Security Building in Iraq

Political and security developments at the global level are in close connection with Middle East’s security. Many experts believe that without success in establishing security in the Middle East, achieving global security is impossible. Inside the Middle East, Iraq has been the center of security developments. Stability and security in Iraq are the prerequisites to a sustained security in the Middle East. This is especially important for Iran as Iraq’s most important neighbor.

The necessity of security building in Iraq

Stability and security building in post-Saddam Iraq and its influence on regional and global security is important for several reasons:

Firstly, because of its mosaic society and multiple ethnic and sectarian gaps, Iraq has a high potential to extend its social tensions and instabilities to the entire region. Secondly, domestic developments of Iraq are tied to interests of several regional actors, including Iran, Arab countries and Turkey and strife in Iraq can escalate tensions across the region. Thirdly, security building in Iraq and its success or failure is linked with global interests and credit of a global power, i.e. the United States. From this aspect, Iraq’s security will have significant outcomes for international politics and security and any delay in the security building process of Iraq will have unwanted results.

Stability and security building in Iraq requires cooperation of various influential actors on domestic, regional and transregional levels.

Domestic security-influencing factors

Domestic factors such as socio-cultural structure, historical background, political and economical elements and the Iraqi government’s military and security structure and power hugely influence Iraq’s security.

From the day it came into existence, Iraq’s social structure has been based on various ethnic and sectarian gaps. Despite efforts of the Baath regime to define a single Iraqi identity, the gaps have reappeared every now and then. An identity-based policy based as the only means of defining social and political self and consequent decline of social consolidation are main features of the new Iraq that fundamentally affect the country’s security. The new policy has caused problems in course of management and security building of the Iraqi society. Although ethnic and sectarian identities have always been a key feature of Iraq’s politics, the new circumstances have intensified this trend and deteriorated security.

Sectarianism and ethnicism, the main obstacles against Iraq’s security building aren’t confined to the recent years, and they stem from the divergent social structure of Iraq on the one hand and Saddam’s sectarian and ethnic policies on the other. Besides mass murder, the Baath regime practiced discrimination against Shiites and Kurds and prevented their access to political and military institutions to prevent them from gaining their interests and security. Other groups also suffered oppression. These are the major facilitators of the widening ethnic and sectarian divide.

Non-agreement among social groups and Sunnis’ resistance against the new political course heavily influence Iraq’s security problems. Inside the political structure, different -and conflicting- interests of Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis are serious impediments to establishment of legitimate political institutions and political agreement.

In addition to domestic strife, resistance and violent acts of al-Qaeda-affiliated radical Sunni groups against the government, civilians and American troops has had the key role in continuation of violence. Although activities and organization of al-Qaeda and Baath supported insurgents were at first sporadic and weak, they gradually became widespread and reached their zenith in 2006. Spread of violence by insurgents –especially against Shiite civilians- radicalized the domestic atmosphere and compounded sectarian strife, especially after Samarra bombing in February 2006.

In 2007, issues such as distribution of oil revenues and moderation of the deBaathification Law reduced differences among Iraqi groups, but there are still points of difference such as federalism which will remain as sources of tension in future. Launch of ’awakening councils’ (Sahwa) and their military campaign against al-Qaeda helped improving security conditions and changing Sunnis’ behavior. But these councils can become a new source of tension and compound security problems.

At the domestic level, security building in Iraq demands cooperation and determination of all ethnicities and sects especially Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds. Ignoring any of these groups and overlooking their interests and opinions can harm permanent, full security in Iraq and impede the process of security building in medium-term and long-term. Despite attempts to include different groups into the political stage and shift the nature of competitions and disputes from military-security level to a political level, continued insecurity in Iraq signals modest success of the attempts and the complexity of political interaction and security affairs in Iraq.

Although in the past years a security approach towards Sunni groups and insurgents was followed by the government and Shiites agreed with the mainstream politics, recent clash between government and the Mehdi Army showed that things can change. This also showed that Shiite groups need more attention and their political interests must be taken into consideration. Disregarding these groups can also cause severe security challenges for Iraq in the long run.

In such circumstances, despite victories of the Iraqi central government and remarkable cooperation of some Iraqi groups, successful security building in Iraq calls for broader efforts inside Iraq and cooperation of influential regional and international actors.

The significance of Iraq’s security for Iran

At the regional level, various countries hold a stake in Iraq, but definitely Iran is the most influential regional actor. During the past decades, Iraq and the Baath regime were always considered as a security threat by Iran. But fall of the Baath regime and rise of a democratic cooperation-based political system –which especially provided a chance for Shiites-, has created new circumstances that can put an end to Iraq’s security threats for Iran and even turn the country into Iran’s major economic and political partner.

This historical opportunity, has led Iran towards full support of Iraq’s new regime. Despite lack of support and cooperation in security building by most of the countries of the region, Iran has mobilized all its capacities to support the new regime and establish security in Iraq.

