• Creating an Iran-Iraq axis  - Peter W. Galbraith
Today, the Iran-Iraq border is less a barrier than a conduit of Iranian influence and ideology into Iraq and the Middle East.

• A long and complex history  - Saad Jawad
The Shi'ite-dominated government is losing a lot of its support because of its failure to solve day-to-day problems.

• Security and secular democracy  - Murat Somer
In the long run, Turkey has ample reason to worry about rising Iranian and Shi'ite political power at its doorstep.

• A Shi'ite alliance is taking shape  - Kamran Taremi
As long as Shi'ites play dominant role in Iraqi politics, one should expect the nascent Iran-Iraq alliance to survive.

Creating an Iran-Iraq axis
 Peter W. Galbraith

For at least 500 years, the eastern boundary of what is now Iraq has been one of the Middle East's great dividing lines. For centuries, it separated empires, civilizations, and the two main branches of Islam. Twenty-five years ago, a dispute over the location of a small part of the boundary--whether it should go in the Talweg of the Shatt al-Arab as the Iranians wanted or the eastern shore as the Iraqis wanted--ignited an eight year war that took more than a million lives and involved the first extensive use of chemical weapons since World War I.

Today, the border is less a barrier than a conduit of Iranian influence and ideology into Iraq and the Middle East. This represents an historic shift of seismic proportions that could have profound consequences for the Middle East, especially the Shi'ite majority Arab lands like Bahrain and Saudi Arabia's oil rich Eastern Province.

In the 2002 run up to the Iraq war, US President George W. Bush denounced an Iran-Iraq (and North Korea) axis of evil. It is deeply ironic that US actions created the modern Iran-Iraq axis--which certainly did not exist when Bush gave his speech--and bizarre that US policies continue to strengthen it.

The signs of Iran's influence are apparent, especially in the south of Iraq. During a visit to Basra in 2004, I noticed that the major monument to the Iran-Iraq war--some eighty bronze soldiers pointing accusingly toward Iran across the Shatt al-Arab--had been demolished by the local authorities. Where portraits of Saddam Hussein once were displayed near public buildings and at city entrances, I saw portraits of deceased Shi'ite clerics, including Ayatollah Khomeini, whose vindictive prolongation of the Iran-Iraq war cost the lives of several hundred thousand Iraqi soldiers.

In the ongoing constitutional deliberations, Iraq's Shi'ite leaders are pushing to include Persians as a named minority in Iraq's constitution, a symbolically important recognition of a shift in Iraq's identity. Iraq's Shi'ite-led government publicly apologized for starting the Iran-Iraq war, a historically accurate statement that would have been unthinkable for the Sunni Arab nationalists who ruled Iraq from the country's founding until April 9, 2003.

Iraq's Shi'ite-led government has taken steps to tie the two countries closer together. In July, Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari led a ten minister delegation to Tehran that concluded a number of agreements to bolster ties. The most striking is the agreement to construct an export oil pipeline from Basra to the Iranian port of Abadan, a measure that will give Iran a significant control over southern Iraq's most important strategic resource. Just before the Jaafari visit, Iraq's defense minister, himself a Sunni Arab, was in Tehran concluding an agreement on military cooperation that includes Iranian training of the Iraqi armed forces.

There is also a sinister side to Iran's enhanced role in Iraq. Iranian agents penetrate a significant part of Iraq's security and intelligence services, not totally surprising given that Iraq's interior minister is the former head of the Badr Corps, the Iranian created and funded military arm of Iraq's largest Shi'ite party, SCIRI. Like the Kurdish peshmerga, the Badr Corps provided serious--and heroic--resistance to the Saddam Hussein regime and is now being integrated into Iraq's security services and military. Iranians are said to play a role in the government of Basra--and in the shadowy Islamic militia whose word is now the law in parts of that city. I have also been told by a senior official in the Iraqi government that Iran is running hit squads inside Iraq, assassinating those they believe responsible for some of the excesses of the Iran-Iraq war, including air force pilots.

The major reason for Iran's rising influence in Iraq is, of course, the political triumph of the Shi'ite religious parties it sponsored for decades. Iraqi Shi'ites consider Iran a reliable friend, while almost every Shi'ite recalls how the first President Bush called for the Iraqi people to overthrow Saddam during the first Gulf war, and then stood on the sidelines while Republican Guard units put down the Shi'ite uprising, leading to the massacre of as many as 300,000.

