Previous report here 

8th April 2003

A question many Middle Eastern experts are now asking - Will the West find that it has actually shot itself in the foot by removing a secular, anti-Iranian regime in Baghdad only to see the newly established democratic process eventually replace it with an infinitely more dangerous Islamic pro-Iranian Government?

~

Can the US victors afford to allow real democracy in Iraq?

~

The Shia majority in Iraq may indeed welcome the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime by US and British forces, but they remain ultimately Iraqi nationalists and committed Muslims. They also belong to a religious grouping notably hostile to Western interests in the Middle East and there is a significant risk that with the double-edged benefit of a democratic election the majority will vote for Iraq to become a full-bloodied fundamentalist state and opt for the introduction of Sharia law, the renewed subjugation of Women and a close alliance with Iran.

~

The Tehran regime does of course have a highly developed weapons of mass destruction program and indeed sophisticated long range missile systems being developed with the help of Communist North Korea. It is deeply involved in Nuclear research and has probably benefited to some considerable extent from Pakistan's successful development of the atomic bomb. Worse still from Washington's point of view is Iran's long term involvement in international terrorism and its well known support from Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon. Tehran's intelligence service was almost certainly ultimately responsible for the terrorist outrage of Flight-103 over Lockerbie in 1988 and indeed has played a significant role in extricating to safety the majority of Al Qa'ida's senior leadership from Afghanistan.

~

Iran has much to gain from ensuring that any post-Saddam US administration or Iraqi interim Government has a distinctly hard time unless the Shia majority plays a significant role and one which sets the ground for an Iranian backed majority take-over at the first opportunity. Washington is deeply suspicious that if the United Nations were to be allowed to play a major role in post war Iraq that France, Germany and Russia may deliberately undermine America's military victory by quietly supporting Tehran's plans. All three nations have major commitments in both Iraq and Iran and may see this as a way of protecting their huge economic, military and political investments in the region.

~

Will Washington impose a regime of its own choice?

~

Washington's response may be to attempt to manipulate post-war Iraq in such a way as to largely negate both the influence of the Shia majority and the democratic process. This may involve the imposition of a regime lead by such widely discredited figures as the former Iraqi army chief Nizar al-Khazraji and known to have close relations with the CIA. This elderly officer has been charged with serious war crimes for alleged chemical weapon attacks on Iraqi Kurds in the 1980s and for many years was a senior military supporter of Saddam until he fled to the west in 1995. However, any future Government lead by al-Khazraji or other similar former supporters of Saddam's regime would not only quickly alienate the Kurds and Shia's, but would also have very little chance of gaining any genuine international recognition.

~

Few of the other opposition political leaders either in Iraq or presently in exile have the necessary credentials or the widespread popular support to prevent a probable Shia landslide in a genuine free election.  Washington must now confront the nightmare of an Iraq free of Saddam's largely secular dictatorship, but now closely allied to the Islamic Republic of Iran. To prevent this America may feel that it has little alternative to once again denying a democratic leadership to a newly 'liberated' Iraqi people if only in order to protect the hard won strategic military and economic positions it has now gained in the region.

~

Richard M. Bennett

~

Richard Bennett Media.  rbmedia@supanet.com