All posts by Salah Nasrawi

Iraq-Fallujah

Beyond Fallujah

Image Leave a comment

Salah EB

Beyond Fallujah

The world is rightly worrying about the prospect of missteps in Fallujah, but anything less than a victory uprooting the Islamic State group and pacifying Iraq could be just as troubling, writes Salah Nasrawi

As Iraqi soldiers continued their battle to drive the Islamic State (IS) terror group out of the city of Fallujah, a great deal of media attention is being focused on the war’s sectarian implications, human cost and side effects.

Things like the role played by Shia paramilitaries, Iran’s rising influence, the pace of the advance, and warnings of a possible humanitarian catastrophe have been stealing the headlines since the operation began more than two weeks ago.

Certainly, these are essential elements of how to analyse the failures and successes of the campaign against IS. Yet, the broader policy of the impact of the Fallujah battle on Iraq’s long-term stability and regional geopolitics and the future of the world’s war on terrorism is not being given careful reflection.

The offensive in Fallujah will almost certainly bring the city back under the control of the Baghdad government, but a fundamental question remains: should that be the only prize Iraq has been desperate to win, or should it be part of one final blow to eliminate IS in order to make both Iraq and the world safer?

Iraqi troops started the offensive to recapture Fallujah on 22 May, with Prime Minister Haider Al-Abadi promising that the city, under IS control since January 2014, would be taken back soon.

Since then Iraqi forces  a combination of the army, police, local tribesmen and the Shia-led Popular Mobilisation Force (PMF)   have been making some headway in pushing forward. The US-led international coalition has also been supporting the operation with air-strikes, intelligence, weapons and training.

However, more than two weeks into the start of the offensive the city’s centre remains under IS control.

Sceptical reports in American and some Arab media say that the Iraqi military operation in Fallujah has been stalling largely because of poor military and political strategies, key shortcomings that could undermine the campaign against the radical group.

While some have said Iraq’s forces remained bogged down on the southern edge of Fallujah amid fierce fighting with IS militants, others suggest that the delay has come amid controversy over the role of the Shia forces and their Iranian backers.

The negative feedback has even gone as far as speculating about the widely expected operation to retake the IS stronghold of Mosul in northern Iraq.

On Saturday, the New York Times quoted American and allied officials as saying that an exhausted and ill-equipped Iraqi army faced daunting obstacles on the battlefield that would most likely delay for months a long-planned major offensive against Iraq’s second-largest city.

Iraqi officials, however, have denied any delay in the Fallujah operations, and Al-Abadi has said that there has been steady progress in the fight and that commanders have focused on minimising casualties both among their forces and civilians.

He said the media suggesting otherwise was only serving IS purposes.

But just beyond worries about the prospects of a humanitarian crisis and fear of risks of atrocities by the Shia militias in Fallujah or concerns of growing Iranian influence in Iraq lies one key question: how to prevent abuses and the regional manipulation of the sectarian card while at the same time denying IS the opportunity to win the propaganda war and recruit new followers?

Unfortunately, the battle for Fallujah has become entrenched outside the city itself. While part of this battle is over hearts and minds in Iraq and in neighbouring countries, much of the bickering over the Fallujah battle conceals sectarian and geopolitical agendas.

One of the arguments being widely used is that Iraq risks losing the war against the IS jihadists if it lets the Shia paramilitaries into Fallujah. Some in the media have expressed concerns at possible atrocities being carried out in vengeance should the PMF forces storm the city.

Pundits and sometimes self-proclaimed analysts who probably rely on feedback from PR firms working on behalf of stakeholders have been hyping fears that the Shia militias are building sectarian tensions and could ignite a communal mess.

According to the proponents of this theory, defeating IS will solve nothing if the politics are not got right, which means finding a political solution that will put the minority Sunnis on equal footing with the majority Shia.

Furthermore, the Shia-led Iraqi government is being warned that its campaign to “conquer” Fallujah could lead to a further rise in IS. Advocates of this scenario say that as happened with Al-Qaeda in Iraq IS will merely resurface after the campaign, perhaps in an even more vigorous form.

One major problem with the argument that the Fallujah offensive, even if Iraqi forces win, will not translate into lasting stability is that its upholders have not provided a viable alternative strategy or one that ensures uprooting the vicious terror group.

In general, these recipes for ending Iraq’s chaos have become mere clichés, precisely because they are oversimplified formulas that are inadequate when dealing with a much more complicated conflict.

It is only a matter of common sense that Iraq needs a political solution for its admittedly civil war, but this approach makes a cult of simplicity if it is taken out of context.

Since the sectarian bloodbaths of 2006-2007, Iraq has descended into an acute sectarian struggle, and the offensives to take cities back from IS are only a renewed cycle in that civil war.

