Catch your breath before the next round of US-Iran conflict in Iraq

For the time being tempers and tension seem to have come down in the Middle-East over the US’s assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani. But this is just another episode in the quagmire that Iraq finds itself in since the US invasion in 2003. No one can be sure what can crop up next and where that will lead to.

When the US invaded Iraq in March 2003, the Bush administration calculated that it would be a matter of days before it dislodged the then Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. In Washington’s reckoning, a “democratic” government would be installed and all the “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq would be destroyed making the world a safer place.

Also read | Soleimani killing: Has Trump stirred up a hornet’s nest?

In reality, the US ended up messing up the region irreparably, killing millions of innocent Iraqis and completely ruining the tenuous sectarian relationships among the region’s Sunni, Shia and Kurds. The calculations of the World’s sole superpower with its supposedly top-rated intelligence services and high and mighty officialdom couldn’t have gone more wrong. Not a single weapon of mass destruction of any kind was found in Iraq, for example.

Since then, the country has lurched from one crisis to another. The US’s focus on Saddam Hussein blinded it to ground realities in the Middle-East (or, West Asia for Indians). For instance, it did not take into account the relationship between Iran and the Shia in Iraq – an important factor that has since played a key role in accentuating the unpredictability in the region.

Though the Shia supported the US in its move to dislodge Hussein, Washington did not realise the support was limited only to that task. All the governments that have since come to power within Iraq have been Shia-dominated but with close links to Iran. The irony is that the Iraqi government is buffeted by two of its allies – Iran on one side and the US on the other.

Also read | US falls back yet again on aircraft carrier Harry S Truman: Know why

The assassination of Soleimani was the reflection of US frustration, among other things, for failing to rein in Iran and prevent it from playing any role in Iraq – something that is next to impossible. The Shia in Iraq revere Iran’s spiritual leader Ayatollah Khameini as Shia all over the world do – something akin to the Roman Catholics’ reverence of the Pope.

There are important places of pilgrimage for the Iranian Shia in Iraq – like Najaf and Karbala – where thousands visit each year. The priestly community in Iran and Iraq too, therefore, have deep links that cannot be altered, and definitely not overnight. So, the US view that Iran is interfering in Iraq does not wash.

The US invasion helped the Shia to come to power in Iraq. Once that was done the Shia set about taking revenge for the persecution they had suffered at the hands of the Sunni. Under Saddam Hussein, the Sunni dominated the military, administration and other key posts in Iraq. The Shia replaced the Sunni and many places in Iraq witnessed attacks by Shia groups against their perceived erstwhile Sunni aggressors.

Also read | Trump says Iran appears to be standing down, US ready to embrace peace

This was the reason for the emergence of the Islamic State, a Sunni outfit. And, the Islamic State came to be seen by the Sunni as a force that would protect them from attacks by the Shia. If there was one reason for the spread and consolidation of the IS in Iraq, that was because of the mass Sunni support it received in areas where this community was targeted by the Shia.

The political equations between the US and Iran changed. It was but natural for Iran to support the US in fighting the Islamic State as both saw it as a threat but for differing reasons. For Iran, the IS was an anti-Shia front and needed to be wiped out. For the US, the IS was a more virulent form of al-Qaeda which presented an imminent threat to its control in Iraq and for American interests worldwide.

This transient peace, incidentally, between the US and Iran provided enough grist that enabled the Washington-led nuclear peace deal in 2016 with Tehran when Barack Obama was in power.

Also read | Rhetoric: An effective arm of the war machinery

However, once the Islamic State was all but neutralised, the latent rivalry between the US and Iran resurfaced — the result of which the world witnessed last week when Soleimani was assassinated by the order of US President Donald Trump.

There has been speculation whether Trump ordered the killing to boost his prospects in the next presidential elections which are due soon. That may well be possible but the more compelling reason is that the killing was an outcome of an incessant hostility that has now reached a point where the US may have been worried about loss of power in Iraq and the rise of Iran as the new main influencer in Baghdad.

Caught in the US-Iran power play, Iraq is nearing a breaking point. The country has been witnessing massive popular protests since October against the deteriorating infrastructure including water supply, electricity etc. Large sections, especially the young, are demanding that both the US and Iran leave the country alone.

Following Solaimani’s killing, Iraq’s missive to Washington to withdraw US troops from the country was a shock to the Trump administration as that was the last thing it expected. But it indicates growing anger within Iraq at being used by both the external powers to settle their scores.

Also read | Iran sending messages to militias not to move against American targets: Pence

If Iran, in retaliation, has not attempted anything more than firing a few missiles at a US base in Iraq that is also because Tehran is not sure where a full-fledged war will lead to. Within Iran, the government will hope its people are satisfied with the claim that 80 soldiers died in the missile attack – reminiscence of India’s attack on Balakot in Pakistan where it claimed 300 terrorists were killed. Eventually, no evidence of the killing surfaced but it may have served its purpose when general elections occurred a couple of months later and the Modi government returned to power.

Similarly, Tehran’s claim will serve to assuage popular anger in Iran. As for the US, since no one (according to it) has been killed, it does not really need to retaliate. Unexpectedly, peace has raised its head. One needs to see for how long, though.