Some suggest that the withdrawal of US troops has finally opened a new space for Iran to maneuver in the region that will strengthen Iranian domination.
Some Turkish analysts suggest that the new Iraq is nothing but a new axis of an Iran-Damascus pact that enables Iran to have free geographical access from the Persian Gulf to the Eastern Mediterranean. Against this argument, some US experts, including political science professor Stephen Van Evera of MIT, think that “fears of Iranian domination of Iraq rest on the premise that Iraqi Shi'a identify so strongly as Shi'a and so little as Arabs or Iraqis that they will accept domination by Shi'a Iran. In fact, however, Iraqi Shi'a have a strong identity as Arabs and Iraqis. They have affinity for other Shi'a, but will not accept Iran or other non-Iraqis as overlords. Iranian dominance of Iraq is not in the cards.”
It seems that the reality falls between these two arguments. The fact that the current Iraqi leaders were once fugitives of Saddam Husain who spent years in Iran in exile indicates that these leaders take their Shi'a identity seriously. Otherwise, just like other fugitives of Saddam, they could have gone to a European country. If their first priority was Iran, especially when their country, Iraq, was fighting against Iran, this is evidence that they would prefer Iranian influence over other countries. In fact, when Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki was asked what he thinks about Iranian influence over his country, Iraq, his answer was interesting. “We fear that Turkey will interfere in Iraqi affairs.”
His answer was short, but explains a lot when it comes to regional politics. The Iraqi prime minister's reference to Turkey when asked about Iranian influence is a message that Iraq will not easily become a playground for Turkey. It is a meaningful argument because the major contender against Iran these days is Turkey, especially because of Turkey's stance against Syria, a country that has acted as if not an independent country but a satellite of Iran in recent months. Therefore, Maliki's message to the world is that he welcomes Iranian influence but not Turkish influence.
Does this means that Iran will have the freedom to do whatever it wants in Iraq? A simple answer to this question is no. There are at least two reasons why that is. First, despite the fact that US troops have withdrawn from Iraq, US influence on Iraq still remains strong through US advisors and Iraqi dependence on US armaments. Therefore, the US would exert its influence on Iraqi leaders to limit Iranian domination in Iraq. Second, Iraq's dependence on US weapons systems prevents Iraqi Shi'a leaders from opening up wholeheartedly to Iran. Therefore, beyond the identity issues to be considered, there are more complex issues for Iraqi leaders to consider when leading their country.
The current context of Iraq ironically constrains US maneuvers against Iran to isolate this country as well. Historically, Iraq was always considered a bounty that acted as a buffer against Iranian domination over the region. Therefore, regional players Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey long turned a blind eye to Saddam's brutality in the region.
Now, with its new structure, Iraq is no longer plays its historical role against Iranian influence. The opposite is true. Iraq will be a country that is open to a mild Iranian influence, especially at the society level. Given the fact that Shi'a pilgrimage attracts millions of Shi'a people to Iraq every year, Iraq will become the social and religious center of Shi'a communities while Iran remains the political center of Shi'a politics in the region. This new role will further lead Iraqi leaders to take active positions against Iran in the long term.
For now, it is safe to say that Iran is the winner, but it is not a decisive win. The situation is in limbo between Iraq's political and military dependence on the US and its social, ideological and religious relations with Iran.
