While the United States, compelled by circumstances, remains committed to an agreement with Iran, it simultaneously mobilizes its proxies in two Arab countries that, to varying degrees, constitute Iran’s strategic flanks. Of course, the Imperialist United States’ manufacturing of wars and aggression is not confined to the Arab Homeland; it ignites conflicts wherever it can. These wars differ according to the region, but the essential objective is the perpetuation of warfare as a mechanism of reviving capitalism/imperialism.
The Iranians may realize that there is neither friendship, peace, nor neutrality to be expected from U.S. imperialism toward any nation in the world, especially those in the region—perhaps with the exception of Turkey, and certainly not with regard to the Zionist Ashkenazi Entity ZAE. Consequently, Iran has taken a firm stance in implementing its agreement with the United States, insisting that aggression cease and that the occupying army withdraw completely from all Lebanese territory.
To ease Iranian pressure in support of Lebanon, the United States, in turn, pressures Iran by employing Iran’s Iraqi allies against Iran. Since 2003, the United States has effectively ruled Iraq, regardless of claims that it has withdrawn or arguments based on what America supposedly lost in Iraq.
Iraq’s governing system is sectarian, built upon a mixture of sectarianism, dependency, politicized religion, corruption, and “sleeping with two spouses”—namely, the United States and Iran. When a country is divided between two external powers, all that remains is for Iraq to be milked mercilessly.
It is true that, by virtue of the sectarian nature of the ruling authority, Iraq has become a system dominated by Arab Shiites loyal to Iran rather than to Iraq. However, the sectarian elite’s lust for power drives them to serve both the United States and Iran. It also leads these opposing powers to facilitate one another’s interests because they meet on common ground: plunder, exploitation, and strategic agreement that Iraq should no longer remain genuinely Arab.
Thus, Iraq became an economic lifeline for Iran during the U.S. economic war—known as sanctions—against Tehran. While virtually every regime in the region complied with Washington’s orders to isolate Iran, the Iraqi “lung” was left functioning, providing Iran with economic breathing space roughly equivalent to half the capacity of Iran’s own economy.
This recalls the sanctions—effectively a starvation war—imposed on Iraq between 1991 and 2003, and on Syria between 2011 and 2024, where comprehensive and deadly blockades allowed no meaningful outlets or relief. It is as though sanctions imposed on Arab progressive regimes are of a uniquely absolute character.
The Iraqi Regime: An American Creation in Existence and Decision-Making
The position of the Iraqi regime has perhaps remained confusing to many people, especially when the so-called “Axis of Resistance” claims that Iraq is part of it.
Certainly, many Iraqis support the resistance, but Iraq as a state—and especially its ruling system—does not. The Iraqi resistance itself has not decisively committed to fighting the US occupation until the country is liberated.
This profound contradiction cannot be concealed by occasional statements from certain Iraqis condemning the Zionist Entity, expressing support for Iran, or launching what amounts to perhaps one symbolic strike per year against the Zionist entity—what might be called “courtesy resistance.”
Recently, the United States appears increasingly inclined to confront Iran through its neighboring states rather than through direct American-Israeli military confrontation, much as it seeks in Lebanon to weaken the resistance through the Lebanese Army and Lebanese separatist forces.
Although Iraq remains simultaneously under American and Iranian influence, Washington is now pressuring Iraq’s sectarian regime to align exclusively with the United States—not with Iran, and certainly not with Iraq itself. After installing a prime minister from the same sectarian background who serves American interests at the expense of his counterpart, Nouri al-Maliki, Washington now expects its chosen leader to repay that political investment.
To serve his patron effectively, the new prime minister must present the Iraqi Arab people with a convincing narrative, and no slogan is more effective than claiming to fight corruption. Corruption has become perhaps the deepest popular grievance in Iraq after and mainly because of the occupation itself, within a system whose economy can best be summarized as “the political economy of corruption.”
Accordingly, he must shift his loyalty from serving two masters to betraying his sectarian loyalties in favor of political, politicized religion, and class loyalty to imperialism, joining the camp of Arab client regimes, particularly the Gulf monarchies.
Naturally, Iraqis who supports Iran will claim they are defending Iran against America, whereas in reality they serve whoever provides power and patronage. Thus, Iraq’s sectarian elites—Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish alike—face the humiliation of choosing between two forms of betrayal. Such is, after all, the essence—and ultimately the fate—of sectarian politics.
But what compels sectarian collaborators to abandon their sectarian ally, Iran, in favor of their political and class patron, American capitalist imperialism?
Anyone who has followed Iraqi political writings since 1991, and especially after 2003, will notice that very few have addressed the fundamental issue. Instead, the overwhelming majority—politicians, intellectuals, and even uninformed social media commentators—have specialized in denouncing Saddam Hussein and Arab nationalism, praising the present-day Iraqi Communist Party despite its alleged subservience to American occupation, or ignoring what the the Zionization of the Kurdish leadership in Iraq.
The reality, however, is reflected in what others have observed: immediately after Baghdad fell, the occupying forces secured the Ministry of Oil while allowing mobs and looters to plunder virtually every other ministry and state institution.
American newspapers reported that after taking control of Iraq’s oil, the U.S. occupation transferred oil revenues into the U.S. Treasury, with Washington subsequently sending monthly allocations to the Iraqi government as it saw fit. Every sectarian government, parliament, political party, and even the so-called Iraqi resistance accepted this arrangement, while simultaneously speaking endlessly on television about “Iraqi sovereignty.”
This direct American control over Iraq’s oil revenues laid the foundation for the corruption that the new prime minister was imposed by Donald Trump now claims he intends to eradicate.
It is important to cite quotation from M. Mohibul Haque’s article, noting that these observations came not from Iraqis but from an outside scholar:
“For example, Order No. 39, signed by U.S. administrator Paul Bremer on September 19, 2003, authorized the privatization of approximately 200 state-owned enterprises and permitted leases lasting at least forty years. Overnight, it became illegal to impose restrictions on foreign ownership in any sector of the Iraqi economy except natural resource extraction.
Order No. 37 established a flat corporate tax rate of 15 percent, with no distinction between multinational corporations and individuals. Consequently, a poor Iraqi farmer paid the same tax rate as Bechtel, the American multinational contracted to operate Iraq’s privatized water system.
Order No. 39 also granted foreign companies unrestricted rights to transfer profits, revenues, and investments abroad.
To facilitate the free movement of goods and services in accordance with neoliberal and imperial policies, Bremer signed a trade liberalization law in 2003 abolishing all customs duties, import taxes, licensing fees, and similar charges on goods entering or leaving Iraq, along with virtually all other trade restrictions.”
Source:
M. Mohibul Haque, “Beyond Liberalism: Contemporary Relevance of Marxism,” Indian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 45, Nos. 1–2, January–June 2011, Department of Political Science, Aligarh Muslim University.
Thus, Iraq’s popular classes find themselves transferred from one sectarian-class order into another corrupt hierarchy that continually reproduces itself, enriching higher layers of corruption at the expense of lower ones.
This is not what Iraq needs, nor what its popular classes demand, even if one layer of corruption merely replaces another. What Iraq requires instead is the renewal of the organized popular movement that emerged in 2021, guided by conscious leadership and advancing a program whose minimum objectives would include ending the occupation, re-nationalizing the oil industry, restoring the public sector, implementing agrarian reform, and pursuing Arab economic integration.
____________
The opinions and views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Kana’an’s Editorial Board.