What is left of Iraq is to be kept united by Britain and the U.S!
Iraq as a state established according to the Sykes – Picot agreement and especially after 1932 existed as an imposed entity. There’s no any constitutional, political and moral principles left for any coexistence of the Kurds, the Sunnis, the Shiites, the Christian and the Assyrains. Iraq is considered now as the most unsuccessful country in the world. Iraq was much stronger and more solid when it was handed over by the U.S. to the Shiites’ leaders. They don’t seem to have taken any lessons from the past quarter of a century ruling of the Sunnis. So they have repeated the same political and historical mistakes.
The Sunni Arabs have come to believe that during the recent two years a national Arabic state in Iraq as it used to be is no longer valid or worthwhile. The Shiites are also not ready to give the Sunnis the opportunity to reorganize politically and revitalize their belief, movement and tendencies. This is what has strengthened the ground for seeking an independent Sunni state away from Shiite power. In the beginning of 2003, the Sunnis were against the remaining of the U.S army in Iraq and federalism with the Kurds. Even the Shiite cleric Moqtada-ai- Sadr was against the U.S. The Sunnis are now convinced that they have been wrong in taking this stance because the withdrawal of the U.S army opened the door to start persecuting and jailing the Sunnis and weakening their position. The Sunnis are now trying to redeem their mistake and are advocating federalism.
The Shiites, on the other hand, who has gained more power as a result of the of the support they receive from the U.S, Iran and their allies, have suffered a political setback after the failed policies of Al-Maliki. He has utilized serious political tactics and games with the West and America on one side and Iraq and Syria on the other. He has tried to widen the power base of Shiitism in the region. Maliki, in the recent years, has gained the attraction and sentiments of the Shiites through a game play surrounding the threats of the Sunni terrorism; he has also tried to attract the nationalist Sunnis as well by pretending to stand against the Kurds. This policy has completely failed. In addition to that, it has paved the way for a more powerful terrorism. He, by oppressing, chasing and accusing the Sunnis of involvement with the terrorists and eventually excluding them in the political process, provoked further outrage instead of attracting them and persuading the moderate of them to take part in the political process and easing the anger of the protesting tribes. This has led the Sunnis to support and participate in the attacks of the 10 June in Mosul and other areas of Iraq which was seen by them as a political and military opportunity. At the end of the rapid events, the Shiite clerics issued a Fatwa legitimizing the war against the Sunnis terrorist groups. This development may draw the Shiites into a bitter conflict from which stepping out can be hard.
The Kurds have always been the true partner of the Iraqi government. They have kept the political balance among the different factions in the country. However, instead of cooperating to develop their common interest, Al-Maliki stepped up his attacks against the Kurdistan Region. He even cut the Region’s budget using the row over the oil production in Kurdistan as an excuse. After 10 years, the Shiite leaders in Bagdad have not implemented the Article 140 of the Iraqi constitution yet. They do not pay the oil and gas bill and refuse to solve the issue of the Peshmarga. In addition to the deepening of the crises between the Sunnis and the Shiites, the disputes between Hawler and Bagdad have turned sour.
These are all pieces of evidence to show that the Iraqi Arab leaders are not able to find a peaceful, constitutional and democratic resolution for the problems between the country’s components. So Iraq is consequently heading towards a rapid and irreversible split on all social, economical, political, legal, and moral and even cultural levels. This will convince us that the Shiite-alliance makes the Kurds no longer believe in any kind of coexistence with the Shiite political leaders. The Kurds’ new neighbors are now the ISIS, the radical Islamist groups and the former Baathists. So the problems have passed the stage of being temporary crises. They need to be resolved once for all and quite radically.
The most important question is that whether John Kerry, the US foreign secretary who visited Bagdad last week, demanded any type of national government, and what kind of political resolution did he propose. Had he thought that time is in favor of the insurgent groups; time is driving Iraq towards splitting and the formation of the Kurdistani, the Sunni and the Shiite independent entities? While Kerry in Bagdad was trying to calm Nuri al-Maliki and help finding a way out of the crisis, he issued military threats. Doesn’t that mean a hastening of the split of Iraq? Maliki rules only in the Green Zone, and Bagdad is under the threat of the radical Islamist groups, especially ISIS. His army has lost control over all Kurdistani areas including Kirkuk. The majority of the Sunni areas have been controlled by the ISIS and Sunni tribes. Maliki has lost the control of its border with Syrian and Jordan, but he still clings to power. The main question is: do the US and the UK want to keep a unified Iraq under the rule of the worst political leader? Or do they want the Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis live peacefully and independently each in their state?
All the indications show that the remaining factors of a united Iraq are too weak; some of these factors even no longer exist. Thing develop so fast that it is hard to gather all the components on the table at the same time in order to take necessary decisions. So we realize that after Kerry’s departure and William Hague’s arrival, nothing new could be seen in Iraq sole the worn out classical ideas of a unified failed state. Of course, we should bear in mind that Kurdistan is not dealt with as a decisive and important center in the crises and resolutions in Iraq. However, now Kurdistan is the most stable and secures shelter for Christians, Sunni Arabs and the fleeing soldiers of Maliki’s army. Within short, it will be a neighbor to ISIS authority in the Sunni areas. So it’s possible that many regional and global powers have come to believe that a Kurdish State which Peshmarga will protect its borders against the ISIS and maintain stability and coexistence should be accepted as a de facto, not a powerless authority full of crisis, terror, war and killing like the present Iraq.