iraqis enjoy such rare commodities as press freedom, freedom of expression and the privilege of being able to criticize their regime without being accused of treason by their government.

The next area the Iranian media has by and large boycotted is the nature of the new Iraqi political establishment. Although the Shiites form more than 60 percent of the population, the new political system that has emerged in Iraq can broadly be described as "secular". It is much more similar to Turkey than to Iran, even though Iraq has been historically the hub of Shiite Islam and Iranians are largely Shiites. The Iraqi Shiite supreme leader Grand Ayatollah Sistani, who has many supporters in Iran as well, has frequently been cited in the Iranian media for his "praises" for Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei, but has kept silent over the Iranian leaders' idea of "velayat-e faqih".

More importantly, the Iraqi Shiite leader has never condemned the US presence in Iraq, nor has he urged the Americans' departure from his country--in sharp contrast to Iranian leaders. In fact, unlike the hard-line and radical attitudes that Iranian leaders advocate, the Iraqi Shiite leader has adopted a very moderate stance. He has avoided interfering in the Lebanese crisis, has not called for the destruction of Israel and has refused to get involved in the affairs of the other countries in the region.

The next issue area that causes Iranian leaders to look with anxiety on Iraq is the situation in the north, or Kurdistan region. The central government in Tehran both before and after the revolution has had problems with its Kurdish population. Accordingly, Tehran is naturally anxious about developments in the Kurdistan province of Iraq, which borders on its Kurdish regions. The autonomous status of Iraqi Kurdistan since the fall of Saddam Hussein is obviously envied by Iranian Kurds on the other side of the frontier. Thus far, Iran has succeeded in sealing off Iraqi Kurdish nationalist influence. But if there is any sort of crisis in the future it could present a serious problem for Iran.

The third problematic area between the two neighbors concerns border disputes. These are the legacy of the Ottoman and Safavid era in the sixteenth century, which continues to this day. In 1974, the two countries very nearly went to war over the border; it was Saddam who feared the might of the late Shah's army and backed down. The 1975 treaty ostensibly ended the dispute, but in reality the Iraqis signed it under duress. In September 1979, after the Islamic Revolution in Iran that destroyed the Shah's huge army, the Iraqi leader tore up the treaty and invaded Iran. Today, in spite of amicable relations between the new Iraqi regime and Tehran, the border dispute is still unresolved. Some of the new Iraqi leaders have spoken on the record "of the need to renegotiate the 1975 treaty", while Iranian leaders have dismissed the idea and pretend they have not heard their Iraqi counterparts' comments.

The fourth area where the Iranians are watching developments in the new Iraq concerns energy. Some of Iraq's huge oil and gas resources are in border areas between the two countries. Since there are border disputes, Iran has laid claim to some of the oil and gas resources. A few months ago, Iranian armed forces actually entered an Iraqi oil field and occupied it. Although the matter was quickly resolved, it demonstrated the depth and gravity of the problem.

Last year, the Iraqi government signed a dozen multibillion dollar oil and gas contracts with well-known western oil companies to develop some of its large oil fields, including resources near the Iranian border. The Iranian media has warned that "Iran will not allow its resources to be plundered by the western powers and we recognize it as our legitimate right to protect our interests."

Finally, Iranian leaders have frequently raised "war compensation" claims that "must be paid by the Iraqi regime for starting the war in 1979". None of these issues has thus far led to any sort of serious rift between the two countries. But common sense tells us that if there are serious political disputes between the two, any or all of the above concerns could easily turn into a major crisis between them.-Published 24/2/2011 © bitterlemons-international.org

Sadegh Zibakalam is professor of political science at Tehran University.