It is generally agreed that most civil wars end in decisive military victories, not negotiated settlements. Iraq, therefore, may not be the exception to this rule, and its civil war will not end in a political settlement but will rather end on the battlefield.

Whether that is Baghdad’s plan or not, the amount of political, moral and human resources invested in the war and the momentum in the campaign against IS suggests that it is Baghdad’s only option to sustain and prevail in any long-term strategy.

Given the strategic importance of Fallujah, recapturing the city could also be more than a victory for Baghdad. It would be a complete game-changer in the Iraqi conflict that would affect not only the country’s wobbly internal political dynamics but also the fragile regional order.

Although the government and PMF leaders have been sending conciliatory messages of reassurance to the population of Fallujah, the general mood among Iraqi Shia and Sunnis is one of mutual distrust.

While most Shia believe that the majority of Arab Sunnis will remain opposed to their empowerment and will continue to provide support for the extremists, most Sunnis think that the Shia will never let them share power and wealth with them on an equal footing.

If a drastic shift in the balance of power between the two main communities in the country is not achieved, a political settlement will do little to allay each other’s concerns and end their mutual mistrust.

That is the context in which the Baghdad Shia-led government has launched its assault on Fallujah, which is the insurgency’s last major bastion close to Baghdad and a jumping-off point for IS attacks on the capital.

In many ways, the taking of Fallujah will underscore the very real political realities of Iraq that the Shia and their allies in Iran want to see materialise after the defeat of IS.

It will pull the Sunni-populated city back into the sphere of Baghdad through the cooperative relationship of a portion of the population and Sunni politicians who have been working closely with the Shia-led government.

It will also be a strategic advantage that will put the government and the Iran-backed Shia-led PMF in control of Anbar Province, which sits astride the Iraqi border with Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Syria.

Having the whole of Anbar Province in hand will not only protect western approaches to Baghdad, but will also establish “strategic depth” for the Iranian-backed regime of Syrian president Bashar Al-Assad.

It will also reopen the vast desert border areas to Saudi Arabia and Jordan, two Sunni-dominated neighbouring countries that have never hidden their anxiety at the rising power of the Shia and Iranian clout in Iraq.

For many Shia political and militia leaders, there is now a momentum which cannot be reversed. They are already speaking of the huge sacrifices and the blood that have been invested in the fight against IS which they hope will make post-Fallujah Iraq different from the country it was before and be paid back fully in victory.

That will probably inflict a heavy blow on IS,  which the international community is eager to see, but whether it will also be the Iraqi Shia’s road to a final and lasting victory receiving regional consent remains in doubt.

This article first appeared in Al Ahram Weekly on June 9, 2016

Iraq-Sistani

What is behind Sistani’s silence?

Leave a comment

What is behind Sistani’s silence?

Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani has always been a leader of few words, but his current decision to be silent carries a message for Iraq’s Shias, writes Salah Nasrawi

Iraq’s top Shia cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani, has always been considered the main force behind the Iraqi Shias’ rise to power following the collapse of the Sunni-dominated regime of former president Saddam Hussein in the US-led invasion in 2003.

It was Al-Sistani’s insistence on direct elections for an Iraqi legislature in 2005 that undercut the US occupation authority’s attempts to delay the elections and led to Iraq’s first legitimately elected Shia-controlled government.

The empowerment of Iraq’s majority Shias, however, has been met with mounting resistance by the country’s minority Sunnis, who had ruled over Iraq since it became an independent state after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in 1918.

Over more than ten years, the Iranian-born cleric has remained a powerful force for millions of dedicated Iraqi Shias. His picture hangs on walls, shops, police checkpoints, and cars throughout Iraq, a constant reminder that he is Iraq’s most influential religious leader.

Yet the octogenarian Al-Sistani has stayed out of the limelight and shied away from interfering in government affairs. Al-Sistani’s political messages have largely been written and disseminated by aides during Friday prayers.

In this regard, Al-Sistani’s role has remained crucial in arbitrating Iraq’s future. But despite being a Shia spiritual leader, Al-Sistani has also thus far been a moderating power in Iraqi politics. He has blamed the sectarian violence in the country on foreign forces and urged reconciliation between Iraq’s communities.

After Sunni militants bombed one of Shia’s most holy sites in Samarra in 2006 in an act that precipitated the country’s civil war, Al-Sistani swiftly urged Iraq’s Shias to refrain from responding in kind to attacks from Sunni extremists.

As the highest-ranking Shia cleric in Iraq, Al-Sistani has remained the “legitimate defender of the sect,” which leaves him in the position of being a wildcard in Iraq’s politics.

