Renewed conflict over Iraq

Iraq has been the key target of the regional post-Saddam Hussein conflict. This is not just due to its strategic location — it lies in the middle of the region’s main crossroad, flanked by Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Turkey — but also because it is a vast petroleum reservoir, just like Saudi Arabia.
After the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, Washington was most keen to extend its dominance to Iraq. The goal was accelerated by late Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, who announced just a few months before his invasion of Kuwait that the region’s post-Soviet void should be filled by a regional power. Saddam’s conclusion was right, but he was wrong in his calculation of who was able to play the role and how this could be achieved.
Consequently, he invaded Kuwait based on his uncomplicated understanding of global relations and key interests in the region. Saddam failed to realize that the world would never let Kuwait stay under his rule, since it has 10 percent of the world’s oil reserves and is a neighbor of Saudi Arabia, whose security could have been threatened. So he was defeated.
However, Saddam’s refusal to deal with the new reality, as well as the failure of the siege on Iraq, made his overthrow a key aim, regardless of any promoted justifications. The Americans carried out regime-change, but failed to manage the country and its crises.
Then came President Barack Obama’s administration, which adopted a revolutionary vision: Collaborating with the Iranian enemy in Iraq and the whole region to enhance US interests and achieve stability. Now Obama’s administration realizes that Iran has used the nuclear deal and US flexibility to expand and threaten the region’s security and American interests.
This brief review of the background is necessary to get an insight into the complicated Iraqi issue. The conflict in Syria is in fact based on the one in Iraq and attempts to dominate it. This danger has been perceived by the Gulf states and Turkey, which have tried to prevent Iranian expansion. They have so far been unable to achieve that goal, as proven by the raging war in Syria and the ongoing conflict in Iraq.
The Russians have tried to sneak into Iraq via oil and military deals, an infiltration that will not last long because the US sees Iraq as more vital to its regional interests than Syria. So Iraq will most likely be the next American arena for a political, economic and perhaps military battle. The Republican election win indicates that the US will most likely adopt a different approach to Iraq in some aspects.
The new US administration is expected to counter increasing Iranian leverage over Baghdad due to the complete withdrawal during Obama’s tenure, and to reconsider the power-sharing arrangements that are troubled by ethnic and sectarian conflict, as well as regional relations related to Iraq because of its location.
All these relations threaten American and Western interests, and pose a danger to other pursuits such as strengthening regional security, fighting terror and countering Russian ambitions to have a presence in vital global spots.
Will the expected American focus on Iraq increase tension or spark military conflicts? Perhaps, unless Iran accepts that it will not be allowed to expand and dominate Iraq and the Gulf, and unless US President-elect Donald Trump shows his determination to face Tehran.
There are key figures in Trump’s administration who believe that Iran has been the source of crises and wars in the region since the early 1980s, and that its regime is even more dangerous than North Korea’s.
The Iraqi issue will test Trump’s determination to deal seriously with Tehran without necessarily engaging in direct military inventions, because in Iraq there are several anti-Iran powers — including Shiite ones — and other factions allied to the US such as the Kurds. Iranian interventions can also be resisted by reforming the political system that the US created after the Iraq invasion, without needing to build opposing militant groups.
What about the project of division that has been increasingly publicized recently? I do not think such a project is viable or open for discussion. Iraq, despite all its crises, has not yet been drawn into the abyss of civil war.
All surrounding countries — including Iran, Turkey and the Gulf states — may have different political stances on Iraq. However, they agree on the need to maintain its territorial integrity because they realize that dismantling a big country will have dangerous consequences. Generally speaking, regional and international powers can work to reform the political system in Baghdad and reduce Iranian hegemony over it.