Iran & Iraq: A comparison (Part 2) [Archives:2008/1125/Community]

By: Majed Thabet Al-kholidy
In part one, I shed light on the similarities between the current status of Iran and Iraq prior to the U.S. invasion. In this article, I will survey the common the differences between these two nations, as the former remains in a state of being threatened while the latter already has been invaded.

In Iraq's case, Saddam Hussein wasn't elected by the nation; rather, he obtained the presidency by overthrowing the country's previous president. Subsequently, many people, political parties and religious sects didn't accept him.

Hussein's treatment was tough and harsh, especially concerning political issues. Just as he was accused following the U.S. invasion, he carried out many aggressive acts during his rule. Thus, this situation was a good catch for the United States, which began propagandizing Hussein as a dictator and stirring up Iraq to rebel against him. Although Iraqis did not rebel against him, this made invading the country easier, as some Iraqis liked the idea of having their dictatorial president removed.

Iran's president, on the other hand, is elected; thus, the U.S. can't call him a dictator. With no background of aggression or violence against his people, Iranians like him as president, which gives Mahmoud Ahmedinejad the power to face the U.S. and its allies. So, how will the United States destroy Iranian unity?

The number of religious sects in Iraq was exploited excellently. Iraq has Sunnis, Shi'ites, Aqrads and others, with each further divided into smaller groups. Thus, operating under a policy of “divide and conquer,” the U.S. stirred sufficient conflicts between them.

For more than five years now, assassinations, murders and bombings have been a daily occurrence in Iraq, with each sect or group accusing the other and vowing revenge. The story began as such and remains so until today.

The majority of Iranians are Shi'ites, thus, there are no social, political or religious sects with old conflicts and Iran is marked by peace and security. So, how will the U.S. employ its policy of divide and conquer in Iran?

Iraq's declaration of having nuclear weapons was just a lie, as proven following the U.S. invasion. It also has been proven that the United States knew this before it invaded Iraq, but used this as a pretext for the invasion. Because of this previous knowledge, it invaded Iraq with no fear of facing nuclear weaponry.

No one is sure if Iran actually possesses nuclear weapons or not. If it does, the U.S. will be forced to consider the situation from all aspects and may not launch a war against it. But if Iran doesn't have such weapons, will the U.S. invade it as it did in Iraq?

Because Hussein established no international relations during his rule, he made decisions without consulting other nations for support. For example, invading Kuwait was his personal decision not approved by many other countries. As a result, Iraq was left alone in its war with the U.S.

On the other hand, Iran continues forming relations with other nations through its president's continued visits to establish relations of any kind, as evidenced by his signing contracts to exchange goods or expertise in various fields. Such relations may benefit Iran if the United States seeks to invade it.

Another major difference is that in its invasion of Iraq, the U.S. was strong enough to engage in a war because its forces dominated the Middle East. Additionally, Americans weren't strongly opposed to the war, coupled with the fact that the country's financial status was better than its current status.

U.S. forces now are trapped in Iraq, where several soldiers are killed every day. The American people have begun opposing the war, demanding their president withdraw from Iraq. At the same time, the country's financial status isn't as strong as it was, so it won't be able to engage in any other war.

These are the major differences between the situations of Iraq and Iran. Again, I raise the same question as part one – what is the future for Iran? Because there are many similarities, which I cited in part one, is it like the current Iraq situation? Or will Iran face another end due to the differences cited in this second part? I hope the issues are clear and I anticipate your responses.

Majed Thabet Al-kholidy is a writer from Taiz, currently doing his M.A. at English Dep, Taiz Uni. He is an ex-editor of English Journal of the University.
——
[archive-e:1125-v:15-y:2008-d:2008-01-28-p:community]