Just Politics: Iran, Like the Rest, Is Not
Blameless
By Ramzy Baroud
June 18, 2015 "Information
Clearing House" - "PalestineChronicle"
- When the United States government declared
its war on Afghanistan in October 2001, thus taking the first step
in its so-called ‘war on terror’, following the devastating attacks
of September 11 earlier that year, Iran jumped on board.
Then Iranian President Mohammed Khatami, dubbed a
reformist, provided substantial assistance in the US effort aimed at
defeating the Taliban, an ardent enemy of Iran and Afghan Shia.
Indeed, the Taliban’s aggressive policies included an anti-Shia
drive, which resulted in a massive refugee problem. Tens of
thousands of Afghan Shia sought refuge in Iran.
Khatami’s ‘friendly’ gesture towards the
anti-terror crusade lead by George W. Bush was not by any means an
Iranian departure from a supposed policy of non-intervention in the
region. Iran is a country with porous borders, political and
strategic interests, serious and legitimate fears, but also
unquestionable ambitions.
Iran’s intervention in Afghanistan never ceased
since then, and is likely to continue, especially following the US
withdrawal, whenever it takes place. Iran’s earlier role in
Afghanistan ranged from the arrest of al-Qaeda suspects, sought by
Washington, to training Afghan soldiers, to direct intervention in
the country’s politics so as to ensure that the country’s politics
are aligned to meet Iranian expectations.
None of this should come as a surprise. Iran has
been under massive scrutiny since the Iranian revolution in 1979. It
has been threatened, sanctioned, punished, and for nearly a decade
fought a massive war with Iraq. Nearly half a million soldiers, and
an estimated equal number of civilians perished in the ‘long war’
when Iraq and Iran, using World War II tactics, sparred over
territories, waterways access, resources, regional dominance and
more. Both parties used conventional and non-conventional weapons to
win the ugly conflict. Neither did.
But regardless of the thinking behind Iran’s
current regional ambitions, one cannot pretend that Iran is an
innocent force in the Middle East, solely aimed at
self-preservation. This reading is as incorrect as that, championed
by Israel and its remaining neoconservative friends in Washington,
which see Iran as a threat that must be eradicated for the Middle
East to achieve peace and stability.
When the US invaded Iraq in 2003, Iran immediately
moved to rearrange the country’s politics to suit its interests. It
poured massive funds and a limitless arsenal to aid its allies, Shia
political parties and notorious militias. Expectedly, Iran wanted to
ensure that the American debacle in Iraq deepens, so Tehran doesn’t
become the next US war destination. To do so, however, Iran,
jointly, although indirectly with the Americans, savaged the once
strongest Arab country.
The Shia government and its numerous militias
killed, butchered, abused and humiliated Sunnis, especially tribes,
which were seen as particularity influential following the
destruction of the Baath regime and other centers of supposed Sunni
seats of power.
That reductionist understanding of Iraqi society
was both championed by Washington and Tehran. The horrible
consequences of that understanding raised an unprecedented animosity
towards Iran, and, expectedly towards Shia in general throughout
much of the region.
However, the key role played by Hezbollah, a
mainly Shia party and fighting force, in ending the Israeli
occupation of Lebanon in 2000, and driving the Israelis out once
more in 2006, balanced out the damage inflicted by Iran’s
destructive role in Iraq. Hezbollah’s ability to keep Israel at bay
was more than enough to challenge the sectarian argument.
Things changed however with the arrival of the
so-called Arab Spring. Iran and its regional enemies, in the Gulf,
and later Turkey, perceived the upheaval in the Arab world as a
serious threat, but also an opportunity.
It was a great game par excellence, which is now
on full display in Yemen, and of course, Syria and elsewhere.
While one may argue that ultimately the ongoing
wars in the Middle East are not rooted in any sectarian tendencies,
but the outcome of a political power play that span decades, there
is no denial that the sectarian component of the war is now a
defining one, and that Iran, like the Gulf, Turkey, Israel, the US
and their Western allies, are all implicated.
They may all claim some rational dialectic through
which to justify or explain their involvement, but few can claim
innocence in the suffering of millions of people.
During the Iraq-Iran war (1980-88), the US stood
on the side of Iraq, providing logistical and military support. Iran
has no trust of the US or respect for its foreign policy. But Tehran
also understands that the US, despite its waning influence, will
remain an important party in the Middle East, and therefore has
tailored its policies with that understanding in mind. Iran
cooperates with the US when its suits both parties interests, as
they did in Afghanistan, Iraq, and now against the self-proclaimed
Islamic State (IS).
From Tehran’s viewpoint, its regional expansion
can be partly seen as a defense mechanism: a powerful and
influential Iran would decrease the chances of a US-Israeli
aggression. Just recently, the European Union top diplomat called on
Iran to “play a major, major but positive, role on Syria in
particular, to encourage the regime to … (support) a Syrian-led
transition.”
For Iran, such statements are political leverage
which, to a degree, indicate the success of its strategy in Syria,
one that involved major military support of the Assad government,
and direct military intervention. It’s irrefutable that Iran’s role
in Syria has been following the same sectarian lines that it
followed, and continues to adhere to in Iraq. While Iran’s fight
against the brutes of IS is undeniable, Iran’s responsibility in the
rise of Sunni militarism in the first place must also not be denied.
While Iran is sustaining several fronts in its
current role in the Middle East great game, it hopes to translate
its palpable regional ascendency into political capital, one that
the Iranian government wants to translate to a final nuclear deal
before June 30. That deal could spare Iran further conflict with the
West, or at least lessen the fervor of war championed by rightwing
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his allies.
Current media and political discourses attempting
to rationalize the multiple conflicts in the Middle East region tend
to invest in one singular reading, which tends to demonize one party
and completely spare others. While the role of regional actors in
supporting extremists in Syria and Iraq, which lead to the formation
of IS is known and openly discussed, Iran cannot be spared the
blame.
Iran is part and parcel of ongoing conflicts, has
contributed to some, reacted to others; it labored to defeat US
ambitions, but also cooperated with Washington when their interests
intersected. It is as sectarian as the rest, and abashedly so.
This is not an attempt at implicating Iran, but an
attempt at an honest reading into a war involving many parties,
whose hands are equally bloody.
- Dr. Ramzy Baroud has been writing about the
Middle East for over 20 years. He is an internationally-syndicated
columnist, a media consultant, an author of several books and the
founder of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was
a Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story (Pluto Press, London). His
website is: ramzybaroud.net.
© Copyright 1999-2015
PalestineChronicle.com.