| The ongoing violence in Iraq clearly proves that Islam is not a monolith, bent on subjugating non-Muslims. Sectarian violence is now opportunistically used by the ousted regime elements as one means of regaining the reins of power in Iraq once again.
Unfortunately, the mainstream media in North America, and elsewhere, only add to the confusion by obscuring the real causes of the tragic violence in Iraq.
Seasoned observers attribute the real reasons for the American-British invasion of Iraq in the spring of 2003 mainly to the desire of the American administration to gain strategic control over Iraqi oil. Many analysts agree that Iraq's oil and natural gas wealth (Iraq has the second largest reserves, globally, after Saudi Arabia) has been the ultimate reason for the invasion. Although Saddam was willing to co-operate, he became a pariah after invading Kuwait in 1990. In America’s view, he could not be rehabilitated. Thus, U.S. planners decided that regime change by invasion and the installation of a client regime was the most appropriate option to secure control of Iraqi oil.
After the invasion and once no WMD's were found, the Americans declared that the establishment of democracy in Iraq was their real goal for invading the country. Such a government was possible, U.S. planners thought, only if it was drawn from Saddam's supporters who hailed from the Sunni Arab minority that ruled modern Iraq. Because of this strategy, the country’s Sunni Arabs were enthusiastic in supporting the U.S. plan to topple Saddam Hussein's regime. This is why the U.S. has not wanted to alienate the elite of the Sunni Arab minority in Iraq and has kept contacts with its leaders even after a Sunni-based insurgency erupted in the "Sunni triangle" in collaboration with al-Qaida.
However, the religious leadership of the Shiite majority seized on the declared U.S. goal of establishing democracy to demand that a true democratic election be held under the auspices of the U.N. The U.S. vacillated at first, but under tremendous pressure from the majority of Iraqis, it relented and appeared to accept the results of a free vote. Alarmed by these developments, the undemocratic neighbouring Sunni Arab regimes, especially in Saudi Arabia and Jordan, began to agitate against the empowerment of the majority Shiites in Iraq.
The Shiite candidates, as expected, gained a majority of the elected parliamentary seats. However, the U.S. insisted that members of the Sunni Block be included to form a "national unity" government. The problem was that most of these elite Sunni elements were actually in league with the Saddam Baathists who have openly embraced the al-Qaida Wahhabi terrorists ostensibly to fight the occupation forces. For the most part, however, they have joined forces to intimidate and terrorize the majority Shiite population.
Since they want to monopolize government in Iraq, the elite of the minority Iraqi Sunnis were openly supported financially by the Arab media and diplomatically by the despotic Sunni Arab regimes as they found a common enemy in the Iraqi Shiites. This attitude seemed to complement the strategy of the U.S. and its Western allies who suspect that the Shiites of Iraq are under the influence of the "rogue" Shiite government of Iran.
Political observers conclude that the Americans cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, they declare that they support the Shiite-led elected Iraqi government and at the same time, they embrace what they call "moderate" Arab regimes like those in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt. The incongruity stems from the fact that more than 60 per cent of suicide bombers in Iraq come from Saudi Arabia.
Many western scholars and Arab observers confirm that Saudi Arabia and the rest of the "moderate" Arab regimes cannot act in any way that America deems harmful to its strategic interests. They conclude that the actions of Saudi Arabia and other regimes seem to be condoned by U.S. policy makers. One such indicator is that Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Arab regimes have never been seen as a destabilizing factor in the Iraqi situation. Only Iran and Syria are cited as the culprits in Iraq’s destabilization. Although Baathist Syria supports the remnants of the Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein, it only acts as a transit point for suicide bombers from Saudi Arabia and other "moderate" Sunni Arab regimes. Iran is always accused of supporting Shiite militias.
These same observers note that the British occupation forces in Southern Iraq always declared that there has been no substantial evidence to prove Iran' s meddling. In fact, Iran is happy that a government led by its co-religionists has replaced the hostile Saddam regime, and it consistently declares its support for that government. However, Iran can further help stabilize Iraq by pressuring the Baathist regime in Syria, with which it has good relations, to stop the flow of Wahhabi suicide bombers and Baathist operatives from crossing the porous Iraq-Syria border.
Iraqis and serious observers say that the U.S. can effectively stem the carnage in Iraq and preserve the life of its soldiers only when the remnants of the deposed regime despair of ever being able to form a new dictatorship. This can only be achieved when the U.S. effectively arms the nascent Iraqi armed forces, severs all contacts with insurgents and pressures Saudi Arabia and the rest of the oil-rich Gulf states to stop all financial and propaganda support to insurgents. Above all, the flow of suicide bombers must be stopped. They ultimately help the enemies of stability and democratic change in Iraq.
Munaf Yassiri, a professional engineer, was born in Iraq and resides in Calgary. He is the author of several English and Arabic books including his latest, What is Happening in Iraq. |
Copyright ©2007 FFWD. All rights reserved.