Your trusted source

We present Iranian Diplomacy’s interview with Alireza Ayati, a senior expert on Middle Eastern affairs.

- What will the impacts of al-Ebadi’s presence in Iran be following the measures taken by Iran in some regions of Iraq to fight against ISIS and the statements made by Saudi and US officials about Iran’s intervention in Iraq?

- There is no doubt that Iran’s support and consultations to the Iraqis was an important element in breaking the Amerli siege. In humanitarian cases, Iran does not wait for a resolution or a conference and the opinions of other powers to take necessary measures. The people and government of Iraq needed support and necessary consultations and Iran helped the popular forces and the Iraqi army in this regard. If Iran had not supported them, ISIS and the terrorists affiliated to foreign intelligence services would have committed another catastrophe and genocide in Amerli. I believe that if this massacre had happened in Amerli, Iraq’s domestic situation would have become uncontrollable and people’s revenge could not be controlled. Iran’s role in Iraq has always been in the interests of the people and government of Iraq. These supports must not be interpreted as negative intervention because when Arab and western states import terrorism and arms to Iraq with their own objectives which have negative impacts on the instability of Iraq and draw insecurity towards Iraq’s borders, Iran also has the right to take necessary measures to help the stability and security of this country’s borders. Of course, the terrorists would not enter Iran’s red lines but preemptive measures should be taken and a show of force is sometimes necessary. If a county accuses Iran of intervening, it is only a propaganda game which has been going on against Iran since years ago. But these countries know well that Iran’s measures against terrorism are to their own benefit as well. ISIS has certain plans for Saudi Arabia and the US in the future and Iran’s support of the Iraqis in their fight against terrorism is certainly in others’ interests as well. Al-Ebadi’s presence in Tehran under the present critical conditions which is also his first state visit is related to Iraq’s domestic issues and the issue of the fight against terrorism. Iran has always been an important country for Iraq, thus, it was chosen for al-Ebadi’s first state visit. Relations between the two countries are strategic and along the line of maintaining the stability of the borders between the two countries and strengthening the security of the region. If Iraq becomes unstable, it will have destructive effects on the Middle East region. I believe that even if the world leaves Iraq alone, Iran will never do so. The Kurds, the Shiites and the Sunnis of Iraq have always asked for Iran’s help during the dark years of the Ba’ath Party or the US occupation.

- What are the impacts of the closeness of relations between Iran and Iraq and the repeated visits made by high-ranking officials of the two countries on Iraq’s domestic situation?

- Constant consultations and direct talks at different levels between the two countries are a strategic necessity in the relations between Iran and Iraq. There are different political, security and economic points both in bilateral relations and regional issues which must constantly be discussed between the two countries. Different Iraqi groups, whether official or unofficial, have always visited Iran and used Iran’s experience and views. The people of Iraq certainly need help under the present sensitive conditions and Iran, with its high popular and governmental capacities, will help them in all aspects. The reason is that the destiny of Iran and Iraq is tied together and if the Iraqis are damaged by the present developments, the Iranians will suffer damages as well. Mutual connection between Iran and Iraq demand both countries to help each other in times of need. Right now, Iran is an island of stability with a lot of power and is not hesitant to support the Iraqis. Other countries will also be encouraged to pursue Iran’s approach because the fight against terrorism in Iraq and Syria has become a global principle now.

- Will these visits lead to the resolution of the Iraqi crisis or is it possible that some groups, particularly the Sunnis and also foreign forces, would react to this matter and take measures against the government?

- Certainly, relations between Iran and Iraq have its own enemies, but the majority of the people of Iraq, whether Sunni, Kurd or Shiite, view Iran as a supportive country. There might be some political differences but there is no deep animosity between both sides as it is propagated by the poisonous western and Arab news networks. Nevertheless, Iraq is considered as a holy land for the Iranians, thus, its people are respected. I have heard that following the incident in Samarra, many of the Sunnis in the region stated that they would build and support the shrine. The negative media atmosphere which is spread in the region against relations between Iran and Iraq by some elements related to Israel and the US and British intelligence services should not affect our analysis. The majority of the Sunnis in the region trust Iran’s policies and have seen Iran’s honesty in its behavior and positions. They have seen Iran’s constant anti-Zionist and anti-US positions and know that the Iranians do not deal over the foundations and principles of its constitution which are inspired by Islamic and religious teachings. When Iran says that it supports Palestine, all Sunnis believe this statement. Otherwise, there would have been bloody wars between the Shiites and the Sunnis caused by Israel’s provocative actions in the region. There has been an explosion in Samarra and the mosques were attacked and destroyed and the Sunnis were killed but fortunately no war occurred between the Shiites and the Sunnis. The fatwa issued by the Supreme Leader with regard to Aisha was heard by the Sunnis and they realized Iran’s view regarding the unity of the Shiites and the Sunnis. But a small part of Iraq plays in the enemy’s court due to the support that they receive from foreign countries which is also natural. Nonetheless, Iraq has lived under an authoritarian regime for years and been occupied for many other years, hence, there are still some connections between a part of the Iraqi society with Saddam and the US. This issue needs to be resolved. The Iraqi Ba’athists which have a history of killings and bloody wars in the region and have always had special relations with the US and Britain pursue Israel’s plans in the region. This is a negative point which must be resolved. They intend to destroy the relations between Iran and Iraq and even completely destroy Iraq’s wealth. But I believe that the relations between Iran and Iraq which have regional and international impacts and are deep will not be affected by the Ba’athists’ provocative actions. Of course, they will pursue their killings and destructions and have used ISIS as a tool to create fear but they will not succeed and insecurities will return to their friends. Some Arab states and the US follow the policy of using these elements in a period of time and ultimately bombarding them but these elements, particularly ISIS, will finally separate themselves from the Ba’athists and independently stage operations against their supporters. The task of the Ba’athists is clear; they should take measures against Iran as they receive salaries from the Arab and western intelligence systems. Otherwise, their salaries will be cut. When the US was reviewing the plan of a show attack against ISIS in Iraq, they said that their air strikes should not harm those who receive help from them because it would damage their friendship.

