muhammed45
Elite Member
Iraq is trapped inside a closed box
In recent weeks, the Iraqi political landscape has resembled an old television screen that has lost its image balance. The statements made by the leaders of the Coordination Framework, which includes Iranian parties and militias, reveal the fierce struggle for the position of prime minister without hesitation. This has been a trademark policy in the Green Zone since 2003. Iraq alone has financial strife, sectarian strife and strife fuelled by resentment and hatred, and this list is constantly growing.Those who rely on American promises forget that it was their doing that led to continuous failure. As for Mark Savaya’s statements about a new Iraq free of militias, they are merely empty threats while the ongoing US–Iranian policy of mutual support in Iraq remains in place. Nevertheless, let us wait and see if Trump’s new policy in Iraq is the solution Iraqis are looking for to reclaim their hijacked country.
This is how colours overlap. Lines blur. Political figures emerge without clear features. Everything moves slowly, as if time in Baghdad were testing its ability to stretch. Nevertheless, there is the roar of the street: Where is the country headed? How long will politics continue to exhaust the people?
The scene does not require a vivid imagination. All that is needed is to observe the daily statements made by Mohammed Shia al-Sudani, Nouri al-Maliki and even Mohammed al-Halbousi. They speak with false confidence, as if we were watching a play whose ending the audience has known for a long time. The parties talk enthusiastically about ‘reform’, but then return to the seats they have occupied for more than two decades, unwilling to compromise on anything. The government promises ‘strategic plans’. But these plans are born without legs. They can barely walk. Then they evaporate.
READ: British documents reveal King Abdullah’s “puzzling initiative” dreaming for Hashemite revival in Iraq ahead of invasion
There is a constant Iraqi paradox: the politician who talks the most is the least capable of action. The quietest street is the most capable of change. It is a confusing paradox. But it reveals that the political system only listens to itself. It hears no one else. It is as if the country is spinning inside a closed box and everyone is looking for a non-existent window.
In this context, the relationship between Baghdad and its neighbours seems to be merely an equation that changes with shifting loyalties, according to an obvious logic of opportunism to which all Iraqis are attuned. Sometimes, the language of appeasement prevails. At other times, the tone of tension rises. Compliance is often the norm, as in the relationship with Iran. Everything is subject to change. One fact remains constant, however: Iraq remains an open arena for many conflicts. Conflicts that consume its resources. Devouring its institutions. This leaves the people with a bitter question: Despite all the talk of ‘sovereignty’, why does the country not have the right to determine its own destiny?
Iranian influence is a clear example of this. It is an influence that remains constant when the state should be moving forward. It expands in moments of vacuum, filling institutions to the point where any project aiming for true independence becomes confused. Nevertheless, there are those who insist on repeating the same rhetoric: ‘Iraq is independent.’ A confident statement, but upon closer examination, only a vast void remains.
The West watches. It writes its reports. It publishes its analyses. But deep down, it realises that the situation in Iraq does not permit decisiveness. The New York Times speaks of a ‘suspended democracy’ and a country run by ‘state thieves’. The Financial Times describes an Iraq with gold reserves, but politics that turn that gold to dust. The Guardian wonders in astonishment how a country with such a history can live in such a state of helplessness. These questions originate from faraway capitals, yet they strike at the heart of the matter.
And because politics is a mirror, today we see reflected in it nothing but the weary image of a political class addicted to survival at any cost. A class that acts as if time belongs to them. As if the people do not matter. As if Iraq were merely a place to be managed with a coldness that does not do justice to its history.
But, despite the silence, something is changing. Consciousness is changing. In daily discussions. In the new generations who have had enough of the rhetoric of the past. They no longer believe in old slogans. They are looking for something simpler: normality. A state that is not governed by exceptions. Nor by fear. Nor by militia weapons that advance when words fail.
In recent years, Iraq has resembled a man who has emerged from a long war but cannot find his way back to normal life. He stands in the middle of the road. He looks back with sadness. He looks forward with hesitation. Yet he is determined to carry on. It is a determination that mirrors the stubbornness of the Iraqi people, who refuse to give up despite everything they have been through.
READ: Iraq welcomes US Congress vote to repeal 1991 and 2002 war authorisations
Today, politics is repeating the same old game, but the streets are not what they used to be. People are no longer willing to believe promises. Nor is it willing to submit. Something deep down is changing. It is the beginning of a new discourse, even if it is not yet complete. Is Iraq close to exploding like a pressure cooker under silent pressure?
The inevitable question then arises: does Baghdad need a political earthquake to get its house in order? Or would it be enough for the political class to recognise that this country is bigger than their calculations? It’s a simple question, but one that seems difficult for those who have built their existence on obstruction rather than construction.
Here, the most obvious paradox emerges: the more talk there is of ‘consensus’, the greater the division. The more talk there is of ‘reform’, the greater the destruction. It is as if there is a linguistic curse that transforms beautiful words into ugly deeds when they are put into practice.
Iraq does not need theories today. It needs courageous realism. It needs decisions that are made for the sake of the future, not the past. It needs a state that rebuilds its institutions before rebuilding its rhetoric. It needs a policy that recognises people are not extras in a long, tedious scene.
Ultimately, Iraq is greater than its misfortune. It is a country that refuses to break, despite everything breaking within it. It is a country that will not allow itself to become a gloomy version of what others want it to be. Iraq is struggling to breathe, but it is still alive. Perhaps that is enough for a start.
Because a country that remembers itself, even if belatedly, can recover. It can salvage what remains of its identity before it is lost entirely in the din of slogans. Politicians need only realise that time is running out. People no longer accept that the maze will remain a permanent fixture.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.
