Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Iraq is About to Explode

By Robert Dreyfuss, The Nation. Posted July 28, 2008.


With Iraq's internal politics a ticking time bomb -- and Iran wielding its influence -- neither John McCain nor Barack Obama have a realistic plan.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
What Can the Morass of the 1970s Tell Us About the Current Economic Crisis?
Alejandro Reuss

DrugReporter:
Lies About Marijuana Drive People to a Much More Harmful Drug -- Booze
Steve Fox

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Does the House Bill's Public Option Kill Off the Senate's?
Booman

Immigration:
Recent Democratic Victories May Grease the Wheels for Immigration Reform in Congress
Marcelo Balive

Media and Technology:
Focusing on Fort Hood Killer's Beliefs Is an Easy Out to Avoid the Deeper Reasons for the Massacre
Mark Ames

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Obama Is Up Against in His Own Branch of Government
Russ Baker

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
How the Stupak Amendment Radically Undermines Women's Rights
Rachel Morris

Rights and Liberties:
"Women Are Being Killed All Over the World": One Reporter's Fight Against So-Called "Honor Killings"
Robert S. Eshelman

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Radioactive Wastewater in New York Raises More Concerns About Oil Drilling
Abrahm Lustgarten

World:
Egyptian Marine: Soldiers Often 'Racialize' the Enemy to Cope With Stress
Aaron Glantz

More stories by Robert Dreyfuss

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

While everyone's looking at Iraq's effect on American politics -- and whether or not John McCain and Barack Obama are converging on a policy that combines a flexible timetable with a vague, and long-lasting, residual force -- let's take a look instead at Iraqi politics. The picture isn't pretty.

Despite the Optimism of the Neocons, which has pushed mainstream media coverage to be increasingly flowery about Iraq's political progress, in fact the country is poised to explode. Even before the November election. And for McCain and Obama, the problem is that Iran has many of the cards in its hands. Depending on its choosing, between now and November Iran can help stabilize the war in Iraq -- mostly by urging the Iraqi Shiites to behave themselves -- or it can make things a lot more violent.

There are at least three flashpoints for an explosion, any or all of which could blow up over the next couple of months. (Way to go, Surgin' Generals!) The first is the brewing crisis over Kirkuk, where the pushy Kurds are demanding control and Iraq's Arabs are resisting. The second is in the west, and Anbar, where the U.S.-backed Sons of Iraq sahwa ("Awakening") movement is moving to take power against the Iraqi Islamic Party, a fundamentalist Sunni bloc. And third is the restive Mahdi Army of Muqtada al-Sadr, which is chafing at gains made by its Iranian-backed rival, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI).

Perhaps the issue of Kirkuk and the Kurds is most dangerous. Last week, the Kurds walked out of parliament to protest a law passed by parliament to govern the provincial elections. The law passed 127-13, but it was vetoed by President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd. Juan Cole, the astute observer, says: "The conflict between Kurds and Arabs over Kirkuk is a crisis waiting to happen." He cites Al-Hayat, an Iraqi newspaper, as claiming that not only do the Kurds want to control Kirkuk, an oil-rich province in Iraq's north, but they plan to annex three other provinces where Kurds live: Diyala, Salahuddin, and Ninewa. That's not likely, but they do want Kirkuk, and the vetoed election law would have limited the Kurds' ability to press their gains there.

The election law was supported by Sadr's bloc and backed by former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi and his Iraq National List. Another nationalist party, the National Dialogue Council, has demanded the ouster of President Talabani over his veto of the law. Other Iraqi parties are backing the now-vetoed law, too, which also restricts the use of Islamic religious symbols by political parties seeking to corral illiterate, religious voters.

Because of all this, it now looks like there won't be provincial elections this year at all. The ruling bloc of Shiite religious parties and Kurdish warlords is split over the crisis, weakening Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, and members of the ruling coalition are trying to patch things up. I don't think they'll succeed. Many Shiites in the ruling bloc, including ISCI, have criticized the law as divisive, but as Arabs it's hard for them to endorse a Kurdish takeover of Kirkuk. ISCI and the Badr Brigade, its armed wing, are holding parlays to decide what to do. Interestingly, all three members of the ruling presidential council, including Talabani, the IIP's Hashemi, and ISCI's Adel Abdel Mahdi, voted to veto the law, putting ISCI and the IIP on record as supporting the Kurds. Bad for them politically.

The IIP says that it wants to mediate the crisis. But the IIP is in a very, very weak position. Having just rejoined the Maliki government, it is under siege at home in its base in Anbar province, where the Awakening is flexing its muscle. This could be the second explosion. The Sunni Arabs are still seething over the divisive Iraqi Constitution and their continuing exclusion from political power, and the Awakening movement sees the IIP (correctly) as wildly unrepresentative. So the Awakening, representing Sunni tribal powers and former resistance fighters, wants in, at the expense of the IIP. That time bomb is ticking, too.

