US-Iran tensions in Iraq
The US assassination of Qasem Soleimani coupled with the Iranian missile retaliation against US bases in Iraq served as the underlying framework for the Atlantic Council’s event: US-Iran Tensions Rising with Iraq in the Middle: Analysis of Future Scenarios and Policy Implications. The event took place on Thursday January 9 and was divided into two segments: a panel discussion and two keynote speeches. The panel featured three regional experts: Atlantic Council Iraq Initiative Director Abbas Kadhim, Future of Iran Initiative Director Barbara Slavin, and Nonresident Senior Fellow Thomas S. Warrick. The panel was moderated by William F. Wechsler, the Director of Atlantic Council Middle East Programs.
Below are the highlights from the panel portion of the event:
Iraq: from bad to worse
While moderator Wechsler proclaimed that the US and Iran had walked back from the precipice of war, the panelists emphasized the precarious and dire situation the US, Iran, and Iraq are all currently in. Kadhim bluntly proclaimed that these attacks “could not have come at a worse time for Iraq.” Reports indicate that over 300 Iraqis have been killed and hundreds wounded from state violence responding to last fall’s protests. This caused disenchantment with the government, resulting in its resignation. Kadhim emphasized that this was the first time post-2003 that an Iraqi Prime Minister has resigned, plunging the nation into uncharted territory.
Kadhim provided two profound insights on the recent missile strike in Iraq and the Iraqi vote to expel US troops. To the first point he professed, “there is no such thing as US bases in Iraq — they are all Iraqi bases now,” underlining how detrimental the relationship between the US and Iran is for Iraq, particularly in terms of military development, economic rebuilding, and the creation of a new government. Secondly, Kadhim underlined Iraq’s energy dependence on Iran. He added that he believes the Iraqi government is reluctantly trying to get American troops out of Iraq because these troops are at risk. Kadhim emphasized many times that this is not in fact a hostile move on Iraq’s part, but more a security concern.
The panelists all noted that the attack occurred at a moment when Shia radicals can easily be mobilized, which could subsequently lead to the marginalization of Sunnis. This would provide ISIS with an ideal political climate to grow and multiply in.
Iran: hardliners strengthened
Wechler noted the incredibly quick ‘successes’ that Iran achieved in the region. Hours prior to the assassination of Soleimani, Iran was struggling to have a foothold in Iraq, even within Shia communities, but immediately after, Iran entirely reversed this situation. Iran has effectively accomplished its larger goal of expelling the US from Iraq while also uniting Iranians, with Soleimani revered as a martyr.
Slavin highlighted the nationalistic mourning process that is still continuing in Iran today, a week after Soleimani’s death. She cautioned that this sudden Iranian unification and the intense vilification of the US will carry a lot of weight in the upcoming February parliamentary elections. Iranian hardliners who oppose the US will be stronger candidates than ever. Warrick warned that Iran will ramp up covert intelligence within Iraq and will play a considerable role in intimidating and forcing the selection of new Iraqi leaders. There is little the United States can now do, but the possibility of a true Iraqi democracy is now in jeopardy.
Warrick succinctly presented the four possible attack vectors that Iran could utilize. The first vector is the symmetrical one. Iran is much more predictable than the media portrays it to be and theories of Iran performing recklessly are unfounded. Warrick noted that Iran has not chosen state-sponsored terrorism as a primary way to change US policy since 2011, when the IRGC initiated an attack in Saudi Arabia. The second vector is cyber threats. Iran has become versatile and quick in utilizing cyber warfare. Thirdly, Iran will mount disinformation operations . Lastly, Warrick fears Iran’s ability to influence operations, as referenced in this 2018 Wired Article. Slavin noted that regardless of which approach Iran takes, it should be assumed there will be continued Iranian covert actions in the region.
Geopolitics:
The tense US-Iran relationship has profound global implications. Slavin suggested that Turkey, Russia, and China will all gain more unrestricted power in the region. This will not only alter the landscape in Iraq but also in Syria and possibly the Gulf. Slavin noted the possibility of China sending its navy to patrol the Persian Gulf, challenging the role of the US in the region.
Slavin maintained that the US and Iran will have to engage in multilateral diplomacy, as she believes there is no chance of Iran sitting at a bilateral table with President Trump. Slavin also noted that there is no way for peace discussions to occur without sanctions relief, which are already being employed as a weapon of war. Kadhim strongly disagreed. Regardless of the terminology used to classify the relationship between the US and Iran, Slavin noted that last week changed the rules of engagement on Iraqi soil.
Following the panel discussion were two keynote speeches from Senator Murphy and Congressman Moulton. Read the Atlantic Council’s recap of their conversation here.
RSS - Posts
