Battleground or Bridge-Builder? Iraq and the New Regional Order in the Middle East

Ramon Blecua writes for War on the Rocks:

The Middle East has been in turmoil since 2011 as a result of uprisings that rocked existing political structures in the Arab world, with the declaration of ISIL’s caliphate as its dramatic result. The void resulting from the implosion of the existing regional order, guaranteed by the United States, has been filled by competing coalitions organized around Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, Iran, and Turkey. The Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (more generally known as the “Iran nuclear deal”) — which together constituted the Obama administration’s strategic vision to rebuild a security architecture in the region — have been replaced by an effort to empower the new Saudi leadership to galvanize an anti-Iran front consisting of the Arab Sunni countries and Israel.

The Middle East Strategic Alliance, also known as the “Arab NATO,” was supposed to be the foundation of the new, U.S.-inspired regional security architecture. But instead of confronting Iranian influence, the alliance has become the stage of intra-regional disputes and competing ambitions. The recent upheaval in Sudan, Algeria, and Libya, the tensions between Oman and the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, and the endless war in Yemen are not just sideshows to the main confrontation between the pro-Iran and anti-Iran camps. If a war with Iran breaks out, it will not be a neatly defined fight, but the confluence of multiple faultlines that could easily converge in a scenario reminiscent of World War I. The attacks on tankers off Fujairah and the East-West Saudi pipeline from Damman to Yambu, the allegations of Qassem Suleimani instructing Iraqi paramilitary groups to prepare for war or Saudi Arabia’s call for retaliatory airstrikes against Iran are a reminder of this.

In contrast with the increasingly belligerent narrative being pushed by various regional actors, Iraq is more assertively promoting a new regional order based on cooperation and mutually beneficial interests. By refusing to take sides in its neighbors’ conflicts, the new leadership in Baghdad is presenting an alternative to inevitable conflict and increasing its outreach as a bridge-builder accepted by all sides. The trilateral summit in Cairo last month, gathering Jordanian King Abdullah, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El Sisi, and Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi, was a significant achievement indicating that there are alternatives to a general confrontation in the Middle East. The marathon diplomatic efforts of President Barham Salih, Speaker Mohamed al-Halbousi and Mahdi have put Baghdad at the center of regional politics, since all players recognize that Iraq may be far from the regional hegemon of the past, but could nonetheless tip the balance in any regional conflict. If Iraq does not succeed in being the bridge-builder, it may end up being the battleground where the fight will be decided. It remains to be seen whether Baghdad can maintain this delicate balancing act in the face of U.S. pressures and Iranian interest in preserving its influence in the country.