Such an approach towards post-Saddam Iraq has led to formation of interaction models between Iran and Iraq and emergence of a mutually cooperative outlook by Iraqis. Due to unfriendly policies against Iraq by other countries, this outlook has gained strength among Iraqis.

Hence, institutionalization of Iraq’s current political structure and establishing stability and security in this country has gained priority. In this accord, Iran is aiding Iraq economically and politically. Besides, close ties of the last three decades between Iran and Iraqi opposition groups, whether Sunni, Shiite or Kurd, are another factor that encourage Iran to help establishing stability in Iraq. Iran has also tried to resolve differences among Iraqi groups to help fostering security in this country.

Since exacerbation of security conditions in Iraq and the possibility of a failure in political and security course after Saddam’s rule can lead to more dangerous security threats for Iran, despite its stormy relations with the United States, Iran has accepted the Iraqi government’s request to negotiate with U.S. in order to bring security to Iraq.

Iran regards interaction with the United States inside Iraq as an ideal opportunity to improve Iraq’s security condition and solve security challenges. There is a chance of further interaction between two countries if the United States shows its good will in these negotiations.

The impact of U.S. strategies on Iraq’s instability

Early after occupying Iraq, the United States adopted a unilateral approach and tried to prevent other actors from playing a role in Iraq’s developments. United States’ initial strategy was to create a ”role-model government” to bring more rapid changes across the Middle East. But gradually with rise of instabilities in Iraq it became evident the U.S. can’t bring security to Iraq without help from regional actors.

During the past five years the United States has adopted various strategies in Iraq. These strategies have suffered the country’s incorrect understanding from Iraq’s socio-political features; hence, they’ve been problematic and have caused threats for Iraq and Middle East.

Of the major outcomes of these strategies has been the miserable state of human security in Iraq which has led to dislocation, immigration and a high death toll among Iraqis. Another outcome has been spread of terrorism and Iraq’s turning into a haven for terrorist groups. This phenomenon didn’t exist before fall of the Baath regime and has been a direct result of Americans’ presence in this country.

Spread of instability to the entire region and a sharp fall in Middle East’s nations and governments trust in America has been another result of the incorrect strategies. Discontent inside America that rises from prolongation of the war and its human and economic development expenses, a sign of which is Democrats’ victory in congress elections and Baker-Hamilton’s bipartisan committee report- and the necessity of a prompt resolution for Iraq’s problems in U.S. foreign policy have forced the United States to change its unilateral behavior.

In its new approach, the United States tries to encourage cooperation from regional actors especially Iran to establish security in Iraq, besides carrying out new policies itself inside this Arab country.

On the other hand, requirements of the international and regional structures and the course of developments in Iraq have made this cooperation inevitable. Urgency of success in moving the political-security process forward, considering United States’ competition with other global powers and the effect this project has on its credit, have made seeking new ways and especially interaction with influential actors such as Iran necessary for Washington.

The more important point is that up to now U.S. plans haven’t created circumstances according to which we could envisage a bright and stable future for Iraq, since there are still serious political and security challenges.

In the current circumstance, although violence has relatively decrease, but the aftermath of U.S. inappropriate strategies still linger and there aren’t still any clear and acceptable plans to resolve the current challenges. U.S. strategies still suffer the major negative features and their negative impacts on lives of the Iraqi nation are yet conspicuous.

The core of U.S. behavior in Iraq during the past five years has been unilateralism, monopoly and preventing participation of other regional and transregional actors. Despite some signs of United States’ tendency to get help from other actors for security building in Iraq, the realities show that contrary to all the propaganda, this tendency has been really limited and inefficient and there’s no serious will to allow other actors participate and undertake responsibility, which continues failures. What is need for building security in Iraq is adoption of a new strategy.

The role of Iraq’s neighbors in security building

Although Iran is the key actor that influences the security building process in Iraq, downplaying role of other regional actors, including Iraq’s Arab neighbors, can have destructive impacts.

Since Sunnis have become a marginal group in Iraq’s new political structure, and the power is mainly at the hands of Shiites and Kurds, from the beginning the Arab countries hampered advances of the political process. Their true political agenda has been avoiding support for the new Iraqi regime, and lack of border control and watching over insurgents’ infiltration into Iraq has deteriorated Iraq’s security.

Indirect support of Sunni insurgents by the Arab community which has led to a rise in violence and rise of a government with Shiite and Kurd majority to power, have all fueled anti-American sentiments in the region.

Despite U.S. efforts to bring Arab states on board to facilitate political changes inside Iraq, offering incentives such as brining Sunnis inside Iraq’s new political and security structure, holding meetings on Iraq in Sharm-el-Sheikh, Istanbul and Kuwait, there are still serious doubts over real support of Arab countries in Iraq’s security building process.

