Electoral Advantage In America Vs Peace In Iraq

George Bush let the U.S. electoral agenda, rather than American - not to mention Iraqi - national interests, dictate Iraq policy. Obama is following suit. For example, seven months after Iraq’s national elections, the United States has publicly denied taking sides in the wrangling over who will be prime minister. Privately, however, the U.S. is backing the incumbent, Nouri al-Maliki.The U.S. has applied tremendous diplomatic pressure on Iraq’s Arab neighbors to get them to accept another Maliki term. Most have refused. Initially, the U.S., backed Maliki in order to keep the Sadrist bloc from gaining a share of power. However, that has now backfired, since the Sadrists are the only group other than Maliki’s coalition of Shia parties that supports him. One consequence of U.S. diplomacy is that it has reinforced Iran’s role in Iraq, because Maliki is Iran’s preferred candidate for prime minister. Thus, at the precise moment that the U.S. is leading a global campaign to isolate Iran over its nuclear program, it is strengthening Iran’s regional position.

The impact of this American blunder has already been felt, emboldening Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on his provocative visit to Lebanon, which included a public appearance on Hezbollah-controlled territory near Israel’s northern border. The Gulf states, especially Saudi Arabia, have always resisted U.S. pressure to endorse Maliki. They cannot forget that Maliki was in charge during the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad’s Sunni Muslims. They regard Iran - and thus Maliki’s closeness to it - as a potent threat. Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, in particular, perceive Iran as inciting unrest among their own substantial Shia populations.

It shouldn't be forgotten (there are many examples on this site over the years) that Maliki has created security forces - some of which have reportedly acted as death squads -- that answer directly to him, thus bypassing the constitutional chain of command. He has also replaced career army and security officers with fanatics and cronies.

There is only one way to explain the U.S. administration’s decision to exert such diplomatic pressure in favor of Iran’s favorite in Iraq: Obama’s pledge during his presidential election campaign to disengage from Iraq during his first term. In this, Obama is following the example of Bush. The Bush administration insisted that Iraq achieve various “milestones” - elections for which the country was not ready and completing a constitution in six weeks, to name two - simply to create the appearance of substantive achievements ahead of the 2004 presidential election or the 2006 midterm elections.
Similarly, the Obama administration is trying to force what it perceives as the easiest path to a new government in Iraq - even if it is pro-Iranian - not because it is in the U.S. national interest or indeed the world's, but to enable it to head for the exits more quickly in advance of the president’s re-election campaign.

The administration’s policy in Iraq is now strengthening Iran regionally at the expense of America’s Arab allies, undermining America’s own efforts to pretend to pursue Middle East peace, and weakening any chance of a real democracy. It is difficult to imagine a worse set of outcomes for everybody except Iran. Thanks again, Dubya and Obamya.