In the summer of 2014, Al-Sistani issued a decree to “all able-bodied Iraqis” to defend the country, days after the Islamic State (IS) terror group had captured the city of Mosul and advanced south towards Baghdad.

Across Iraq, young men from Shia communities began to mobilise in response to his call, galvanising a remarkable movement from within Iraq’s Shia population. Critics, however, say that his fatwa, or religious edict, may have exacerbated the sectarian tensions that have plagued the country since the 2003 US-led invasion.

But Al-Sistani has not always thought that all was going well in Iraq. When it turned out that the Shia-led government did not work well after all and that the country was becoming dysfunctional, Al-Sistani did not hesitate to show his dismay and anger.

Last week, Al-Sistani decided to stop delivering regular weekly sermons about political affairs that for years have been a source of guidance for his followers. Al-Sistani’s aide, Ahmed Al-Safi, who delivered the message, did not give a reason for suspending the sermons, which have lately focussed on the government’s battle against IS militants and anti-corruption efforts.

“It has been decided not to continue them on a weekly basis at the present time, but only as demanded by events,” Al-Safi said in a televised speech from the southern shrine city of Kerbela. He said Al-Sistani’s opinions “will be publicised whenever there are new developments and if it is necessitated.”

In recent months, Al-Sistani has been showing increasing signs of frustration with the Shia political class over rampant corruption in the country and the government’s incompetence. He has blamed the government for depriving Iraqis of basic services while undermining government forces in the battle against IS insurgents.

After a wave of protests swept across Iraq last summer, Al-Sistani demanded that Prime Minister Haider Al-Abadi become serious about tackling corruption and urged the parliament to support the reform measures.

Al-Sistani even pushed Al-Abadi into “striking with an iron fist” against corruption and scrap sectarian and party quotas for state positions and reopen graft investigations. He also called on the Iraqi parliament to focus its anti-corruption campaign on improving the judiciary and security forces. He called judicial and police reform “one of the most important aspects of the reform process”.

 In an unprecedented warning to the government, Al-Sistani said last month that the country was facing dire consequences, including possible partition. Al-Sistani has also showed his dissatisfaction with malpractices and abuses by the country’s Shia militias.

When some 26 Qatari hunters were abducted by what were believed to be Shia militias from their camp in the desert near the Saudi border in December, Al-Sistani was quick to denounce the kidnappings and call for the release of the group.

Last month, Al-Sistani condemned the bombings of Sunni mosques in the town of Al-Muqdadiya in Diyala Province, placing full responsibility for the protection of the mosques and the prevention of further attacks on the government security forces.

He reminded his followers of his fatwas to the effect that volunteers should refrain from indulging “in acts of extremism” and “be attentive to the sanctity of the lives of those who do not fight”.

Al-Sistani also warned his followers against condemning “others for heresy” or accusing them of “blasphemy, which could lead to their deaths.” He also warned against committing abuses such as “stealing,” “disrespect for the corpses of the enemy” and violating “the sanctity of their women and houses”.

So, what lies behind Al-Sistani’s new decision to be silent?

Historically, a Shia marja, or “religious reference,” the highest level of religious authority in Shia Islam, has resorted to silence or seclusion as a means of expressing his disenchantment or to protest against both the government and the public.

In certain circumstances, silence has a power that no other action has, and it can be used by a moral authority to address certain issues, provoke responses, and get the people to think and to act. In this tradition, it is as if the congregation, or even the entire nation, is duty bound to guess the spiritual leader’s thoughts and to heed his instructions.

In Al-Sistani’s case, however, the cleric seems to be using the power of silence to distance himself from the Baghdad government’s failure to deliver on its promises to carry out badly needed reforms.

In recent weeks, the reclusive religious leader has been under fire by many Iraqis who blame his vigorous support for the government for the dismal performance of the Shia political class and their government’s dysfunction.

These Iraqis believe that by not being vocal about the government’s shortcomings, Al-Sistani has provided cover for unscrupulous Shia politicians and for their poor leadership in resolving the country’s conflicts.

For the time being, Al-Sistani’s silence may serve as a stern warning to the same Shia politicians whom he had earlier helped with vigour and religious zeal to bring to power.

It might also create a new awareness within the broader Iraqi Shia community about the dangers they face due to the folly of their rulers and the dire need to bring in a new leadership.

With the situation in Iraq reaching a tipping point that threatens the country’s future, it is not sure that Al-Sistani will remain silent for long.

Al-Sistani has promised that he will make public pronouncements on his political views whenever he deems it necessary. If the country’s Shia politicians fail to interpret the message behind Al-Sistani’s tactical silence, it may well not be too long before the Shia leader goes public and begins to name names.