Oddly, the Bush administration seems to have noticed none of this. The neo-conservative authors of the Iraq war convinced themselves--and told everyone else--that, because Iraq's Shi'ites were Arabs, they would not come under Iran's influence. Even as the Shi'ites move to incorporate the marjah--Iraq's leading Shi'ite cleric--into the constitution, administration defenders insist that the Shi'ites have no desire to create an Iranian style Islamic state.

In the critical days leading up to the adoption of an Iraqi constitution, the US is using its might to promote a centralized Iraqi state in full control of Iraq's financial resources (oil) and with a single military able to operate throughout the country. This puts the US at odds with Iraq's Kurds who insist on retaining their own military (the peshmerga, who were key US allies in the 2003 war) and having control over a share of Iraq's oil. The pro-western Kurds represent the one organized force that can resist the growing Iranian influence in the country. But, for President Bush, containing Iran appears to be more a rhetorical objective than an actual one.- Published 11/8/2005 (c) bitterlemons-international.org


Peter W. Galbraith, a former US ambassador to Croatia, is senior diplomatic fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. His most recent piece on Iraq, "Iraq: Bush's Islamic Republic" appears in the current issue of the New York Review of Books.

With a Shi'ite-dominated Iraqi government and security forces, it is tempting to think that Iran's influence in Iraq is higher then it has ever been, and that Iranian-backed elements will continue to dominate Iraqi politics for the next long while.

But even a brief glance at the very long and complicated history between the two countries should make it clear that nothing so straightforward is likely to happen.

From the invasion of Persia by the Muslim armies from Iraq through the Ottoman and Safawid empires' struggle for regional pre-eminence, what is now Iraq and Iran have alternated between periods of deep enmity and close friendship. The centrality of Najaf and Kerbala to Shi'ite faith and custom, and the large Shi'ite but Arab community in Iraq, will always ensure that the two countries' destinies are inextricably linked.

So it has proved in modern times, since the British domination in the early twentieth century, which led to the signing of the 1937 treaty that laid the ground for peace then but also the seeds of conflict in the future. The Shatt al-Arab waterway was given to Iraq, over the heads of Iran, while a steady and continuous influx of Iranians to the Shi'ite holy cities of Najaf and Kerbala was a source of constant irritation to Iraq.

The monarchies in the 1940s and 50s kept a lid on these tensions. After the 1958 revolution in Iraq that ushered in the republic, however, they came out in the open. Fearing the spread of Arab nationalism and communism, Iran began encouraging dissenters in Iraq, notably the discontented Kurdish minority. This came to a head in 1961, when Kurdish rebels declared independence.

The Kurdish rebellion failed to obtain self-rule, but succeeded in weakening the Iraqi regime enough that its fate was sealed. And with, first, the Arab Nationalist officers gaining power in 1963 and, in 1968, the Iraq Baath party, Iran's geo-strategic aim of securing dominance in the region was seriously compromised.

In 1969, Iran declared the 1937 treaty null and void. On the ground, it intensified its support for the Kurds and secret Shi'ite parties such as Al Dawa. To counter the influence of its powerful enemy in the east, the Baath party, already struggling with an increasingly disenfranchised Kurdish minority, decided to expel Iraqi families of Iranian origin and confiscate their properties and lands. This was a policy that started before the Iran-Iraq war, but continued during and after. Beyond the humanitarian consequences, the policy was a failure strategically, succeeding only in creating a large Iranian-cum-Iraqi community in Iran that the latter organized and trained.

And while the Algiers treaty of 1975 brought a dramatic change in relations between the two countries, with an agreement to share the Shatt al-Arab waterway and end the war in Kurdistan, it was a short-lived respite, and issues such as the expelled Iraqis in Iran were never solved.

In 1980, one year after the Iranian revolution, partly out of fear of the "export the revolution" motto and partly because Baghdad saw the timing as propitious, Iraq declared war on Iran. Both sides thought they had good reason to expect victory. Baghdad saw a weakened Iran, still in turmoil after the revolution, while Tehran felt certain that Iraq could not conduct a successful war while ruling over a majority and discontented Shi'ite community.

Over eight years the two countries fought each other to a bloody standstill, with enormous human, economic and military losses on both sides. Iraq nevertheless emerged with a huge and modern army that had been sponsored by the West. That, in turn, prepared the ground for the 2003 occupation.

