Regional dominance is a very attractive motivator.
Being a regional super-power enables a country to have a ‘sphere of influence’ which it can exploit for profit, or unite for strength. With an abundance of oil and labor population of well over 5 million, the area between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers has historically attracted many empires to vie for its control.
The present conflict in Iraq has transformed the typical games between countries for regional power into a full-scale competition for dominance of the Middle East.
From a geographic standpoint, Iraq is caught between neighbors who offer either pressure or non-support. Syria creates pressure by encouraging insurgent elements to freely enter western Iraq. From the east, Iran inflicts pressure on Iraq’s political institutions by funding Shiite militias. Friendly support from Iraq’s northern border has been limited by clashes between the Turkish forces and Kurdish nationalistic groups, which create a hostile environment for the two neighbors. Saudi Arabia, disappointed from what it views as a Shiite-dominated Iraq, offers no substantial help to solve Iraq’s southern issues.
The result is a ‘pressure vault’ in which a combination of pressure and non-support from Iraq’s neighbors threatens to implode the stability of the country. If this occurs, Iran would claim Iraq’s regional power for its own. Syria does not have the capability to exploit an area as large as Iraq, and both Turkey and Saudi Arabia would be discouraged from doing so by their European partners. Iran would stand as the victor and dominant super-power of the Middle East.
The following scenario is possible, but not inevitable. How can we stop this pressure vault from happening?
First, it is important to recognize that the most powerful forces now shaping Iraq are not Iraqi.
The three biggest players in Iraq are the Iraqi National Congress, the insurgency, and the Shiite militias – all of which are controlled by foreign powers. The Iraqi National Congress is a product of America’s desire to create a democratic Middle East. Support of the insurgency can be attributed to Syria’s quest for regional instability so that it can profit from the corruption, smuggling, and other criminal enterprises that a weak Iraq would enable. The Shiite militias and the anti-Sunni political movements can be seen as an extension of foreign policy from Iran, which seeks to secure dominance in the Middle East now that its former rival, Saddam Hussein, is gone. The dynamic between these competing players produces the violent conflict that we see in Iraq.
This international boxing match is far from reaching its conclusion. Rounds one and two are awarded to America, with the toppling of Saddam’s regime and the organization of a democratic governing body. The outcome of the coming rounds, however, is uncertain.
If America withdraws its troops, the match will most certainly be won by Iran, who will move its agents into a weak Iraq and control its government from the inside, similar to Syria’s occupation of Lebanon during the past few decades. Syria is currently too weak to compete with Iran, but might be able to gain a degree of control over the western al-Anbar province of Iraq. Either way, America loses influence in the Middle East and cedes this power to its enemies.
If America stays the course and continues to nurture Iraq’s weak democratic institutions into a stronger government, it can claim victory. A stable, democratic Iraq will be the result of America’s regional dominance in the Middle East. This scenario would require increasing commitments of resources over the long term. With the national debate over exit strategies and draw-downs in troop deployments, America is presently shying away from this option. Considering the alternative, this is a serious mistake.
Iran has the will and ability to create an empire from the sands of Iraq, and America is the only power capable of stopping it.
It is our choice. The ball is in our court.
As the world’s sole super-power, America must act to secure its dominance. We cannot enable Iran to exploit its weaker neighbors the same way that we allowed Russia to dominate Eastern Europe following World War II. If history is any guide, it should teach us that sacrifice is ultimately more valuable than inaction.
