Iran’s Responsible Approach in Iraq’s Political and Security Crisis
Without any introduction, I am going to discuss Iraq’s developments during the past two months which have always been a test for the foreign policy of the 11th administration and Mr. Rohani’s government has proposed new concepts in its approach towards this issue. Therefore, the points that will be pointed out are about the extent of the success of the 11th administration’s foreign policy in the Iraqi challenge.
Since last year, three key concepts have been proposed in the foreign policy approach of the 11th administration:
1-The idea of the World Against Violence and Radicalism which was proposed in the UN General Assembly.
2-The interaction approach in foreign policy was the second concept which was proposed.
3-Believing in win-win diplomacy; I do not use the ‘win-win game’ term because both Dr. Rohani and Mr. Zarif believe that a win-win game is not a tactic, but a strategy.
Last year, Mr. Rohani proposed the idea of a world free from violence and radicalism in the UN General Assembly. This shows that the Islamic Republic of Iran follows international challenges and has acted successfully in this regard. Right now, the biggest international challenge is the issue of terrorism in the Middle East region which is rooted in Iraq and Syria. It could explicitly be said that there is no country in the world which could feel immune from the consequences of terrorism in the Middle East. Last year’s proposal of a world free of violence and radicalism shows that this government has been successful in monitoring the international challenges and giving warnings about them.
The past three months’ developments in Iraq began with the election which was held in April. This election was transparent and held under international supervision. Participation in this election was good compared to people’s participation in other countries of the Middle East. More than 60% of the Iraqis participated in this election. But since 2003, the elections in Iraq have not rapidly led to the establishment of the government. In the 2010 election, bargaining for the establishment of the government took nine months. There were speculations of lengthy bargaining in the 2014 election as well. This is while Mr. Maleki was almost the winner of the election but the Iraqi elites had problems with the extension of Maleki’s tenure as prime minister.
Another challenge appeared in June; There was the downfall of Mosul and later four big Iraqi provinces including the Sunni-inhabited provinces with limited population from other ethnic groups were faced with security challenges. In Iraq, there were both political and security challenges. Based on the results of the election, the list of the State of Law coalition, meaning the list of Mr. Maleki, gained 103 seats and was the undisputable winner of the election. But Mr. Maleki was introduced by the Iraqi elites as a deadlock for the establishment of the government. The present coalition of the Shiites has won 181 seats, meaning more than 60% of the parliament’s seat, and was legally able to establish the government without the consultation or participation of other political components of the government. Half plus one of the parliament is needed for the establishment of the government.
But what approach did the Islamic Republic of Iran choose with regard to the election and the political trend in Iraq? The Islamic Republic of Iran proposed certain principles to bypass the political crisis and stressed the need to follow the Iraqi constitution. This was one of Iran’s foreign policy components in the election. On the other hand, the Islamic Republic of Iran reiterated that it respects the results of Iraq’s election and at the same time, the status and respect of the Shiite Marja’ must be safeguarded as the backbone of Iraq’s political trend. Iran also stressed that the inclusive government and not the majority government could be the response to Iraq’s political challenge. Two ideas are proposed in this regard in Iraq; Is the inclusive government able to respond to the political needs of Iraq or could a majority government do that? If the majority government is to be established, then the national coalition of the Shiites with 181 seats could establish the government of majority. But the Islamic Republic of Iran stressed that instead of the majority government, the inclusive government must be formed with the participation of all of Iraq’s political components.
Based on the consultations that happened between political components in Iraq, the Shiite coalition agreed on another option besides Maleki and Mr. al-Ebadi was introduced by Iraq’s president as the prime minister of this country. The Islamic Republic of Iran reached the conclusion that this option could create consensus inside Iraq and also attract international support. As was the case when Mr. al-Ebadi was introduced as prime minister, the international community expressed its support of this choice. Some Arab states which had doubts about the establishment of relations with Iraq since 2003, expressed their warm support of his selection. It could be claimed that the selection of Mr. al-Ebadi and bypassing Mr. Maleki was a win-win option in Iraq which was supported by Iran.
