No doubt, given the history of revolutionary Iran and Iraq:
Iraqi protesters are not letting up in their calls for the removal of Iraq’s government, with the largest demonstrations so far on Friday. More than 250 have been killed in the last month, with thousands wounded. The mostly youthful demonstrators want Iran out of Iraq — a sign of a hopeful "post-sectarian" turn in Iraqi politics. But don’t expect Iran, with its many levers of influence and disruption, to concede defeat and withdraw.
Yes, Iran wants to hold on to their positions in Iraq (and Lebanon):
Iran has worked to turn sweeping anti-government protests in Iraq from a threat to its hard-earned influence over its neighbour into an opportunity for political gains, analysts say.
In Lebanon too, where similar rallies against corruption and government inefficiency have broken out, Iran's main ally Hezbollah has managed to maintain its influence.
Protesters certainly see Iran's hand in the use of force against protesters:
Many protesters now blame Iran and Iranian-backed forces for the worst of the violence, and one of their key demands has been the removal of Iranian influence. Chants of “Iran out, out!” have become common within Tahrir Square in central Baghdad, and on Friday videos circulated showing protesters burning the Iranian flag.
“Iran, they are the ones who destroyed and attacked us. Iran is behind all the people who created this situation. Iran runs the country,” said Ali Kasem, a 17-year-old protester.*
There is a struggle going on over there. I'm so old I remember when anti-war people said destroying Saddam was a favor to Iran (so was destroying Hitler a favor to the USSR?).
I've long been in favor of fighting Iran in Iraq to minimize Iran's influence and increase our own:
This Iraq situation is a consequence of the 2011 departure of American forces from Iraq. Iraq's military leadership rotted, ISIL gained strength, and Iran gained an opportunity to enter Iraq to respond to ISIL. I was worried about Iran inside Iraq the moment we left Iraq (and long before that, of course).
America reentered Iraq, too, in 2014 in response to ISIL.
And now we battle Iran for influence inside Iraq. Which is a consequence of not defeating Iran itself.
The battle is better than the article makes it sound by saying Iran is struggling to remain "neutral" in the long struggle between America and revolutionary Iran.
Most Iraqis reject Iranian dominance. But they fear Iran next door. They saw us leave once and so aren't sure if we can be counted on. To be fair, they asked us to leave in 2011. But to be more fair, Obama was leaving no matter what the Iraqis said.
Regardless of that history, Trump today occasionally indicates his preference to get out, too. Which would be a mistake.
We should want Iraq to be more of a friend and ally--the extent of which is already ill-appreciated.
And perhaps there is hope that the protesters who demand action against corruption without resorting to religious authority:
The ongoing protests in Baghdad and other cities are a reaffirmation of these longstanding demands [for better government]. They are demands for a better life that is not based on cronyism. They are also a call for a political system that is based on the democratic inclusion of all the country’s components and an end to the kleptocracy that plunders Iraq’s revenues for the benefit of the elite and leaves the rest of the people to live below the poverty line.
More here:
Yet the protesters — who are not describing themselves as Shiite, who are not calling for any particular Shiite equities and who have only the loosest of ties to the Shiite religious establishment — are deeply critical of established Shiite political parties and are not using any distinctly Shiite symbols. And, of course, they are demonstrating against a Shiite-dominated government (and Iranian influence on the same). So while there is a sectarian cultural aspect to this phenomenon, to date, that has not translated into any particularly sectarian demands.
My hopes might not be so far-fetched:
In many ways, contrary to the charge that we fight in Iraq for oil or Halliburton, our fight in Iraq is highly idealistic. Rather than settling for putting "our sonofabitch" in charge of Iraq, we are attempting to give the Iraqis the chance to live in a free country where ballots decide who sits in the government's offices.
Our Left, which you'd think would be sympathetic about this goal if not the methods, is strangely committed to the idea that Arabs aren't ready for democracy.
I've asserted that one day our president will be known as George the Liberator for his role in starting this process, no matter how long it takes to take root and spread[.]
Although I don't have much hope for Lebanon as long as Iran is mullah-run and Hezbollah is so strong based on its support from Iran.
UPDATE: Let's not waste this crisis, a top Iraqi cleric says:
In his Friday sermon, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani said it is the responsibility of the security forces to maintain the peacefulness of the protests and avoid using excessive force in dealing with the demonstrators. ...
"The political powers ... have a unique opportunity to respond to people's demands, according to an agreed upon roadmap, that should be implemented in a specific period to put an end to a long period of corruption," said Sheikh Abdul Mahdi al-Karbalaie, al-Sistani's representative. "It is no longer permissible to procrastinate on this issue because of the great risks facing the country."
He also issued a veiled warning about Iran exploiting the protests.
During the Iraq War counter-insurgency, Sistani was a force for reason and resisting Iran. I feared he would die from natural or unnatural causes too soon. He must be ancient by now and is seemingly still needed.
*Although I strongly protest the notion that Iraqi misgovernance dates back to the 2003 liberation of Iraq, as the author claims. Saddam effed up the country long before American tanks crossed the berm.