Egypt-Heikal.Obit, ما بعد التجربة

Heikal, Egypt’s most famous journalist, dies at 92

Leave a comment

Heikal, Egypt’s most famous journalist, dies at 92

Muhammad Hassanein Heikal was well-recognised for his distinguished career in journalism and political experience.

Salah Nasrawi

Muhammad Hassanein Heikal, a leading Egyptian journalist, author, television celebrity, politician and a noted authority on modern Middle East whose work brought him worldwide fame and influence, died on Wednesday, aged 92.

Egyptian state television said Heikal, a heavy cigar smoker, died following a short period of illness.

As Egypt’s, and probably the Arab world’s, oldest active and most celebrated intellectual, Heikal was perceived by critics and admirers as a towering figure who had continued to attract attention until his death.

Above all, Heikal was one of the most trenchant defenders of Nasserite Egypt and its pan-Arabism trends.

Heikal was born on September 23, 1923, to the family of a wheat merchant in the Nile Delta province of Qalyubia. His father thought that Heikal, as the eldest son in the family, should join him in managing his business. Instead, Heikal decided to pursue his education.

Educated briefly at the American University in Cairo, Heikal became a crime reporter for the Egyptian Gazette in 1943. The paper which catered to the needs of expatriates living in Egypt had among its writers famous British authors such as George Orwell and Lawrence Durrell.

The following year, Heikal joined the staff of Rose El-Youssef, an opposition political satirical weekly.
Heikal first won public attention as a war reporter covering the first Arab-Israeli war in 1948 and then briefly the Korean war of 1950-1953.h the military coup in 1952 which brought Gamal Abdul Nasser on the helm of army officers who ruled the country after overthrowing the British-backed King Farouk.

As Nasser’s friend since they first met during the war with Israel, Heikal became a staunch supporter of the coup and helped in drafting Nasser’s manifesto, The Philosophy of the Revolution, which outlined his outlook for post-monarchy Egypt.

Heikal’s place in journalism was quickly recognised in 1953 when he was hired to serve as editor of Akhir Sa’a, an illustrated Arabic-language weekly published by Akhbar Al-Youm House.

In 1956 and 1957, Heikal served as editor of Al-Akhbar daily, a sister publication owned by media tycoons Mustafa Amin and his twin brother Ali, who are widely considered to be the fathers of Western-style modern Egyptian journalism.

A year after Nasser became president of Egypt in 1956 he installed Heikal as editor-in-chief of Al Ahram, the semi-official newspaper, and in 1959 made him chairman of the board of Al Ahram Establishment. During his tenure, Heikal improved Al Ahram’s coverage by subduing the sensationalism that had characterised Egypt’s media and taking it to the level of Egypt’s and the Arab world’s most prestigious paper.

Under his leadership the paper provided a platform for Nasser’s nationalist and pan-Arab policies. Heikal’s widely read Friday column in Al Ahram, “Bi-Saraha” [or “Frankly Speaking”], in which he used to convey Nasser’s messages and explain the government’s stances, became the barometer of Egyptian policy.

The column prompted the Washington Post to describe Heikal’s writings as “the voice of Egypt” and “the outside world’s window on that secretive regime”.

One of Heikal’s outstanding acts was to establish Al Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies as a think-tank that provided Nasser and the government with updates and feedback on regional and international affairs.

As happens with the intelligentsia under totalitarian or populist regimes, Heikal had probably failed to draw a clear demarcation between his role as a journalist and as an outspoken advocate of Nasserism.

In 1968, he became a member of the Central Committee of the Arab Socialist Union, Nasser’s ruling party. In 1970, Heikal became minister of National Guidance and briefly an acting foreign minister.

Heikal had a rocky relationship with President Anwar Sadat, Nasser’s successor. After Nasser’s death in 1970, Heikal remained editor of Al Ahram and adviser to the new president. He even helped Sadat to get rid of Nasser’s remnants in the government whom Sadat accused of conspiring to remove him from power.

Later Heikal fell out with Sadat over his domestic and international policies, prompting Sadat to relieve him of his duties in 1974. The disagreement culminated in Heikal’s opposition to the 1979 peace treaty Sadat signed with Israel.

At one point, Sadat accused Heikal of opportunism and betraying the national interests. A smearing campaign in the government-run media also denounced Heikal as a tool of the Soviet Union and linked him with unsubstantiated scandals.

In 1981, Sadat ordered Heikal to be jailed, together with hundreds of political leaders, writers and intellectuals who were opposed to his peace overture with Israel and his alliance with the United States.

Heikal was released a month later by former President Mubarak, shortly after he took office following Sadat’s assassination in October 1981. Mubarak, however, did not bring Heikal to his entourage or let him return to Al Ahram, and he was shunned away from writing in the Egyptian press.