- All of Iraq’s religious and ethnic groups considered Maleki’s removal from power and the establishment of the government of national unity as the solution to Iraq’s crisis. But after the formation of the new administration, the situation in Iraq is still unstable and the army has not advanced in its fight against ISIS. What is the reason behind this situation?

- The issue of insisting on Maleki’s resignation was only an excuse. Both supporters and opponents of Maleki know that the issue was not the prime minister because that would not impact Iraq’s strategy. In the end, the prime minister will be chosen from the Shiites and the Shiites will oppose the plans which would include the separation of Kurdistan from Iraq, the return of the Ba’athists, strengthening terrorism, the emergence of ISIS and the disintegration of Iraq, whether Maleki is the prime minister or Heidar al-Ebadi.

The strategies of the friends and the enemies of Iraq are clear. The US and its allies pursue the return of the Ba’athists to power and the weakening of the trend of democracy and keeping the Iraqis busy with their domestic problems. This strategy will not change, with or without Maleki. Al-Ebadi and any other prime minister will be confronted with the same problems Maleki faced during his time as prime minister. Unfortunately, Iraq has become a place for the intervention of the political and intelligence apparatus of the Arab and western states and in the end it is Israel which would benefit from it. There are numerous countries in this regard which strategically work along the line of Israel’s interests. The Israelis believe that if relations between Iran and Iraq are stabilized, they will be tied to Syria and Lebanon and Israel will be faced with a strategic quagmire exiting of which would be difficult. Add to this equation the power of resistance in Gaza which, if linked with the resistance in the West Bank, would create problems for Israel.

- It is proposed that the Iraqi Prime Minister’s visit to Iran is aimed at Iran’s participation in the fight against ISIS because its own forces do not have the necessary capability to do so. Would you agree with this view and could Iran directly enter into this issue?

- The Islamic Republic of Iran has always been faced with state and non-state terrorism and fought directly and indirectly against it; the fight against the anti-revolutionary forces, the war launched by Saddam and the Zionist regime against Iran. No other country except Iran is experienced in the fight against terrorism because the people and government of Iran are the victims of terrorist actions in the region. The majority of those who have now emerged as ISIS were involved in the war against Iran for eight years. Then they attacked Kuwait and later they tied themselves to al-Qaeda and reemerged with the support of the US and its allies. Many members of ISIS were imprisoned in the US prisons during the occupation and were later freed. I believe that Iraq does not need the direct presence of foreign forces at the present time. The fatwa issued by Iraq’s Marja’ and the people’s resistance along with Iraq’s huge oil wealth are big forces which could guarantee Iraq’s future. If Iraq flourishes, it could become the strongest Arab state but the US and its allies do not agree with this idea. Iraq’s support by Iran and its friends is a strategic and psychological necessity. When the people of Iraq feel that Iran and its people support them their spirits in the fight against terrorism and Zionist threats would rise. The fatwa issued by Iraq’s Marja’ is also a strong spiritual tool which is not in the interests of the terrorists. I have heard that the UN Secretary General has expressed his dissatisfaction about this fatwa and its reason is unclear because his deputy, who plans the Middle East policies, is well aware of the power of the fatwa.

In general, the presence of al-Ebadi in Iran would strengthen the spirit of the people and the government of Iraq in their fight against terrorism. Of course, he will have regional and extra-regional trips in order to gain the support of other countries. Iran is optimistic about the establishment of good relations between Iraq and its neighbors because it believes that all countries of the region need Iraq’s capacities and stability and will be damaged by its insecurity.