Iran & Iraq: A comparison (Part 1) [Archives:2008/1123/Community]
By: Maged Thabet Al-Kholidy
[email protected]
As an independent nation, weapons manufacture is one area to which Iran pays much attention; however, this actually astonishes other countries, especially Iran's enemies. It also reminds us of Iraq's situation prior to the U.S. invasion. The question that arises is: “Do the similarities between Iran and Iraq only offer Iran an end similar to Iraq's?”
I'm going to compare the similarities and differences between these two nations' situations so that we might foresee what will be Iran's future. I'll be very happy if readers also send their viewpoints about this topic, which I'll shed light on in two parts.
The first similarity is their declaration of having modern weapons policies and announcing the manufacture of nuclear weapons. Saddam Hussein declared this, challenging the world, with special reference to the U.S. and Israel. This was a strong pretext for the United States and its allies – with the U.N. Security Council's permission – to invade Iraq.
Such forces employed all types of weaponry to invade Iraq, destroying it not only militarily and politically, but also socially and culturally. I don't think there's any need to go into detail about Iraq's current status because it's obvious to all.
Like Iraq, from time to time, Iran announces the progressing advancement of its weapons program, proudly declaring its readiness to stand against any hostile nation, with particular reference to the United States and Israel. However, it's also charged with sponsoring terrorism, particularly Hamas in Palestine and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Iraq was a symbol of dignity and independence, formerly declaring its readiness to fight whoever interfered with its independence and power in the world. Such declarations drew the attention of nations such as the U.S., Israel and Britain, which considered it a threat to their interests in the entire Middle East region.
Further, some Gulf nations such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait also considered it a threat – especially after Iraq's attempted invasion of Kuwait – and it was these Gulf countries that supported the U.S. and its allies in launching the war against Iraq.
Similarly, Iran now threatens U.S. interests in the Middle East and, “according to President George W. Bush,” it is among those countries sponsoring terrorism. Additionally, Iran has some problems with the United Arab Emirates regarding islands along their sea boundary.
These factors are more than enough to give the United States and Israel the pretext to wage war against Iran with the support of the United Nations and possibly with the help of the United Arab Emirates. In fact, the U.N. already has imposed some sanctions against Iran as an initial step in the United States' war against it, so what will be the coming punishments?
At the outset of the war with Iraq, no other nation was on its side. The whole world left it alone in what's called a “war,” although “invasion” is a better term for it. No Arab or Islamic country or any other nation offered Iraq any help or support. Instead, some such countries simply “condemned” it. In reality, most nations – particularly the Arabs – were just watching and waiting to side with the eventual winner.
While Iran does have relations with other nations, its relations with Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon may not offer it any real help because they too are threatened. Additionally, it's difficult for them to be involved in any such war since their capabilities are insufficient to battle far from their homelands.
Thus, these countries may only be able to condemn, as they did in the case of Iraq. Once they feel the situation has become more critical, they no longer condemn, but support the one who is about to win.
Iraq has experienced hard times, thereafter taking freedom and dignity as their ultimate mottos of existence. Such thinking actually gave Saddam Hussein the power to challenge the United States and its allies because he thought Iraqis would never refuse fighting enemies like the U.S. He strongly believed Iraqis would never sell their homeland, but that was merely a feeling, while reality is something else entirely.
Immediately following the war, many Iraqis sought personal gain, selling their homeland for a sum of money or the promise of a high-ranking position within the new government. This is still occurring and because of it, Iraq still bleeds.
Likewise, Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, now speaks as if he's sure about all Iranians. Indeed, if all Iranians are totally loyal to fighting the U.S. and its allies, that's ok, but what guarantees are causing Ahmedinejad to think so? Does he bear in mind the Iraq situation as a lesson?
The U.S. and its allies have discovered that Iraq's religious sects are a good way to split the nation into smaller and smaller parts. Worse still, they were clever enough to let them fight each other and this is still happening as Sunnis attack Shi'ites. In this way, the U.S. can destroy not only Iraq's infrastructure, but rather the relationships and the spiritual links between its citizens.
Although most Iranians are Shi'ite, there are some other religious sects and even Jews, as well as opposition parties, which could be exploited by the U.S., which follows a policy of “divide and conquer.” I hope this won't happen in Iran, if they've learned any lesson from Iraq.
These are the similarities and there are some differences, which I'll shed light on in my next column. Such similarities evoke a strong curiosity to foresee the situation in Iran. I hope you'll view this topic critically to evaluate the situation and then send your opinions either directly to me or to the newspaper.
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:1123-v:15-y:2008-d:2008-01-24-p:community]