Because of his prominence and his passion for journalism and writing, Heikal spent the following years freelancing for papers abroad. During this period he also wrote some of his most famous books, including Autumn of Fury, about the assassination of Sadat in which he condemned not only the former president’s policies but also his personal life through negative and even racist themes.

In the 1990s, Heikal resumed writing in Egypt. His pieces started appearing in Wijhat Nadhar, a monthly magazine that features essays and book reviews and is modelled on the London Review of Books. Some of his writings were controversial and even sessional.

On his 80th birthday in September 2003, Heikal said he would retire. In an article entitled “An Excuse for Departure” which appeared in Al Ahram, Heikal explained that he felt he had reached his “expiry date”. It was too good to be true.

In 2007 Heikal began hosting a series of weekly programmes on regional and world events on Al Jazeera Arabic Channel. Among the topics he discussed in the “Ma’a Heikal” [or “With Heikal”] show were US-Middle East policies, the Arab-Israeli conflict and Arab divisions. As it was expected, Egypt under Nasser came up in several programmes.

The Thursday night peak-hour show furnished Heikal with a greater platform, turning him into a household celebrity across the Arab world, and made him climb the media ladder to even greater heights.

In the second episode, Heikal told his audience that Al Jazeera gave him “a real opportunity to talk to people without censorship on a wide range of issues”.

In recent years, Heikal was a regular host on Egyptian privately owned television networks. His discussions were mostly pegged to the 2011 Arab Spring and the turmoil it had triggered in Egypt and the rest of the Arab world.

Even though some of the TV shows were conducted in a Q&A style, Heikal remained faithful to his old style, delivering a monologue on the themes of his choice.

Heikal had admirers as much as he had critics and enemies.To many of his disciples, El-Ustaz [or the Master] Heikal was an inspiration whether for his distinguished career in journalism, his intellect, his political experience or his prominence that earned him international recognition and friendship of powerful and influential people all over the world.

He had fans among Westerners, too. “His mind like a razor, that of a veteran fighter, writer, sage, perhaps the most important living witness and historian of modern Egypt,” wrote Robert Fisk, the veteran Middle East reporter for the British newspaper The Independent, in February 2011.

Detractors, however, accuse Heikal of being guilty of treason by being apologetic to Nasser and his long-time propagandist.

That was especially noticeable following the Arab-Israeli war in 1967 when he coined the word Naksa, an Arabic word for setback, as a euphemism for the Egyptian and Arab armies’ bitter defeat by Israel.

For many Arabs, the conflict not only resulted in their losing the West Bank and Syria’s Golan Heights to Israel, but it was also behind all political tragedies that have occurred subsequently in the Arab world.

Critics also noted that Heikal had never revised his views on Nasserism, even though it had become clear that it had its great share in many of Egypt’s political, economic and social woes.

Among harsh criticisms levelled against Heikal is making things up. Critics often claimed he was using quotations attributed to dead politicians which they believed were fabricated to support an argument or serve a political agenda.

Referring to Heikal’s allegedly unchecked facts, Canada-based Iraqi historian Sayyar Al-Jamil, who wrote two books on Heikal; Decomposing Heikal and The Remnants of Heikal, believes that the journalist’s works are mostly “whimsical fabrications or self-serving twisted facts”.

“I do not trust the man’s tales, neither his way of documentation. His writings are aimed at a specific timely political goal or self-serving or to satisfy his admirers in accordance with prevailing circumstances. He has the ability to hide the truth or to kill it,” he wrote in The Remnants of Heikal.

But Sherif Younis, a history professor at Cairo’s Helwan University whose theses tackled Heikal’s works, says the Egyptian author was a source to be reckoned with. “He might not be a historian, per se, but he was there witnessing where history was made,” he told Al Jazeera.

Heikal’s literary production, which spanned more than six decades, covered a variety of political issues. His books on Nasser are The Cairo Documents: The Inside Story of Nasser and His Relationship with World Leaders, Rebels, and Statesmen (1973) and Cutting the Lion’s Tale: Suez Through Egyptian Eyes (1987). In addition to Autumn of Fury, his books about Sadat’s era include The Road to Ramadan (1975) and October War (1980).

His Secret Channels: The Inside Story of Arab-Israeli Peace Negotiations (1996) was considered among the few books that examined the history of covert negotiations between Israeli and Arab representatives which culminated with the Oslo Agreement in September 1993.

Heikal’s books on Iran: Iran on a Volcano (1951), The Return of the Ayatollah: The Iranian Revolution from Mossadeq to Khomeini (1981) and Iran: The Untold Story (1982) made him one of the best Arab experts on Iran.