The final crisis-to-be is the Sadr vs. Badr one. The Times today suggests that Sadr is weakening:

The militia that was once the biggest defender of poor Shiites in Iraq, the Mahdi Army, has been profoundly weakened in a number of neighborhoods across Baghdad, in an important, if tentative, milestone for stability in Iraq.
Don't believe it. Sadr's rivals, ISCI, don't have anything like the popular base that Sadr has. And underneath Sadr is a volatile mix of neighborhood, local and regional militias, mosques, and economic fiefdoms that won't yield easily to ISCI and Maliki. Because Sadr's forces are dependent on Iran, however, for arms and cash, Iran may be in the driver's seat. Just the other day, the commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps crowed that the United States has failed to install an anti-Iranian regime in Baghdad, and he's completely right.

So Iraq is still poised to explode, and Iran may be in control. McCain's solution: provoke a showdown with Iran. Obama's solution: try to make a deal with Iran to stabilize Iraq. I'm not sure either "plan" will work.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: iran, iraq, barack obama, john mccain

Robert Dreyfuss is the author of "Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam" (Henry Holt/Metropolitan Books).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Oh SHUT UP ! Iraq has already exploded and America is paying so FUCKING DEARLY already !
Posted by: jwverez on Jul 28, 2008 1:50 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good FUCKING God ! This author sure doesn't know how to keep up with the actual events. Iraq has already been a disaster ever since the war started in 2003 and soon after became nothing more than an occupation for BLACK GOLD ! As some would say GOD IS FUCKING PUNISHING AMERICA A MAJOR BLOW !!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Tell us how you really feel! Posted by: Illiteratilumen
» RE: Tell us how you really feel! Posted by: Captainmagic
Cut a Deal With Iran Which Is In Our Interest Not Israel's.
Posted by: edith on Jul 28, 2008 2:34 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Iran may be in the driver's seat."

That's the real point. The USA has to cut a deal with Iran. They are going to do what they're going to do with nukes. They are a sovereign nation. If the US and Iran can establish normal relations, we don't have to worry about Iraq. Oil will flow from the Persian Gulf, Al Queda operatives will be tortured and exterminated as they should, and the smartass zionists in Israel an New York will just have to keep their fat lips shut. And we actually may have some peace for a while in the world along with energy stability and the prosperity that stable energy prices bring.

Of course Obama could not do this as he works for the Pritzker family in Chicago.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Israel's FedEx to America
Posted by: weathered on Jul 28, 2008 2:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
another invoice for $$Billions, a cd-rom of problems we never had before and a jar of Vaseline.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Israel's FedEx to America...:-0 Posted by: Captainmagic
Obama is based in a reasonable grasp of reality, because the McCain style alternative is simply not
Posted by: Squarehead on Jul 28, 2008 3:16 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"So Iraq is still poised to explode, and Iran may be in control. McCain's solution: provoke a showdown with Iran. Obama's solution: try to make a deal with Iran to stabilize Iraq.

That is the point. Obama's plan is based in a reasonable grasp of reality, because the McCain style alternative is simply not do-able. The American Army is strained to near breaking point; you have to get out, as soon as possible.

As regards "I'm not sure either "plan" will work." There is not really any choice. So- called 4th generation warfare; AKA common sense

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I love Obama, but goddamnit...
Posted by: HughScott on Jul 28, 2008 5:14 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
he should get his story straight on the "surge."

He should tell it like it is. Absent a timetable for withdrawal, the surge is a waste of time. Sooner or later, Iran will order another Sadr City uprising, Sunni fighters will retaliate, Maliki's government will fall and the country will go up in flames again.

Iraq is like a leaky dam, with American troops holding their fingers in the holes. As soon as they withdraw, whether it be today or 10 years from now, the dam will burst.

It's that simple, Barack.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

McCain Has No Clue
Posted by: tomvoncruise on Jul 28, 2008 7:56 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While Obama may lack all the answers, McCain has no clue what to do. He still thinks it's 2003 and the quick war is about over. I read he even banned the book Stupid Wars from his campaign. Cuts too close to home for him.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Three-sided Civil War
Posted by: ChicagoPaul on Jul 29, 2008 6:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We've hit the trifecta here!

It's the Kurds and the Shiites and the Sunnis all requiring a solution of their differences/desires via political/governmental accommodation.

We're the referee.

As I remember it, the Surge was to do two things: 1.) bring down violence (no promise to totally eliminate it) and 2.) foster political progress (the US role here seems nebulous).

Reportedly, the Surge has brought down violence. Let's ask ourselves: Has the Surge dismantled the necessary "apparatus" for violence creation and promulgation or are there major infrastructures for violence (pick your side, any side) still available and this is simply a "calm before the storm" scenario?

If the answer truly is the former, then the Surge has been a whopping success. If it's the latter, then....