From the outset, it was obvious that the US-led occupation had no clear agenda for how to rule Iraq. In its infancy, the occupation led to widespread looting and rampaging, against which the occupation forces stood by either helpless or disinterested. A huge mistake was then made when the army, police and other security forces were disbanded without replacements ready. Borders were left untended.

But perhaps most importantly, rather than focus on Iraq, the US started threatening Iraq's neighbors, Syria and Iran. It was only natural then that these two states, and especially Iran, would move to make live as difficult as possible for the US. And with well-trained and well-positioned elements for exactly that purpose already in place it was not difficult for Iran.

Iranian infiltration and influence was very clear in Iraq immediately after the invasion. The Shi'ite Badr Corps appointed itself as the security apparatus of the state, and in the absence of any official Iraqi forces, it was. Other militias belonging to other political parties also had a free hand in occupied Iraq. The position of these organizations was strengthened by the appointment of their leaders to the US-backed Governing Council. The feeling among the vast majority of the Shi'ite community was one of disgust with the old regime and an eagerness to rule after a long period of neglect by the old Sunni ruling class. Pro-Iran Shi'ite leaders and organizations encouraged these sentiments and promised Shi'ites the initiative.

All these factors explain the victory in the last elections by the Shi'ite-dominated list. Despite all American attempts to block the assumption of power of a religious Shi'ite personality, that is exactly what happened. Iran was victorious for a while with the enormous influence it could exercise inside the new government.

But this influence is still facing Iraqi and US opposition. The Shi'ite-dominated government is losing a lot of its support because of its failure to solve day-to-day problems. The intensity of the Iraqi resistance, militant or civil, to the occupation, will also prove a big obstacle in the way of ever-increasing Iranian influence in Iraq. It must always be remembered that while co-religionists, Iraq's Shi'ites are also Arab, and closer culturally to their Sunni neighbors.

Iran always had and always will have influence in Iraq. Vice-versa, what happens in Iraq has important consequences in Iran. Ultimately any Iraqi government, of whatever color, that can assure stability in Iraq and peaceful relations with Iran is in the interests of both countries. Iran does not want to overextend itself in Iraq for fear of burning its fingers, and its interests in Iraq will decrease if and when it is convinced that Iraq poses no threat.- Published 11/8/2005 (c) bitterlemons-international.org


Saad Jawad is professor of political science at Baghdad University.

In determining its position regarding Iran-Iraq rapprochement and Iran's increasing influence over Iraq, Turkey has to assess and balance two partially competing interests. The first is Turkey's security interest in Iraq's unity and stability. The second is Turkey's normative interest in the prevalence of secular democracy (however defined) in the region. In the short term, these interests appear to be clear-cut and the security interest is likely to prevail over the normative. Accordingly, Turkey would approve of Iran-Iraq rapprochement insofar as it strengthens Iraq's territorial unity.

Turkey's long-term interests are more complex. They are contingent upon a variety of internal and external factors.

From the beginning of the war in Iraq, Turkey made it clear that it supports Iraq's territorial unity and opposes Kurdish independence, which it continues to view as a fundamental threat to its own territorial integrity. Like Turkey, Iran opposes Kurdish independence. Thus, enhanced cooperation between Iran and Iraq, and Iranian support of Iraqi Shi'ites, undermine Kurdish aspirations for gaining independence and control of natural resources in northern Iraq.

Surely, one by-product of this development may be to boost Iran's regional power, or that of Shi'ites in general. In the short run and unless it destabilizes the region, Turkey is unlikely to view such a shift in the regional balance of power (insofar as any balance exists) as threatening its own security. Iran and Iraqi Shi'ites have nothing to gain from a military adventure against Turkey. Currently, Iran is not perceived to be particularly active in trying to spread its type of regime in the region (except in Iraq), and in Turkey in particular. Views to that effect had been widespread in Turkey during the 1990s, but subsided along with the perception that Iran turned inward as a result of its preoccupation with domestic politics.

However, there is a limit to the extent to which Iraq-Iran rapprochement can favorably affect Turkish interests, even from a purely security point of view. How far can Iran influence Iraq's reconfiguration in its own image without destabilizing it? Pushing too far to curb Kurdish aspirations for self-government may derail the process of new state-building, and could end up increasing the likelihood of Kurdish statehood. Similarly, promoting Islam as the dominant source of law and legitimacy by Iraqi Shi'ites, or excessive disregard for Sunni-Arab interests, may lead to disintegration. Thus, what is important for Turkey is that Iraq's new configuration is viable and maintains territorial integrity. This requires that it emerge from a difficult multilateral process that is agreeable to all the groups in the country.