In his Illusions of Triumph: An Arab View of The Gulf War (1993), Heikal argued that Saddam Hussein’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait was less a challenge to the West and Israel than an attempt by the Iraqi leader to assert his leadership of the Arab world after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Heikal’s last book was Mubarak and his Time (2012), which extended his criticism of Mubarak, whom he portrayed as inept and corrupt.

With his death, Heikal leaves a legacy that will most likely be open for debate not only in Egypt but throughout the Arab world where he left disciples and enemies.

Heikal was quite aware of his role in modern Egypt’s politics and history. “I lived to see and I told what I had lived,” he once wrote.‏

Heikal is survived by his wife Hedayet Olwi and three sons: Ali, Ahmed and Hassan.

ما بعد التجربة

The battle for the future of Iraq’s Sunnis

Leave a comment

The battle for the future of Iraq’s Sunnis

As Ramadi is declared recaptured from the Islamic State group and the battle for Mosul looms, the future of the Sunni areas in Iraq remains uncertain, writes Salah Nasrawi

In a surprise move, the United States has announced that it will deploy a new force of special operations troops to Iraq to combat the Islamic State (IS) terror group which has seized swathes of the country and neighbouring Syria.

US Secretary of Defense Ash Carter wrote in the US publication Politico last week that soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division would soon deploy to Iraq to join the fight against IS “with a clear campaign plan to deliver the barbaric organisation a lasting defeat.”

Though Carter did not give details about the deployment, he said the troop mission was to destroy the IS “parent tumour in Iraq and Syria by collapsing its two power centres in Mosul, Iraq and Raqqa, Syria.”

“Our campaign is to deliver IS a lasting defeat,” Carter wrote.

US Secretary of State John Kerry said “the government of Iraq was of course briefed in advance of secretary Carter’s announcement” and the two sides would work out details about the new deployment.

Joseph F Dunford Jr, the US top military officer, also said discussions between Washington and Baghdad had begun on how American forces would “integrate” with Iraqi military units to take back Mosul.

The move is a sharp departure from US President Barack Obama’s previous strategy that the US would not deploy “boots on the ground” in Iraq and Syria and would continue instead its current air campaign and military assistance to the Iraqi government.

Baghdad has not yet made it clear if it had agreed to let the US troops into Iraq. Iraqi Prime Minister Haider Al-Abadi has repeatedly said foreign ground combat troops are not needed in Iraq. Leaders of the country’s Shia groups have warned that they will consider such a presence a violation of Iraq’s sovereignty.

If the statements by top American officials are any indication, the United States is now gearing up for war with IS, including in the battle for Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city which was captured by the terror group in spring 2014.

Analysts believe that the US-led coalition against IS needs to take back Mosul, a sprawling city of more than two million people, and the US military shift signals Washington’s readiness to engage IS strongholds with ground combat operations.

According to US reports, one key element in the expected revamped US campaign is the severing of IS supply lines between Mosul and Raqqa in Syria.

The US has reportedly established a covert military base in Qamishli in Kurdish-controlled north-eastern Syria, allegedly to step up operations with Kurdish militants in the region. The installation lies within a few miles of Iraq.

Since November, when Kurdish fighters backed by US fire power and advisers retook Sinjar, a key strategic town between the two IS strongholds, Sinjar and the adjacent border area have been under the control of Kurdish fighters from Iraq, Syria and the Turkish Kurdish Workers Party (PKK).

Another key element of the new strategy is the deployment of US Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) teams, which have been inserted on the ground in both Iraq and Syria.

On 8 January, Iraq’s parliamentary speaker, Saleem Al-Jabouri, disclosed that US special forces, believed to be JSOC teams, had been carrying out raids on IS strongholds in northern Iraq ahead of an offensive planned later this year to retake Mosul.

In addition, the US teams have reportedly made contact with Sunni Arab tribal leaders in the area in preparation for a future assault on Mosul.

While some details of the US plan remain vague, it is clear that Washington has positioned itself to expand its military involvement in Iraq. Moreover, Washington seems to be readying itself to participate in the reshaping of Iraq in the post-IS era.

Last month, Iraqi security forces drove IS militants out of the city of Ramadi, dealing a major blow to the militant group in Iraq. With the liberation of Mosul, the bigger question of the future of the Sunni-dominated towns and cities within Iraq will be opened.

In order to defeat IS, Iraq needs to tackle a complex web of security, social and economic challenges. But victory over IS will depend on whether Iraq’s fractious communities can agree on a new inclusive order.

Given its central role, the Shia-led government needs to ensure a working system that guarantees inclusion within a just state that will deal with all Iraqis as equal citizens.

The government must realise that the only way to accommodate Sunnis is to create a strong Iraq that will serve as a beacon of good governance and economic success.

