Putting Peoples on the Track of Illusion!

Listen to the article; the audio text is automatically generated by a system.

The crisis in the Middle East has changing faces; from wars to disrupted development. It has roots that are being avoided. One of them can be described as "putting peoples on the track of illusion" by convincing them that their present is governed by an endless injustice, and that their salvation lies in following those who amplify that injustice.

I know that discussing what is happening in Iraq and Iran from this angle may provoke ready accusations from some, but silence leaves the field open for those who invest in people's wounds and ask them to postpone their lives indefinitely!

Let's start with Iraq. The Shiites have faced discrimination and exclusion there, and these are facts that cannot be denied. Their scholars and tribes played a prominent role in the 1920 revolution against British rule, alongside other Iraqi forces. Then, the royal state exhibited a clear imbalance in the distribution of influence, favoring elites predominantly affiliated with Sunni identity. However, reducing the history of the Iraqi state to the complete absence of Shiites from power also misrepresents the facts; for example, Saleh Jabr and Muhammad Fadhil al-Jamali held the position of Prime Minister during the royal era. Their participation does not negate discrimination, but it prevents turning history into a single color, dark and bleak.

The identity crisis worsened during the Ba'ath era, despite some Shiites participating in power. It reached the point of uprooting Iraqis from their homes and expelling them to Iran under the pretext of Iranian allegiance. With the rise of nationalist rhetoric, Shiite families, including the Kurdish Feyli community, were stripped of their citizenship and displaced. It is fair to remember that the same tyranny repressed its opponents from various affiliations. Holding all Sunnis responsible for those crimes gives sectarianism what it needs: a born criminal, an inherited victim, and a conflict whose accounts never end.

After the fall of the regime in 2003, there was an opportunity to build citizenship that transcended that legacy. However, the American occupation, which did not understand Iraqi society, along with the participation of some Iraqi political forces, entrenched the treatment of society as sectarian and national quotas. The quota system shifted from a framework for representing the different groups to a basis for distributing positions and resources. The presidency of the government settled as a political norm for the Shiites, not by a constitutional text that confines it to them. This differentiation is necessary, as what was created by political understandings can be changed, no matter how much the beneficiaries try to present it as Iraq's eternal nature. Therefore, this customary arrangement has produced unprecedented corruption, as everyone has known recently. Thus, it is important to change this custom so that it does not remain an obstacle to a democratic Iraqi state.

Parties that claimed to represent the oppressed came to power after the fall of the regime, invoking past battles as if they had happened yesterday, thus keeping the discourse of victimhood as a source of their authority, which counters any attempt to build a state. The question about electricity, jobs, and corruption now requires an answer about the past, and sometimes criticism of the official is placed in the category of targeting the sect. Iran (the nation) benefited from this arrangement; here lies the illusion: that the arrival of a sect member to the position means that the citizen has attained their rights. A politician can share your sect and deny you services, while another who differs from you in sect can uphold your rights. The criterion for governance is what it does for the people, not the identity written in its biography.

Some forces from these parties sought assistance from Iran; some had ties with it that predated the fall of the Ba'ath, and then the brotherhood of sect mixed with calculations of influence, and weapons with a historical deception in which the state disappeared to advance the transnational sect; thus, the state was sacrificed. As for the "Coordination Framework," its procedural naming does not change the fact that it is a coalition of Shiite political forces, among which there are differences in interests and connections to Tehran, and it does not represent all Shiites in Iraq. It is enough to recall the October 2019 protests in Baghdad and the south, which toppled the government of Adel Abdul-Mahdi and burned Iranian flags, to understand that Iraqis from the same Shiite environment rejected the quota system and foreign interference. These people want a homeland and do not need a guardian to explain their identity.

In Iran, the story of Mohammad Mossadegh needs to be re-read, without selecting what suits the rivalry. The American and British role in the 1953 coup is documented in a simplistic manner, and it is not accurate to say that Washington tried to overthrow him but failed and ended its role. Mossadegh's coalition fractured from within after excluding the clergy, and some senior clerics, led by Abu al-Qasim al-Kashani, opposed him, mobilizing forces in the streets and the army against Mossadegh; thus, the coup succeeded. History repeated itself, as when the major powers, especially America, realized that they could not control the ambitions of the Iranian Shah, intelligence played an important role in pushing the Islamic Revolution to the forefront. Today, we see the same story repeating. The world does not care who rules Iran or how they rule, but it cares that Iran does not have the capacity to threaten its neighbors or harm Western interests. Today, the Islamic Republic of Iran claims to be against America, while in the past it was the beneficiary of 'Iran Gate'!

I believe that criticizing the Iranian narrative becomes more convincing when we acknowledge foreign intervention in both cases, and then ask about the responsibilities in the interventions in the neighborhood, which overthrew the Shah and are repeating again! The Iranian regime is a nationalist system in religious clothing, which first despises Arabs (whether they are Shiites or Sunnis)!

The Iranian illusion begins when a historical event turns into an eternal judgment on international relations, and generations that did not live it are asked to pay its price endlessly. It is the right of Iranians to question their government about their livelihood and freedom, and about the cost of its destructive regional choices, without being lectured about the 'Great Satan' and the smaller one, which was recently denied by the Houthi stance, Iran's Yemeni arm. The memory of peoples deserves respect, while monopolizing its interpretation grants power an undeserved immunity.

It is wrong to assume that the Iraqi Shiite is subordinate to Iran by virtue of his sect, or that the Iranian is a partner in every decision made by his authority. This assumption repeats what sectarian parties do on the other side. In both countries, there are citizens whose interests and aspirations differ, seeking safe living, good education, and job opportunities. When we confine them to a political identity, we help those who claim to represent them to close the door to choice in front of them, and weaken the voices that demand their right to self-determination.

We face real grievances, and authorities and parties that make the continuation of the feeling of these grievances a condition for the continuation of their influence. In Iraq, there is a confusion between justice for Shiites and marginalizing others, and in Iran, between independence and continuing hostility. Getting out of this track begins with restoring the citizen's right to question the ruler about what he has accomplished today. The past explains some of the present, but if it remains an obstacle to understanding the present, everyone loses!