Moreover, in the long run, Turkey has ample reason to worry about rising Iranian and Shi'ite political power at its doorstep. For one, this would invite further American meddling in the region. In light of international concerns about Iran's nuclear ambitions, this should be a major long-term concern for Turkey also. Excessive political ambitions on the part of regional Shi'ites may also destabilize the region by alienating Sunni regimes.

Second, the principles regulating the relationship between religion and public-political life on which Turkey's secular and Iran's theocratic models are based are polar opposites of one another. As long as the respective regimes in both countries are secure and stable, the two countries can cooperate without threatening each other. However, what if the new conservative government in Iran fails to meet the mounting economic needs of its young and rapidly urbanizing population, and severely disappoints those who voted President Ahmadinezhad to power? In this case, Iranian conservatives may increasingly resort to supporting Islamism in the region in order to secure the survival of their regime, as more and more Iranians become mobilized into looking for alternative models of government.

Similarly, domestic politics would affect Turkey's threat perceptions in regard to the Iranian model: the deeper the secular-Islamist polarization becomes, the more Turkish secularists would feel threatened by Iranian influence in the region. It should be emphasized that Turkey and the US share a common interest in the containment of religious extremism and the advancement of secular democracy in the region. As for Iraq, while it is up to the Iraqis to decide what type of a government and society they want to live in, Turkey would clearly favor a more secular model.

The presence of a moderately Islamic government in Turkey does not necessarily reduce the polarity between the Turkish and Iranian models. The political project, indeed the very challenge of the AKP seems to be to restructure Turkish society in the image of its own Muslim-conservative ideals as a result of an indirect and gradual process, i.e., without directly challenging the contours of Turkey's secular laws and military and political institutions. This project is supposed to work via EU-inspired democratization that relaxes the secular regulation and restriction of Turkish-Muslim civil society, rather than through a fundamental restructuring of the state institutions that a more radical approach closer to the Iranian model would suggest. Thus, the Iranian model and the moderate Turkish political Islam (or "Muslim democracy") represented by the AKP may be seen as rivals.

All this does not mean that Turkey should, or would, adopt a confrontational policy vis-a-vis Iran or Shi'ites in general. On the contrary, cooperation and engagement with both religiously oriented and secular Shi'ites may be a better approach. However, Turkey may pursue policies to contain the political influence of Iran if that country adopts a revived policy of promoting its model in the region.

The EU anchor is crucial for Turkish politics. While allowing Muslim civil society more freedom to pursue its Islamic-conservative agenda, it also constrains the extent to which any Islam-inspired government or organization can challenge secular laws and institutions, thereby alleviating some secularists' concerns. The deterioration of EU-Turkish relations may rekindle the secularist-Islamist political cleavage; a downturn in economic growth and the modernization process could generate similar results.

Finally, the continuation (and recent deterioration) of the Kurdish conflict in Turkey and the disagreement between Turkey and the US over the necessary course of action against the PKK in northern Iraq restrain Turkey's ability to focus on its normative interests. Instead, Turkey becomes compelled to focus on the question of Kurdish statehood and the related security concerns. If recent intellectual and governmental efforts in Turkey to make progress on resolving the Kurdish question democratically bear fruit, Turkish policy vis-a-vis Iraq and Iran can take shape more in line with long-term normative interests. Improvements in Turkish-US relations, possibly as a result of US actions against the PKK, may contribute to the same outcome.- Published 11/8/2005 (c) bitterlemons-international.org


Dr. Murat Somer teaches at Koc University, Istanbul. His recent articles on Turkey and the Iraqi question appear in The Middle East Journal and Security Dialogue.

Since 1958, Tehran-Baghdad relations have been marked by intense hostility. Even the American invasion of 2003 did not seem to change much as the first Iraqi government to assume office after the ouster of Saddam branded Iran the number one enemy of the country. Therefore, it came as a surprise when, in late July 2005, an extraordinarily large Iraqi delegation consisting of Premier Jaafari and ten of his cabinet ministers visited Tehran and signed a set of wide-ranging and unprecedented agreements covering security, energy, trade, transport, and tourism. This raised a number of serious questions about Iranian-Iraqi relations: How can we explain this new intimacy? And what benefits does Iran expect to reap?