Certain points are mentioned in the security crisis in Iraq and new concepts are proposed by the foreign policy of the 11th administration. Has Iran been able to act upon these concepts in the security crisis in Iraq or not? As it was said before, the first concept which was proposed by the government of Iran was the world free of violence and radicalism. One year after this proposal, we see that the most important challenge at the international level is the issue of radicalism, violence and terrorism in Iraq. Once again this matter shows that the 11th administration has succeeded in monitoring developments.
Since the beginning of the security crisis, the approach of the Islamic Republic of Iran was based on the principles which were accepted by the international community. Some of the regional countries assumed that the security crisis, the downfall of Mosul and the emergence of Daesh are good opportunities to influence and change the political structure and trends in Iraq. They did not take the security crisis and the threat of Daesh seriously and stressed the resignation of Mr. Maleki to express their support and implement their international responsibility. Mr. Maleki was elected in a democratic process and was replaced through a transparent democratic trend. But the result of the lack of action of the international community was that terrorism gained territories in Iraq and threatened the security of this country from there. The West did not act against terrorism until Daesh attacked the borders of the Kurdistan province. After the downfall of Sanjar, the West gradually felt that there was a serious threat against them and not only Iraq and the region but all countries of the world were threatened by this phenomenon. It is obvious that since the beginning of the security crisis, the Islamic Republic of Iran has never related its aids to its neighboring country on the political trend and from the first day of the crisis, it gave everything that was asked by the central government and political forces of Iraq. As a result of this prudent action, it can be said that today the friendship of the Islamic Republic of Iran with Iraq is stronger than two months ago. The reason is that opportunism had no place in Iran’s foreign policy with regard to Iraq. Both political and security processes should be advanced simultaneously.
Today, the Sunnis perhaps demand Iran’s aids more than the Kurds and the Shiites in both the security and political scenes. Some of the countries of the region assumed that the time had come for the political structure in Iraq, which had been formed after 2003, to be changed in Iraq’s Kurdistan province. Several ideas were proposed with regard to the national sovereignty of Iraq. Some of the neighboring countries went as far as Iraq’s disintegration. The Kurds felt that the conditions in Iran and the security crisis had created an opportunity to gain some of their political demands. But when Kurdistan was attacked, the Islamic Republic of Iran, according to Mr. Barzani, was the first country which ran to help the Kurds.
The crisis in Iraq was the most important and biggest challenge of the international community and the scene of diplomacy to test the new approach of the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Islamic Republic of Iran proved in both security and political scenes that based on its approach it could stand on the legitimate side of the crisis. There is no doubt that the approach of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Iraq’s crisis was the most responsible approach compared to the countries which are now involved in the crisis in Iraq. This responsible approach has strengthened and expanded the friendship between the Islamic Republic of Iran and all political components in Iraq. Mr. Zarif’s visit of Iraq was very successful. He met with more than 40 political Sunni, Shiite and Kurd personalities of Iraq. The common point in all meetings was the gratitude expressed for the positions and aids of the Islamic Republic of Iran to Iraq at the political and security levels.
The result of the wise approach of the Islamic Republic of Iran with regard to Iraq which was presented within the framework of new concepts is that Iran could talk critically with the Europeans regarding the issue of Iraq and challenge the hesitation of the western countries in the case of Iraq and allowing the biggest terrorist threat of the world to be formed. According to western analysts, they expect several incidents similar to the September 11th events to happen as a result of the developments in Iraq and Syria. Soon after the developments in Kurdistan’s border and in Sanjar, Resolution 2170 was proposed by Britain and adopted by the UN Security Council. But the Islamic Republic of Iran could challenge the positions taken by the western countries and their two months’ delay in acting with regard to their responsibility about the Iraqi crisis.