Shifting Sands: The Potential Realignment of Ethnic Alliances in Iraq

Iraq is anything but stable. That is not to say that progress is not being made for it most certainly is. But the rise of Iran's nuclear ambitions is setting the stage for a possible shift in Iraqi ethnic alliances with the Coalition Forces. Up to this point, the Shia have been relatively cooperative with the Coalition Forces and the Sunni have been the source of much of the terrorist activity. But a conflict with Iran could very well reverse the roles of the Sunni and the Shia.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took the reigns of power in June 2005. Despite his initial plea to the world to scrap all Weapons of Mass Destruction, he has relentlessly pursued Uranium enrichment at Iran's secret nuclear facilities. Iran has also invested a lot of money and manpower with the terrorist elements in Iraq. Not only does Iraq's neighbor to the east delve into the darkness of the terrorist forces, it also has infiltrated the Iraqi government at the highest levels, as well as the Iraqi Security Forces. The objective of Iran in Iraq is to win the support of the large Shia population. This task is made all the more easier by the presence of Muqtada al-Sadr.

In January of 2006, al-Sadr said that if the US attacked Iran, he and his Mahdi Army would support Iran. This presents the US with a particularly nasty problem in the event of a military strike or a war with Iran. The most influential Shia ally in Iraq has been the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. But recent reports indicate that al-Sistani has been sending millions of dollars to Iran in support of various religious institutions. With a conflict between a US-European alliance against Iran on the horizon, the Coalition Forces in Iraq are standing in quicksand. When it comes down to a war with Iran, there is no guarantee that al-Sistani will stand with the US-European alliance. I believe it is likely that he will side with the Iranians.

This brings us to the Kurds and the Sunnis. The Kurds will support the coalition against Iran. Of all the regions in Iraq who have benefitted from the ouster of Saddam, the northwestern provinces, where the Kurds are the majority, have profited the most. "Kurdistan", which officially does not exist, is the wealthiest, most westernized, most secure region in Iraq. The Kurds enjoy civil liberties that are comparable to the West. Since the invasion of 2003, the Kurds have not wavered in their support for the Coalition Forces. In the event of war with Iran, the Kurds will be a much valued ally for the US-European forces.

The Sunnis have a very different history since the 2003 invasion. The Sunni Triangle remains as one of the poorest, most violent regions in Iraq. The bulk of the terrorist activity in Iraq is conducted by Sunni terrorist groups, not all of which are affiliated with al-Qaida. In fact, what is highly under-reported is that much of the terrorist activity that occurs in Iraq is done by groups more akin to the Mafia than al-Qaida.

The Iraqi Sunnis have a deep mistrust, you might even say hatred, for Iran. They do not want Iran to possess nuclear weapons and they would be thrilled if the US-European forces did attack their ancient rival. I was speaking with a Sunni reporter yesterday about the situation in Iran. He pointed to my uniform and said, "If America went to war with Iran, I would be proud to put on the uniform and fight with them (America)." The Sunnis would support the US-European coalition against Iran.

Since the invasion, the Sunnis have felt like they have been the specific target of the Coalition Forces. The elected government has been dominated by the Shia since the arrival of the Coalition Forces. Of course, this is democracy in action. The Shia have the numbers and the votes. In a popular election in Iraq, the Shia will always have the majority of seats in the government. But the Sunnis feel persecuted by the Shia-led Iraqi Government. This is not totally a figment of their imagination. The Shia government has persecuted the Sunnis, to some extent. The Ministry of the Interior, which controls the Iraqi Security Forces, has done some pretty despicable things to the Sunnis. But the Sunnis are notorious for shooting themselves in the foot, mostly by inciting and conducting violence.

But the possible, some might say inevitable, confrontation with Iran presents a unique opportunity for the US State Department. For the first time since the invasion, the Coalition Forces have an issue which could bring the Sunni terrorist groups to the table.So how do we bring terrorist groups to the table? The answer is we don’t. The US government follows the correct policy of not negotiating with terrorist groups. However, we do work with the local governments in the Sunni dominated provinces. It is common knowledge that these governments are corrupt. In most cases, the same governments that we work with are also cooperating with the terrorist elements within their respective provinces. The State Department must present a convincing argument to the legal Sunni leadership on why cooperation with the US in its conflict with Iran would be beneficial to the Sunni population of Iraq. This leadership must then, in turn, work with the terrorist groups to bring about an end to the hostilities toward the Coalition Forces. The Sunni leadership must convince the terrorist organizations to channel their energies toward the Iranians. This can only be done if the Sunnis and the terrorists see a big enough carrot at the end of the Iranian conflict.

The consequences of a war with Iran and the possible alliance of the Iraqi Shia with the Iranians are not pretty. It may mean a shattering of the unified Iraq that was once envisioned. For the last two years, the Bush Administration has told the American public that democracy in Iraq will not look like democracy does in America. This has fallen on deaf ears, particularly with the opposition party in America. Any divergence from the American form of democracy has been trumpeted by the opposition party as a failure of the Bush Administration. But President Bush has been honest with the American people and his policies have not been a total failure. In fact, Iraq has been a success story. But because of the differences between American and Iraqi democracies, and because the opposition has a virtual monopoly on the mainstream press in America, the opposition party is able to spin the successes in Iraq into abject failures. They will spin the possible war with Iran as not only a failure of the Bush Administrations policies toward Iran, but also as a failure of the democratization of Iraq.

However, it is time to get Machiavellian in Iraq. The stakes of our success in that country and in our dealings with Iran are much too high. The Bush Administration cannot paralyze itself by worrying about what the opposition will say. The purpose of our involvement in Iraq and Iran is to secure our nation from terrorism. If, due to circumstances beyond our control, we are forced to deal with terrorists through a third party, than that is what we must do. But what can we offer the Sunnis that would ensure their cooperation in a war with Iran?

The first thing we must realize is that the Sunnis are already on our side. They do not want Iran to have nuclear weapons. Even the terrorist organizations do not want this, despite what Zarqawi or bin Laden say. Al Qaida wants Iran to pursue nuclear weapons for one reason: it will inevitably lead to a US-European attack against Iran. And if that fails, it will almost certainly lead to an Israeli attack against Iran, which would be even better for their purposes. But international terrorist organizations, like al Qaida will never be molified. They will remain our enemies and will be a serious thorn in our side in case of war with Iran. I am specifically targeting Iraqi Sunnis, and Iraqi Sunnis who belong to the secular terrorist organizaitions in Iraq. What will bring these Sunnis to the table is the promise of power in a new government.

What angers the Sunni most about the current state of democracy in Iraq is the perpetual minority status they hold. As it is now, the Shia will almost certainly have the votes to retain the most powerful positions in any democratic election. War with Iran, and the possible defection of millions of Shia to the other side, presents an opportunity for Iraqis to revisit the form of government that now exists under their constitution. Instead of regarding the current constitution as permanent, it may be time to regard it as something akin to the Articles of Confederation. This is the carrot the State Department can offer the Sunnis: in the event of war with Iran, the Coalition will guarantee the Sunnis a new government that will give them equal status. Despite the verbiage in the Iraqi Constitution, the Sunni, and the Kurds for that matter, do not have equal status. The chances of a Sunni or Kurdish Prime Minister are non-existent. Of course, the Kurds must have the same assurances that we give the Sunnis.

I will continue with this, later. But for now, think about this.