To answer the first question it is necessary to identify the chief driver in the relationship. That in turn requires viewing Iranian-Iraqi relations in their historical context. An examination of bilateral relations reveals that ideological compatibility or the lack thereof has been the decisive factor determining the character of relations. Whenever their state ideologies have been compatible, the two regimes have had peaceful and amicable relations; conversely, when their state ideologies have clashed, enmity has ensued and conflict has defined bilateral ties. The term ideology here refers to the philosophy shaping the political elite's perception of internal threats and pattern of external alliances.

The period between 1932, when Iraq gained its independence, and 1958, when King Faisal II was overthrown, was one of ideological congruence. Authoritarian and conservative monarchies ruled both countries. Regionally, they worked together against radical Arab regimes. Internationally, both regimes were closely allied to the West. Hence, despite some territorial disputes, relations were good.

The 1958 coup in Iraq marked the beginning of ideological divergence, as the radical Arab nationalism of successive regimes in Baghdad and the Persian nationalism of the Shah clashed. Regionally, unlike Iran that maintained close ties to Israel and conservative Arab regimes, republican Iraq viewed Israel as the enemy of Arabs and sought to subvert conservative Arab states. Internationally, contrary to Iran that kept up its alliance with the West, successive Iraqi governments sided with Moscow. Hence relations deteriorated to such an extent that in the early 1970s war seemed imminent.

The victory of the Islamic revolution in Iran in February of 1979 only served to intensify the ideological differences, as Ayatollah Khomeini's fundamentalist brand of Islam came into conflict with Iraq's secular Arab nationalism, resulting in an eight-year war that left close to a million dead and injured on both sides. Despite the US invasion in 2003 and the resulting radical changes in Iraq, ideological differences between Iraq's first post-invasion government, headed by Ayad Allawi, and the Islamic regime in Tehran remained as intense as before.

However, the National Assembly elections held on January 31, 2005 produced a sea change in Baghdad. The winning coalition of Shi'ite groups, consisting chiefly of the Islamic Dawa Party and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), had very close ideological, political and military ties with the Islamic regime in Iran, which for close to a quarter of a century had provided them with a base to fight Saddam's regime. A chief consequence of this ideological affinity was the wide-ranging agreements that the two sides signed in Tehran last month. These agreements herald something far more important, i.e., the emergence in the Middle East of a new alliance between Tehran and Baghdad.

From Tehran's perspective, such an alliance presents a myriad of benefits. To start with, it could restore security to Iran's western borders, allowing Tehran to concentrate its military resources in the south where a US invasion is likely to be launched. Further, it would deal a serious blow to the US strategy of containing Iran. It would also place Iran in a stronger position in bargaining with the US and the EU over a wide variety of issues, including Iran's nuclear program. Similarly, it would tilt the balance of power in the Persian Gulf in favor of Iran as it unites the Gulf's two strongest powers against Saudi Arabia and its partners in the GCC.

Such an alliance would also help improve the position of Shi'ites in Sunni-dominated Arab countries such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain, allowing them to press more effectively for their political rights. As in Iraq, any rise in the power of the Shi'ite community in other Persian Gulf states would translate into greater power and influence for Iran.

Moreover, a friendly Iraq would allow Iran to have a direct land link with Syria, its major regional ally, rather than sea and air links that are more susceptible to disruption at times of crisis. Iranian leaders believe that a friendly Iraq could join Iran, Syria and Lebanon in an alliance against Israel, thereby enhancing the overall position of Iran's Arab partners vis-a-vis Israel.

At the same time, Iraq would also provide Iran with an excellent entry point to penetrate the Arab world. Iran has so far relied on Syria and Lebanon for entry into the Arab scene and influencing Arab politics, but these links have always been at the mercy of the Baath regime in Syria. Iran very much prefers to have direct links that are neither dependent on Assad's regime nor constrained by Syrian interests.

To sum up, for as long as Shi'ites play a dominant role in Iraqi politics, one should expect the nascent Iran-Iraq alliance to survive. Being fully aware of the immense value of this alliance, Iranian authorities will do what they can to assist the Jafari government and will make every effort to ensure that Shi'ites get a share of power commensurate with their majority status in Iraq.- Published 11/8/2005 (c) bitterlemons-international.org


Kamran Taremi is a lecturer in the department of political science, University of Tehran.