Showing the Iraqis Who's in Charge

More than anything else, the arrest of the Iranian diplomats in Iraq seems to be an exercise in showing the Iraqi government who's really in charge.

Details are sketchy, but it is clear that two of the Iranians were in Iraq at the invitation of Iraqi President Jalil Talabani. Likewise, at least one of the Iranians was seized in a raid on the compound of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the leader of Iraq's largest Shiite party, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). The American military has been telling the usual lies that the Iranians had "a lot of material" on them that justified the detentions. But, the obvious message to both Talabani and al-Hakim is that "you are being watched. The American government opposes official contact between Iraq and Iran and you are subject to arrest or worse if you continue such contacts. You may think you're leaders of a sovereign government, but we're in charge here."

It's a curiously stupid policy. No doubt, the Bush administration would prefer to see the Iraqi government view the U. S. and Israel as it's natural allies. However, Iraq has become an Islamist religious society in both both the Sunni and Shiite sectors. It follows therefore that the Iraqi government would be an Islamist government fundamentally opposed to Israel. Likewise, it should not be surprising that the Iraqi government is looking to Iran as a potential counter-weight to American influence. Even though the American military occupation is failing to pacify the country, the U. S. still has a commanding position in relation to the Iraqi government. One of the few ways that Iraq could gain a real independence from the U. S. is to counter-balance American influence through ties with other countries. Given that Iraq's Shiite leaders and President Talabani all have close ties with Iran, Iran is the most logical candidate for counter-balancing ally. The U. S. might grimace at the prospect of an Iraq allied to Iran, but the alliance is a sign of the independence that we want the Iraqis to have.

Over the last two years, the Iraqi government, in fact, has become independent from the U. S. in several ways. This is especially the case with the government factions that have sponsored Shiite militias like al-Sadr's Mahdi Army and SCIRI's Badr Brigades. However horrific the death squad activities of the militias have been, they constitute a source of power for the Iraqi government that is independent of the American military and thus are a sign of real independence for Iraq. At the same time, the militia campaigns against Sunni civilians and insurgents have demonstrated that the Shiite population is willing and able to defend itself against global terrorist groups like al-Qaeda in Iraq as well as Sunni insurgents. The Sunnis may still be able to establish an independent enclave in al-Anbar, but there would be no Sunni takeover in Baghdad even if the U. S. withdrew from Iraq tomorrow. Indeed, the main immediate danger created by an American withdrawal would be the possibility of Shiite militias engaging in a bloody ethnic cleansing campaign against Sunnis in the Baghdad area.

Even though the American military can still humiliate political leaders, Iraqi Shiites are gradually taking control of their own affairs.