Turkey is another influential regional actor that has its especial concerns about Iraq’s developments. The Turks are especially worried over developments in north of Iraq. Iraqi Kurds’ autonomy, the situation of Iraqi Turkmen and P.K.K activities are sensitive issues for Turkey. Kurds’ increasing power and autonomy is considered a threat against Turkey’s national security; therefore, this country is trying to prevent such developments through different means. Due to talks about Kirkuk’s state and P.K.K’s increased activities, Turkey has carried out more military operations and threats in northern Iraq. However, agreements among Iraqi Kurds, United States and Turkey’s officials in the recent days promise calm in crisis.

Iraq neighbors’ meeting, aims and achievements

Iraq neighbors’ meeting has been on of the strategies adopted to encourage cooperation from regional actors as to Iraq’s security building. As unrests expanded 2 years ago, the first meeting was held in Sharm-el-Sheikh, attended by many countries inside and outside the region, such that Iraq’s neighbors now form the smaller portion of attendees. However, the two summits in Egypt and Turkey failed to fulfill expectations from Middle East countries. The third meeting which was recently held in Kuwait sought three objectives: Iraq’s security and fighting against terrorism, improving the level of diplomatic relations between Iraq and other Arab countries, reconstruction and canceling Iraq’s debts.

Among these three objectives, security building was the key topic of the summit. Nouri Maleki, Prime Minister of Iraq, criticized the country’s neighbors for not strengthening their tires with Iraq, refusing to cancel Iraq’s debts and overlook insurgents’ infiltration inside the Iraq’s territory.

In addition to Iraq’s six neighbors; Egypt, Persian Gulf Arab states, G8 members, permanent members of UN security council and representatives of the Arab League the Islamic Conference Organization attended the summit. One day before the conference was held, U.S. had a meeting in Bahrain with members of the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council, Egypt, Jordan and Iraq by warning them on Iran’s increasing influence, tried to encourage Arab countries to cooperate in Iraq’s affairs and resume diplomatic ties with this country.

Besides, since between 56 to 80 billion dollars of Iraq’s debts haven’t been forgiven yet and half of the creditors are Arab countries of Persian Gulf south coast, efforts have been made to cancel the debts and encourage Arabs to participate in Iraq’s reconstruction process.

Flickering hopes for reopening of Arab countries’ embassies in Iraq and forgiving the debts rose during the summit, but realization of Arab’s support for the political process and improve in Iraq’s security conditions still needs time. Efforts to bring Arab countries closer to Iraq by exaggerating Iran’s threat is one of the weapons commonly used by U.S. during the recent years.

Iraq neighbors’ summit held in Egypt, Turkey and Kuwait aimed to foster participation of countries of the region in Iraq’s security building, but the number of attendants decreases the level of consensus and influence.

Although United States’ attendance in these summits and the strategies it has announced, seem to be a request to support Maleki’s government, are in fact a way to push regional policies forward. Other policies include insisting on Iran’s destructive role in Iraq in order to make the Arabs anxious, insisting on Iran’s threat for the entire region and downplaying Israel’s threat.

Conclusion: the necessity of adopting new approaches

Iraq’s conditions necessitate a cooperative approach and using all means of influence. Developments of the past years show that the United States can’t establish permanent security in Iraq following unilaterally and by continuing its previous approaches. That can even make the security situation worse.

What is signaled from Iraq is the increasing inclination of Iraqi groups for participation of other key actors in the security building process. Therefore, regional and transregional actors can help improve the circumstances and bring stability.

Iran-U.S. interaction in Iraq can be a part of this new approach. These interactions are based on necessities of Iraq’s current circumstances and the stability-centered approach pursued by Iran. Talks between United States and Iran are constructive per se, but their contribution to security building in Iraq demands a shift of viewpoint by the United States. Although 3 rounds of talks between Iran and U.S. have been held, they haven’t met the expectations and America still insists on its unilateral behavior. The true efficiency of negotiations and improve of Iraq’s security conditions depends on adoption of a cooperative approach by the United States.

Constant accusations leveled at Iran during the talks and U.S. paradoxical behaviors; depict an unclear policy that create serious doubts over America’s true will to allow the other actors participate. That’s when there are no serious doubts overt Iran’s soft power in the region and especially in Iraq.

A combination of Iran’s soft power and United States’ hard power can really help establishing peace and security inside Iraq, otherwise, a confrontation can have negative results both for Iraq and Middle East.

What United States must take into consideration in its next round of talks with Iran, is setting a clear procedure to obtain tangible goals and regarding Iran’s reasonable security concerns. Americans must also know that a progress in negotiations requires a level of mutual trust that with regard to U.S. accusations against Iran looks impossible.

Another important point is conferring responsibilities and providing further security and military aids for Iraq’s central government and encouraging regional actors, including Arab states, to support the new regime of Iraq in terms of political and security aspects.

European powers and EU which have economic interests and security concerns in Middle East can also help in this regard. Due to their warm ties with America, European countries should prevent rise of attitudes that favor confrontation and monopoly, and try to regain Iran’s trust towards them, which has become fragile with Europe’s stance on Iran’s nuclear program.