Iran has enjoyed several remarkable breakthroughs in the region in the past years – until the recent surprise from Iraq, Ghassan Charbel wrote in the London-based newspaper Al Hayat.
The tipping of the balance has sparked regional tensions and a clear decline in relations between Sunnis and Shias. Leaving aside Yemen, Tehran has made great gains.
After the US forces withdrew from Iraq, Iran became the most dominant player in the country by using a two-fold policy: keeping the Shiite coalition united, and retaining ties with the Kurds to prevent Shiite-Kurdish disagreement from developing into clashes.
Earlier, Iran has managed to retain influence in Lebanon’s affairs even after the Syrian army was compelled to leave the country following the assassination of prime minister Rafik Hariri. Tehran was able to thwart attempts by the March 14 Alliance to form a stable government on good terms with the moderate bloc of Arab countries and the West.
Further events proved that forming a government in Lebanon was impossible without Iran’s consent.
Tehran dealt with the demonstrations in Syria as if it was an attempt to strike the Iran-Syria coalition. It took a firm decision against the overthrow of the Syrian regime and went as far as sending Hizbollah and pro-Iran Iraqi militias to fight alongside the Assad regime. As later became clear, Russian support would not have been enough for the Syrian regime to survive without Iranian help.
Last year, however, the picture of Iran’s successes seemed less bright. The Islamic republic clearly had to do more to improve its image than electing Hassan Rouhani as president. Western sanctions had taken their toll on the country’s economy and prompted it to engage in talks with the P5+1 over its nuclear programme.
Tehran has been able to prevent the Assad regime from falling, but it has not been able to secure a decisive win in a long and costly conflict.
The surprise came from Iraq as the army staggered under the weight of Islamic State attacks.
The group took over significant areas of Iraq and Syria amid prime minister Nouri Al Maliki’s deteriorating relations with Sunnis and Kurds. Iran was faced with a dilemma: unable to send its troops to reclaim Sunni areas from Islamic State, clinging to Mr Al Maliki meant falling into long attrition, the writer noted.
Realising Tehran’s dilemma, Washington said it would join the fight against the Islamic State provided there was a change of prime minister in Baghdad so somebody who could replace monopoly with inclusiveness.
The writer continued: “A few years back in Tehran, I asked about the likelihood of a war between the US and Iran, to which the answer was: ‘You are asking about a war that will never happen. We make careful calculations. We might stay long on the brink of war, but we will not fall into it. We shall not risk the feats of the revolution but we shall repel any assault.’”
Indeed, the war did not happen and the prospect of Iranian officials holding talks with their American counterparts is no longer deemed a crime worthy of death. And those fearing negotiations with the US have been dismissed as cowards by President Rouhani.
Against this backdrop, the Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, Ali Shamkhani, said recently that Tehran welcomed the process that led to Haider Al Abadi being asked to form the new government in Iraq.
Unaware that no local player has right to pursue a “me or no one” policy, Mr Al Maliki refused to deal with the Sunnis and the Kurds, blocking the game of greater powers. And Iran, as it turned out, likes to deal at times, especially if that means winning the seat of the great partner of the “Great Satan”.
Areeb Rantawi wrote in the Jordanian newspaper Addustour that what happened on Monday was a turning point in the trajectory of the Iraqi crisis: the era of Mr Al Maliki came to a close after eight “lean years” when he was abandoned by his closest allies from the national coalition and his party. He was suddenly forced out of office when Mr Al Abadi, another Shiite candidate from the same coalition, was nominated as Iraq’s new premier.
Surprises did not end there. Messages of welcome have flowed in from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, Qatar, the Arab League, the United Nations and from the US and many European countries. It has been many years since such unanimity was seen.
This deal must have been preceded by strenuous behind-the-scene talks that were perhaps not restricted to Iraq. Regional and global players agreed on the bargain based on the rule of give and take.
The Iraqi deal will have a significant effect on other regional crises. And, no doubt, the US-Iran dialogue has gone beyond the nuclear programme to encompass regional issues and players.
Mr Al Abadi has been the “settlement candidate” from the moment he was elected.
His performance and career will be determined by two factors: the ability to include Sunnis and Kurds in the political process and the ability to mobilise all Iraqis to end the threat of the Islamic State.
Translated by Abdelhafid Ezzouitni
aezzouitni@thenational.ae