RECENT SPATE OF SUICIDE BOMBINGS THREATEN TO PUSH IRAQ OVER THE PRECIPICE

The recent spate of suicide bomb attacks in Iraq has not only stoked tensions in a country criss-crossed by several fault lines but also threatens the overall stability of the already fractured Middle East region. The latest attack occurred in the Southern city of Basra this weekend which killed scores and wounded many. Initial reports indicated that 15 people had lost their lives in the attack; however, the figure has now risen to about 53 at the time of writing while around 100 are said to have been injured.


Latest Attacks

The attacker was said to have been in possession of a fake police ID and was wearing an Iraqi police uniform. Initial reports allege that the perpetrator approached a police checkpoint and appeared to hand out “sweets” to Shia Muslims making their way to a Mosque to celebrate the Shi’ite holy festival of Arbain. The suicide bomber then blew himself up in a crowd comprising mostly of police officers and Shi’ite pilgrims upon being approached by a police officer. The latest attacks add to the worrying spate of terror being unleashed against Shia Muslims in the cities of Baghdad and Nasariya which left 72 dead last week.


Operation Iraqi Freedom

The recent attacks lay bare sectarian divisions which exist in the post-Saddam Iraq only months after President Barack Obama fulfilled his campaign pledge of withdrawing US combat troops from Iraq. President Obama’s decision has met fierce criticism in some quarters as many doubt that the Iraqi state security apparatus has the capacity to contain threats posed by militants to internal security. Unfortunately, Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Bush administration-led military mission aimed at dislodging Saddam has thus far failed to yield the various promises made at its onset on 19th March 2003. In contrast the human and financial cost, as well as other as yet unquantifiable costs of the 9-year long operation appears to outweigh any benefits which even the most ardent protagonists of the Iraq war can claim the country has gained following the invasion. Harrowingly, the Lancet Journal reported in 2006 that a total of 654,965 people had lost their lives following the invasion. Figures from the US Department of Defence reveal that the U.S lost about 4,487 military personnel in Iraq since 2003. In addition, the financial costs of the war have been estimated by the US Congressional Research Service (CRS) as amounting to $801.9 billion. The “catastrophic success”, the belated term coined by George W. Bush in 2004 to describe the operation to overthrow Saddam appears now to be an overstatement when the financial and human costs of the incursion are taken into account.


Political Impasse

The country’s make-shift coalition has also been paralysed by political impasse. The stability of the power-sharing government has been threatened by allegations of favouritism, marginalisation and distrust. Tensions have been particularly fraught since an arrest warrant was issued against Iraq’s most senior Sunni Arab politician, Vice-President Tariq al-Hashemi over claims that he funded attacks on the Iraqi government and security forces. The allegations are also said to have been substantiated by individuals employed as Mr Hashemi’s bodyguards at the time. Mr Hashemi remains a fugitive in the Iraq Kurdistan region of the country and remains under the protection of the Kurdish regional government who have refused to give him up despite calls from Iraq’s Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki. The dispute has led to the boycott of the assembly by the al-Iraqiyya group, who are the main Sunni bloc in parliament. The group claims that the arrest warrant is merely a witch-hunt by the Shia-dominated government against the Sunni Muslim minority.


The Future

It would not be erroneous to assert that these divisions were less apparent in the ‘old Iraq’ ruled by the iron fist of Saddam Hussein. Aside the tit for tat attack by Sunnis against Shi’ite Muslims and vice versa, calls for autonomy voiced by the Kurdish area of the country and attacks against minority Christians, many of whom have left the country as a result, the country’s stability is complicated by the politics of the volatile Middle East region it finds itself in. Turkey’s attempts at asserting influence over the region, the Sunni Muslim rebellion in neighbouring Syria, the Shia majority ruled Iran’s relationship with Iraq’s Shi’ite leaders and mistrust of Sunni ruled Saudi Arabia are only but a few curve balls which the government has had to confront.

The autocratic demeanour exhibited by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has played a central role in the impossible current state of affairs. The stability of the country depends on his ability to compromise with the different factions making up the power-sharing government. Any positive changes to the current state of impasse will depend on this ability; after all, this is supposed to be a ‘power-sharing’ government. Moreover, the country’s leaders need to set an example to its populace by airing out difficulties via the arena provided by the negotiating table rather than through the issuance of arrest warrants or threats issued through the media. Only then will the message seep through to the country’s people that communication rather than violence is the most effective means of settling disputes.

In addition, the country’s security apparatus needs to be significantly strengthened to protect its people from the havoc wreaked by suicide bombers. To this end, there needs to be a change of focus towards pre-emptive action by the Iraqi government and this can be achieved by enhancing its intelligence services. Perhaps, it could seek the assistance of the US in this regard although a request of this nature may compromise its relationship with Iran who are alleged to have twisted Iraq’s arms into ensuring the exit of US combat troops from the country. Importantly, it is vital for the country’s people to see tangible benefits of living in the post-Saddam Iraq. The post-Saddam Iraq is still as poor as the Saddam ruled Iraq, and to compound matters, is also less secure. The next few months are critical times for the country although its future unfortunately rests in the hands of its pugnacious leader, Nouri al-Maliki. 1worldinternational urges its readers to watch this space.

INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY ASKS IRAN TO CLARIFY ITS NUCLEAR INTENTION

Perhaps the most predictable conclusion to a report was reached by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN’s nuclear watchdog in their summation that Iran had carried out tests “relevant to the development of a nuclear device”.

As a result, the IAEA passed a resolution stating its “deep and increasing concern” about Iran’s nuclear intentions. The resolution also requests Iran to proffer explanations which excludes the possibility of any intention to use its nuclear programme for military purposes. The IAEA however stopped short of referring the matter to the UN Security Council (UNSC).

The compromise resolution was agreed by countries including the US, Britain, China, France, Russia and Germany. The resolution is seen by some observers as evidence that the nations significantly involved in the decision-making process of global affairs and matters have the capacity to reach a consensus against the background of the prevarication which have they have previously displayed where situations have called for co-operation by the ‘big 6’.

Cynics will however argue that this effectively ‘watered down’ resolution will do nothing to prevent Iran from continuing its uranium-enrichment programme. The possibility of the imposition of sanctions muted by some permanent members of the UNSC was scuppered by the reticence of Russian and China in voting in favour of the same. The Iranian government however continues to deny that its uranium nuclear-enrichment programme is “specific to nuclear weapons”. Iran’s envoy to the IAEA stated in the aftermath of the publication of the report that its conclusion was politically motivated and that its enrichment programme is geared towards the development of fuel for use in nuclear power stations.

Nevertheless the prospect of a pre-emptive strike by Israel looms large on the horizon. Word emanating from senior members of the Israeli government namely, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defence Minister, Ehud Barak and President Shimon Peres indicates as such. Even if Iran is to be believed that its nuclear enrichment programme is not “relevant to the development of a nuclear device”, recent comments by Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khameinei, pledging to “end the Jewish state” certainly do not help matters. As a postscript, 1worldinternational notes that Pakistan attained nuclear capacity in the not too distant past although its conflict with India has not escalated as some assumed.

However, in the present matter, one dreads the repercussions associated with Iran’s intention to attain nuclear capacity as it is inevitable that Saudi Arabia and other Arab states will seek nuclear weaponry arguing that the threat of Iran necessitates such a measure. In view of the latest developments, 1worldinternational will urge its readers to watch this space.