Just a day after Joe Biden was inaugurated president of the United States, the Iraqi capital witnessed a double suicide attack, which analysts described as the most dangerous in nearly three years, killing 32 Iraqis and injuring 100 others. The following morning, ISIS claimed responsibility for the bombing.

This bombing and all of ISIS’s recent moves indicate that the threat of extremism is still imminent in Iraq, and that the country is still far from being stable. The new administration should therefore not overlook its ability to affect the future of Iraq, stability in the Middle East, and the U.S. global standing and reliability to its allies.

During his 2016 presidential campaign, former U.S. President Donald Trump described his Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama, as the “founder” of ISIS, and said his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, was a “co-founder” of the terrorist organization. Trump repeatedly and explicitly blamed Obama for allowing extremists groups to spread, accusing him of being sympathetic to ISIS.

These accusations today ring a bell in the minds of some, especially following the massive bombing in Iraq in conjunction with Biden’s inauguration, making one wonder: Why was ISIS about to come to an end during Trump’s term yet is now revived as the Democratic Party takes charge of the White House? Will Biden’s term be just an extension of Obama’s, during which ISIS expanded and aggrandized? Will all the achievements of the Trump era in terms of countering terrorism and fundamentalist Islamist movements be overlooked, sending the U.S. administration back to square one in Iraq and the whole region? Will this apply to other important issues in the region, such as the Syria file or the Arab-Israeli peace process? Or will all the efforts that have been made go unheeded?

In fact, due to Biden’s former role as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the important role he played in giving George W. Bush Jr. permission to start the war on Iraq, Biden’s assumption of power raised many concerns among Iraqis at the official and popular levels.

; for Biden is not unfamiliar with the Iraqi issue, as he was designated chairman of the in 2002 and played an important role in

A few years later, on May 1, 2006, Biden and Leslie Gelb wrote an article in The New York Times, “Unity Through Autonomy in Iraq,” calling to divide Iraq into three regions on a sectarian and ethnic basis: Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish. They considered this to be the only solution to the Iraqi problem.

Let us recall that President Obama entrusted his vice president to oversee Iraqi affairs. Thus, Biden is well-versed in the Iraqi landscape and understands its significance. It is worth noting that many specialists in Iraqi affairs tend to believe Biden is more likely to be responsible for Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani’s increased influence in Iraq, which has seen further growth during Obama’s term.

In addition to the new president’s experience in the Iraqi affairs, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and Secretary of State Antony Blinken have close knowledge of the situation in Iraq, so there is no pretext for the new administration not to  prioritize Iraq or consider it a minor issue attached to the Iran nuclear deal.

This view prevails among researchers and analysts, often because the the Obama administration, as it sought to sign the nuclear deal with Iran, ignored Tehran’s destructive intervention in Iraq and gave it a free hand in Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon as well. Today, many members of Obama cabinet are now part of Biden’s, raising concerns about their intention to continue the same approach, especially since a return to the nuclear deal is on Biden’s presidential agenda.

U.S. engagement with Iraq will necessarily apply to all files of the region. The appeasement of Iran suggests that the Biden administration is not committed to addressing political Islam projects in the region, leaving the region between the Iranian hammer and the Turkish anvil. The restlessness of Iran’s increased influence in Iraq and Syria in particular has reached such an extent that the United States, with popular approval, can break the Iranian cordon from these two countries, in addition to Lebanon, and thus destroy Tehran’s dreams of building an “axis of resistance” across Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon into Gaza.

The question arises: Does the United States want to preserve Iran as a tool to influence Egypt, Israel and the Gulf states? Some might reject this question as exaggeration, but I find the it quite legitimate.

I don’t want to sound pessimistic or suggest that I see all the doors for a solution blocked. On the contrary, despite all the concerns, I see that Iraq today still offers opportunities that the U.S. administration can employ to save the country. The first is the Iraqi youth, who rose up in late 2019 to reject quotas and sectarian-based policies that sow division and strife between the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. This has forced some components of Iraqi society to rely on foreign allies against their partners at home, and it has enabled countries such as Iran to penetrate Iraq and form militias, thus dooming Iraq to a future of conflict and instability.

Iraqi youth have lost confidence in their former leaders and. the Kadhimi government, which has failed to attract young people and meet their modest aspirations. The prestige of the state remains violated. The Iranian-funded Shiite militias roam free and dominate the national army, killing, imprisoning and kidnapping the youth of the “October Movement.” Nevertheless, the large proportion of rebellious young people are Shiites who have lost confidence in their political elites who claim to adhere to religion and delude the general public to prepare for the expected reappearance of al-Mahdi, a messianic figure believed to appear at the end of times to rid the world of evil and injustice.

Despite the gloom of the current landscape, the majority of Shiites, including the opposition, have rejected the political Islam leaders after revealing that they are mere tools in Iran’s hands, hungry for power, and indifferent to the Iraqi people and their future. Let us not forget the poor economic performance and the security breach clearly demonstrated in the assassination campaigns targeting members of the Kadhimi administration. The prime minister has tried to balance on the rope of tight tensions between Iran and the United States, but this has exacerbated the country’s landscape.

Today, Iraq is at a critical stage in preparing for national elections in October, after which a new government will be formed. It is therefore necessary to protect the elections from attacks by corrupt sectarian political forces, militia leaders, and Iran’s proxies in Iraq, both Shiites and political Islam entrepreneurs in its Sunni version. The true voice of Iraqis must be heard through their votes to bring competent representatives to parliament.

The United States cannot play a constructive role in Iraq if it considers it a secondary file. Moreover, it cannot protect progressive political parties if it continues to allow extremist elements to attack the U.S. Embassy and military bases,the Iraqi infrastructure and superstructure, oil facilities, borders with Jordan and Gulf countries, and the Iraqi youth. Biden, who has promised to spread “the values of American democracy,” should support Iraqi youth in their battle against sectarianism and its accompanying corruption, favoritism, exclusion, and extremism.

Whatever the case, it would be shortsighted for the U.S. administration to deal with Iraq from the perspective of the Iranian agenda Iraq is at the heart of Iran’s ambitions and expansionist policies in the region. This is a key part of the problem that must be addressed, especially as it continues to play politically in religious and sectarian circles, invoking the defense of the shrines of the Al al-Bayt and the Shiite shrines. Iran’s purpose is to violate and control Iraq’s sovereignty, knowing that it has never been delayed in defending the sanctities of all its sects and has always welcomed visitors from the Arab world, whether Shiites or Sunnis.

In sum, any U.S. retreat in the Iraqi file, no matter how minor, will inevitably mean Iran’s takeover of this Arab state. Its expansion will of course not stop at Iraq’s borders but will contribute to feeding Tehran’s ambitions for hegemony in the Middle East and defeating any attempts to achieve peace.

If the new Biden administration wants to find a sustainable solution to Iran’s nuclear issue, it must govern Iran’s expansionist agenda in the region, for this is inseparable. Iraq, therefore, is an important starting point for this confrontation, and it is important to help it regain its sovereignty, achieve its independence and stability, restore its position as a force in the region capable of playing an important role in the Middle East, and tipping the scale in favor of peace.

In short, Iraqi politicians should deal more openly with the United States and rely more on their regional allies in Riyadh, Amman, Cairo and Abu Dhabi in the face of Iranian incursions.

*From Al-Arab Newspaper

Author: Hasan Ismaik STRATEGIECS Chairman