I fear the real answer is that there is still considerable potential for major violence to erupt in coordinated ways. Yesterday's activities, attributed to al Qaeda in Iraq, by the way, serve as one simple illustration of this potential.

So, where does that leave us? We are, without a doubt, in the middle of a three-sided civil war.

The first thing I think we should declare is that we cannot do anything more militarily. This has nothing to do with winning or losing. We cannot "win or lose" someone else's civil war.

The second thing we should do is declare that the situation in Iraq is no longer part of the War on Terror. Yes, there is a group within Iraq promulgating terrorist acts, and they should be dealt with as their actions relate to bringing Iraq's civil war to a close.

Most importantly (and I'm not sure how much of this we are doing, but I fear we are doing precious little), we need to have a Diplomatic Surge. Yes, accommodations of cease-fires must be agreed upon before this can occur.

I believe many of Iraq's neighbors hold the key for cease-fire agreements, including a weakening of al Qaeda in Iraq's infrastructure.

Just a thought....

Now, whose "plan" comes closest to this sort of direction? McCain or Obama (or Nader, or Barr, or....).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dreyfuss misses the story.
Posted by: chorton on Jul 29, 2008 6:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't claim to be able to divine the future, and I've never been to Iraq, but, genuine progressives do see things that the Times and NPR miss, because we pay attention to different things.

In particular progressives tend to see history as being driven not just by the plans, schemes and actions of the rich and powerful but by the realities, struggles, ideas and aspirations of the common people.
Coming from this understanding, we look for evidence of what the people are up to, what they are thinking and doing, what their history, beliefs and institutions are. Looking for this evidence, we find it, sometimes even between the lines in the Times! Dreyfuss is not looking for or seeing this side of the story, and his article is thus "New York Times lite", a left-side take on the corporate media's story line. Thus, like the Times, he frames the coming explosion in terms of sectarian conflicts, the very conflicts the Empire has been promoting in its strategy of divide and rule!

In particular Dreyfuss ignores Sadr's stated strategy, which is to unite the Iraqi people in a great mass movement demanding an end to the occupation, the oil giveaway and the permanent base agreements. And like the Times, he totally ignores the Iraqi labor movement, and in particular the powerful oil workers union, which is adamantly opposed to the occupation and the oil giveaway. He fails to acknowledge Sadr's reputation as an Iraqi nationalist leader, with a firm and highly-organized base among the urban Shiite poor but who has long and consistently called for national unity across sectarian lines. He fails to acknowledge Sadr's stated purpose in standing the Mehdi Army down - a remarkable feat, given that tens of thousands of militia were already engaged in what was shaping up to be a climactic battle - which was to transform it into a political force to struggle for national unity and sovereignty. But one can be sure the Iraqi people haven't forgotten this!

There will be an explosion in Iraq. I expect that it will come when the Empire replaces Maliki with a more compliant toady, or when, under US pressure, Maliki starts backpedaling on ending the occupation and refusing the oil giveaway. When it comes it will be in the form of a genuine mass movement, and will include a complete shutdown of the oil industry by the workers. (The Times may or may not report this, but it will certainly get the attention of the Empire!) When the repression of this movement starts, there will be massive defections of the Iraqi Army to its side. If the US does not yield at this point and get out, the Iraq war will enter a new phase, one which will much more closely resemble the Vietnam war.

Our job is to not let that happen, for our own sake and for the sake of the Iraqi people, who are after all not so different from ourselves, and who share with us a common enemy.

To the extent that the American people only get the ruling-class story line on what is happening in Iraq, we will be unprepared to understand the nature and meaning of the coming explosion. We will then be unprepared to support the Iraqi people in a principled way, and to resist the Empire's moves to crush them in blood. Media such as Alternet and The Nation need to do better than this Dreyfuss article in their efforts to give us the tools we need.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Iranian puppets? Posted by: chorton
» RE: Iranian puppets? Posted by: ChicagoPaul
» RE: Iranian puppets? Posted by: Quannah
Good grief;what a mess!
Posted by: willymack on Jul 29, 2008 12:48 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Next time we decide to invade a country, we should send in the Three Stooges. They'll do a bang-up job compared to the bushies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Iraq, the US, Iran, Afghanistan are all what happens when fundies rule
Posted by: DaBear on Jul 29, 2008 7:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is the shit that happens when religious fundamentalists run the show. Solution? Bar fundies from being in positions of power. Period.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Iran seeks stability in Iraq and supports Iraq's territorial integrity
Posted by: Garvagh on Jul 30, 2008 8:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In my view, the "surge" was a mistake. The better course would have been to accept Iranian and Syrian offers of help bringing stability to Iraq, in the context of a total withdrawal of US military forces.

The Shiites will remain in control of Baghdad and the central government of Iraq, whether the US stays or leaves. The Sunnis are painfully aware they have permanently lost control of the country. However, side deals can be made to share oil revenues, etc. True stability will only come about after the US gets out of the country (as sought by the great majority of Iraqis).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement