Dr Zakir Husain

THE fiasco of Iraq war deepens and darkens now in its fifth year. The US president and his neocon counsels have lost the war. Whether they admit it or not is immaterial; facts speak louder than fiction. Whether it was for oil or democracy is immaterial too. Whether George W Bush had been coaxed or not is of no comfort or consequence. The fact is: Empire’s Iraq Enterprise is in shambles. Who is having the last laugh?

The grim fallout of this war has been a staggering loss of a million-plus Iraqi (mostly civilian) and over four thousand American (mostly military) lives in the past five years; and the toll is mounting. There is little comfort in the statistics of ‘success’ mouthed by a deeply troubled commander-in-chief. His generals in Iraq are compliant but manage to exude scant confidence. Iraqi voice is seldom heard or aired. Yet, polls reveal most Iraqis are convinced it is American occupation that triggered sectarian conflicts hitherto unknown in Iraq; it is foreign invasion that turned Iraq into a magnet for homegrown and regional militant resistance; and it is utter lack of minimum security and essential services that made four million Iraqis refugees within and outside the country. What a remarkable achievement of project ‘Iraqi Freedom’!

History when written at leisure away from the gaze of the ‘victors’ will pronounce an unforgiving verdict upon those who conceived and conducted this act of supreme crime with supreme arrogance. The moral bankruptcy (borrowing the phrase used by former British commander in Basra region of Iraq) is aggravated further by the US accusations against Iraq’s neighbours – notably Iran – for not helping quell resistance against occupation. Successful campaigners seldom seek and find scapegoats to shift the blame upon others. Bullies commit blunder and then look around to shift the blame on someone else. Guess who is laughing? Certainly not the wronged and aggrieved Iraqis.

The US military has sunk into the Iraqi quagmire; it has entrapped itself into an un-winnable situation. All the semantic jugglery fails to shore up the morale of the bunkered troops. The commander-in-chief is at a loss for words; his repeated clichés fail to convince his countrymen or even himself. Many of his erstwhile counsels have abandoned the ship and went into oblivion.

However, Iraq is not just another American war lost in futility or ignominy. Vietnam had been the most recent one. Korea was another before Vietnam. Iraq war is more than Vietnam or Korea. The American public had been taken for a ride by a conniving media feeding it on misinformation around invading Iraq. The American public now realises the fiasco and falsehood. However, what will it take other than yet another blunder of invading Iran to convince a gullible American public that Iran is not the threat they are told to fear?

Today, some of America’s allies are deeply sceptical of American intentions in the Middle East region and globally. The US Congress desperately wants an exit strategy to bring troops home sooner than later, yet the US senate fails to muster the required majority; fails to muster the courage to stop funding the lost war and force the hand of the president who prefers to remain in a sate of incurable denial.

Outside Iraq, America’s terse but unsubstantiated accusations and arrogant refusal to high-level dialogue with Iran and Syria confuse its allies and adversaries alike. Many see America turned into the plaintiff, prosecutor, judge and jury combined into one. That is not a position that befits a great power that claims moral high grounds. Many observers could justifiably wonder what if anything concrete is the end objective of American occupation of Iraq. The clock is ticking but no end in sight to an incredibly confounding course of America’s so-called war on terror.

Given the moral delinquency of this war, and the conflicting signals sent by the US, it is remarkably mature and sedate of Iran (and Syria) to offer serious and substantive diplomatic dialogue with the US. The Iranian regime, clerical or not but democratic, has repeatedly said it has no enmity with the American citizens. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had visited America and debated in an open forum at the Columbia University. Much to the dismay of many in and outside the US, he was taunted and vilified by his hosts. Yet, he was not impolite; he did not counterattack his hosts. In fact, he had invited George Bush to visit Iran and address university students- an offer that was not taken up.

The Iranians deserve and want respect and reciprocal recognition to travel a civilised and mature diplomatic path with the US. However, Iran met mostly threats and intimidation in return. The staunch stand of Iran, on the nuclear issue for example, is proving a major irritant to the US and its European allies. The anger of the US is only matched by its frustrations. Could it trigger yet another misadventure in the closing days of Bush presidency? If it does, what would be the consequences? Who will have the last laugh?