But also it largely depends on the Arab Sunnis themselves and what system they would like to see in post-IS Iraq. The recapture of Mosul is likely to be the biggest test of the Sunni leadership and unity thus far.

While most Iraqi Sunnis are hopeful that a more inclusive system will emerge after the defeat of IS, divisions within the community have highlighted the challenges ahead.

Several meetings inside Iraq and abroad in recent weeks have failed to resolve disputes over community leadership and representation. Sunni groups in the government seem to prefer a compromise that will improve their status and achieve partnership.

Sunni tribes that have joined the government fight against IS and are vying for power in running their provincial affairs and in the national government prefer closer ties with the Baghdad government.

Still, many Sunni leaders have been contemplating a Sunni federal region within Iraq similar to that already enjoyed by the Kurds. Though the call for Sunni Arab autonomy has been circulating for a while, the idea has been gaining strength in recent months.

Other Sunni leaders have been suggesting that a Sunni autonomous region be created after the liberation of the Sunni-dominated provinces from IS.

In an interview with the Kurdish news outlet Rudaw last week, Osama Nujaifi, head of the largest Sunni faction in the parliament and former vice-president, suggested that semi-independent regions be formed by Iraq’s provinces in order to solve the country’s sectarian and ethnic divisions.

Sunni leaders in exile have been touring world and regional capitals, including Washington, and lobbying governments for diplomatic channels that will bypass the central government in Baghdad.

On Monday, the main Sunni bloc, the Alliance of the Iraqi Forces said it had appealed to the United Nations for international protection of Sunnis in Diyala after rise of sectarian tension in the province.

All these moves come as suggestions for the creation of an “independent Sunni state” as the solution to the current crisis in Iraq and have been taking on momentum for months.

American politicians, academics and analysts have been drumming up support for a proposal for an independent Sunni state that would link Sunni-dominated territories in Iraq and Syria on both sides of the border.

Their argument for a Sunni state is based on the assumption that the Sykes–Picot Agreement drawing up the borders of the Middle East by France and Britain a century ago is the main culprit in the Iraqi and Syrian conflicts and that the countries cannot be put back together again after so much blood has been spilled.

The alternative, they believe, is that Iraq and Syria be Balkanised into autonomous regions

Last week, the president of Iraq’s autonomous Kurdish Region, Masoud Barzani, who has been advocating an independent Kurdistan from Iraq for years, acknowledged that his plan for secession relied largely on the idea that the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement no longer made sense.

Last week, Barzani called on global leaders to acknowledge that the Sykes-Picot Agreement had failed, and urged them to broker a new deal paving the way for a Kurdish state.

Barzani told the British Guardian newspaper that the international community had started to accept that Iraq and Syria in particular would never again be unified and that “compulsory co-existence” in the region had been proven wrong.

In the 18 months since IS captured vast amounts of territory in Iraq, Barzani’s administration has grabbed tens of thousands of square km of land which has drastically changed the map of northern Iraq.

The emergence of a mini Kurdish state in northern Iraq is another way of inciting Sunnis to break away from Iraq. There is no way that an Arab Sunni minority will stay in a lesser Iraq ruled by a Shia majority allied to Iran.

This article first appeared in Al Ahram Weekly on January 28, 2016

ما بعد التجربة

A turning point for Iran

Leave a comment

A turning point for Iran

The lifting of the international sanctions against it is a huge breakthrough for Iran, even though it remains a challenge for its edgy Arab neighbours, writes Salah Nasrawi