Meanwhile, Iran has pursued a regional policy extending its hands in friendship to its Gulf Arab neighbours. Iran has been trying to allay fears of its growing conventional force and its nuclear ambitions. More time and efforts by Iran will be necessary to neutralise the powerful pressure and persuasion by the US upon the rich but politically fragile Gulf Emirates and Sheikhdoms. But the new realities and long-term interests of the region could be equally compelling for the Arab Gulf to build future-oriented alliance with a powerful Iran. Iran has not invaded another country for centuries nor does it pose an imminent threat even to its archenemy in the region. The emergence of Iran with its oil and gas and its military strength is a fact. Iran’s demographic size, not to speak of its strategic location, and above all its cultural, scientific and civilisation record combine to make it a power to reckon with and its legitimate aspirations to be recognised.

Let me recall here the history as it unfolded.

During the 1980s, Saddam Husein had been the darling of America – the only Arab dictator willing and able to fight Iran. Proof lies in Iraq’s war on Iran in the 1980s. In that war of aggression upon Iran, Saddam had sought and got all kinds of support by the US and Gulf Sheikhdoms. Nevertheless, Iranian Revolution remained unflinching though media propaganda would have the world believe it was suicidal or fanatic resistance by Iran. The eight-year war ended in a stalemate. Iran was not defeated or destroyed even after huge sacrifice of men and materiel.

The US honeymoon with Saddam ended soon. In 1991 America and allies went to war on Iraq and expelled Saddam reeling under heavy losses from Kuwait. Harsh economic sanctions that followed drove that proverbial last nail in the coffin of Iraq, prosperous and strong only a few years ago. During the 1980s, the Baath regime in Iraq had given Iraqi people equitable social and economic benefits; Iraqi human development indices rose to enviable level. However, the autocratic regime fell short in political and human rights. In addition, Saddam the autocrat, knowingly or otherwise, served the strategic interest of the United States by going to war on Iran. In 2003 based upon manufactured lies George W Bush triumphantly completed the unfinished business his father Bush Sr. left pending in 1991.

In retrospect, the lesson of history is clear.

Autocrat Saddam driven by overblown ego miscalculated in haste; he regretted his follies at leisure; and finally met his end in ignominy. Indeed, a political merger with Iran was inconceivable at that time but a strategic alliance (modus vivendi) with Iran in the 1980s was possible. Many Iraqis I had met in the 1990s believed in coexistence with Iran and felt that together the two countries could have formed a formidable bastion against foreign interference in the Middle East. That was not to be.

America destroyed the Saddam regime in Iraq with righteous fanfare but much of the world saw it as a supremely criminal act. An impatient American president in his indecent haste to capture Iraq’s oil and secure strategic control of the Arab Middle East failed to foresee the consequences. By a strategic miscalculation, American president destabilised Iraq by removing Saddam and thus paved the path clear for Iran.

History made Iran the winner, now in a position to give economic and security support to its neighbour ruined by years of economic strangulation followed by ravages of war – both ironically imposed by its former allies. Iraq lost much. It lies in ruins and bedevilled in chaos. America too lost much more than its treasure and blood. It lost moral prestige and credibility of its superpower status. It earned distrust if not outright in much of the Arab and Muslim world. To the world, the gap between what it preaches and practises is widening. To be sure, given the values and traditions most American people hold close, this loss of prestige and respect is undeserved yet not entirely unfair.

The erosion of democracy and freedom within America and in those of its staunch allies in ‘war on terror’ is the terrible consequence that could take a new US president and decades of ‘change we can believe’ to repair. Iraq war has been an unmitigated fiasco.

George W Bush will soon become past history though the fallout will haunt the next US administrations. The presidential contestants are not stating future positions on Iraq and other adventures gone foul and fetid; they dare not be explicit on elections eve. Incumbency can be compelling and the world is waiting in baited breath alternating by optimism and cynicism.

Meanwhile Iran, the closest neighbour of Iraq, is becoming stronger. Iran’s president completed a historic visit to Iraq openly and was warmly embraced by hosts. There was neither secrecy nor surprise, nor with a compulsion of haste. It produced tangible and timely results; seven specific economic, security projects, and mutual cooperation were agreed. That the visit is a triumph even the occupation authority in Iraq has to concede.

It is a supreme irony that the ‘liberators’ (US and dwindling coalition) remain sunk into serious doubts and stare at defeat while the former enemy of Iraq emerges victorious, exuding confidence and basking in glow of publicity with pride. The story of Iraq war and its impact are not finished yet; more unintended results could follow. Meanwhile, Iran the archenemy of America has won the ‘last laugh’. Further irony is: war is never a laughing matter. Yet, in supreme irony to the ‘liberators’ this war has produced the last laugh, for Iran that is.