For Iran, the beginning of the implementation of its landmark nuclear deal with the West this week was a moment to celebrate. It was another diplomatic triumph that will end the Islamic Republic’s isolation and reopen the doors to the international economy.
“Today is a historic and exceptional day in the political and economic history of the Iranian nation,” declared President Hassan Rouhani in a press conference following the announcement of the lifting of the Western economic sanctions on Iran.
The lifting of the crippling sanctions came after certification by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on Saturday that Iran has successfully completed all the nuclear-related steps to which it had agreed with the 5+1 powers in July.
The 12 years of sanctions have had devastating effects on Iran where millions of Iranians have been left living with a shortage of medical services, basic goods and services. The punitive measures also imposed a state of diplomatic isolation on Iran that weakened its international standing.
The embargo compromised the Iranian economy, and the country suffered from the devaluation of its local currency, the rial, double-digit inflation and an unemployment rate of nearly 11 per cent.
The lifting of the sanctions, however, means the government and people of Iran will now start to feel the enormous benefits of the agreement, which will make this regional power rebound from its misfortune.
The removal of the oil- and gas-related US and EU sanctions means that Iran can now resume its sale of oil and gas worldwide, having been restricted to selling it to a handful of countries, including China and India.
Even with plummeting oil prices, Iran plans to ramp up daily exports by some 500,000 barrels per day from one million barrels currently. It plans further increases in the months ahead.
The cancellation of the embargo also means foreign oil and gas companies are now free to enter Iran’s energy market, with American and European companies poised to become Iranian partners and bringing with them world-class technology.
It will allow Iranian banks to restore ties with the Western banking system and to open new business opportunities in the country to multinational corporations.
More than $30 billion (Iran says $100 billion) in assets overseas will become immediately available to Iran. While the money is expected to be injected into the Iranian economy, much of the funds are expected to be used as foreign currency reserves to protect the value of the rial.
The lifting of the sanctions will also allow Iranians to resume foreign trade and travel, and the transfer of assets to a wide range of individuals and companies. Politically, the lifting of the sanctions on Iran is expected to have a far-reaching implication on the country’s global politics, mostly on its regional standing.
Iran is expected to emerge politically stronger and with its regional influence increased. For precisely this reason, celebrations in the region have been muted. While most Arab nations, such as Saudi Arabia, have abstained from congratulating Iran or welcoming the deal, only Iraq and Oman have voiced positive reactions.
Iraq’s Prime Minister Haider Al-Abadi, whose Shia-led government is one of Iran’s key regional allies, described the agreement as “historic”. Oman’s Foreign Minister Yusuf bin Alawi said: “The spectre of war has disappeared.”
Right from the outset, Saudi Arabia and its allies in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) have opposed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, as the deal is known, and made every possible effort to thwart the agreement.
Saudi Arabia, an Arab Sunni powerhouse, has been concerned about Shia Iran’s growing regional influence and, from Riyadh’s perspective, a nuclear deal will leave Tehran stronger politically.
Saudi Arabia also suspects that the deal will not stop Iran creating a nuclear weapon, since the deal will only take effect for a relatively short period of time, 15 years, and will not destroy Iran’s technical capabilities to maintain a nuclear programme. The results will embolden Iran and its Shia allies in the region, according to this perspective.
Surprisingly, Iran has wasted no time in throwing down the gauntlet and defying Saudi Arabia for its opposition to the nuclear deal and the lifting of sanctions. Shortly after the announcement of the deal, Rouhani was quick to point to Iranian-Saudi political tensions and the security rivalry that has dominated the two countries’ relationship for nearly four decades.
“Saudi Arabia did not apologise for the pilgrims killed in the human tragedy in Mina,” said Rouhani, referring to the deaths of hundreds of Iranian pilgrims in a stampede near Mecca in September. He also said Saudi Arabia should pay reparations to the Iranian victims.
Rouhani blasted the oil-rich kingdom for “its behaviour towards the people in the region,” which he described as “not proper”. Rouhani specifically mentioned the Saudi-led campaign against the Shia rebel Houthis in Yemen, which he labelled as “the carnage of a Muslim nation”.
Rouhani bitterly criticised the Saudi government for the recent execution of the Shia religious leader Sheikh Nimr Al-Nimr, a vocal critic of the Saudi government. Riyadh cut diplomatic relations with Tehran following Iran’s protests against the execution of Al-Nimr.
On the other hand, Iran has also been raising the blood pressure of observers for some time in many Arab countries over its actions in several regional hot spots.
Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies have serious questions about Iranian intentions in flashpoints such as Iraq, Syria and Yemen. There is little doubt that the rise in Iranian regional standing as a result of the new deal will raise tensions between Iran and the Saudi-led alliance further.
Saudi Arabia seems intent on trimming Iran’s regional influence by seeking to build a broader Sunni Muslim alliance to confront Shia Iran and its regional allies. Riyadh hopes that heavyweights, such as Egypt, Pakistan and Turkey, will join the 34-country Islamic coalition it said it is creating to battle terrorism but is widely seen as an anti-Iran alliance.
From Riyadh’s perspective, the three powerful Sunni-ruled nations, whose armies are among the largest in the world, could provide the much-needed critical mass to confront Iran.
Such support has been hard to win, however, as Cairo, Islamabad and Ankara have shown no great interest in actively joining such an alliance. Indeed, both Pakistan and Turkey, which have long borders with Iran, have offered mediation between Riyadh and Tehran, sidestepping the burden of having to pick sides.
Inevitably, the prospect of rivalry between the two regional powers is expected to be on an upward trajectory in the post-nuclear deal era.
With several sources of short- and longer-term tension in different arenas already evident, the two countries seem to be heading towards further split. Unfortunately, the key element of this confrontation is the widening Shia-Sunni split engaging the two regional powerhouses and their proxies.
This standoff is perhaps most glaringly apparent in Iraq, Syria and Yemen, which are expected to bear most of the adverse consequences of the competition for regional influence by Iran and its adversaries.