Is Iraq likely to break-up?

The history of 20th century Iraq is a torturous one. When the territory was under the Ottomans, there were four entities there. The British, who took control of this land in the thirties, united all of them to form the Kingdom of Iraq under a Saudi born man. Events soon after turned traumatic for the Iraqis. The country moved from kingship to dictatorship of the military, and then President Saddam Hossain, who himself was a military man, ran united Iraq under the iron hand of the Baath party. The rest is well known, and the US and Britain moved into Iraq to remove Saddam and kill him in 2003.
Iraq always had a multi-religious and multi-ethnic society. The majority of the people are Shia, followed by Sunnis, Kurds, Christians and other minority groups. Throughout history the people lived in relative peace. Saddam Hossain's Baath party comprised of Sunnis. He himself was one too. After his death the Sunnis were gradually marginalised from the government and the power structure. The majority Shias took over the levers of power. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki made a conscious political decision to keep the Sunnis out of the picture.
This has been a wrong step since all political dissidents were either Sunni or Kurd. The remnant of Saddam Hossain's powerful army including his elite Republican Guards, who are without any gainful employment or position, quickly coalesced into a force. They, along with foreign volunteers, formed the core of the Islamic State of Iraq and greater Syria (ISIS). Recently, they have wrested away the Sunni quadrant in the north and west Iraq from the Shia controlled government. This has pushed a wedge between the Shia majority who are mainly populated in the south of the country and the autonomous region of Kurdistan in the north and east. In effect, today Iraq is split into three areas with Baghdad the capital in the centre.
But will this assume permanency as the Shia sit tight and try to push back the Sunnis? Will the Sunnis, who are comparatively lightly armed, be able to face the Shias as time passes? It is here that the mistakes of US policy in Iraq kick in. When the US went into Iraq to topple Saddam Hossain it exploited Shia resentments in order to win allies against Saddam Hossain. It manipulated sectarian tensions among Shia parties in Iraq that ultimately started sectarian warfare. Although US encouraged Shia parties in Iraq, it pursued an aggressive policy against next door Shia-led Iran. Added to this is the US encouragement of Sunni radicalism to oust President Basher Al Assad from neighbouring Syria.
The US has, therefore, collided with its own policy within the region and now seems to be impotent to take decisive steps to stop the break-up of Iraq. Obama is able to send only 300 advisers to train the armed forces of Iraq. Curiously, US policy makers had been toying with the idea of creating three states in Iraq as early as 2013.
There are compelling reasons why Iraq is likely to split unless certain actions are taken immediately. The ISIS is greatly feared by the Shia soldiers of Iraq. Its drive to Mosul recently has sent shivers down their spine. This is caused by the fearsome image of the ISIS leader, popularly known as Abu Dua. Even al-Qaeda left ISIS as it could not stand its brutal tactics. It is important that ISIS be put on a leash and Abu Dua captured. The other matter is Prime Minister Maliki's actions to narrow sectarian divide in Iraq. He has done precious little to instill confidence in Sunnis and Kurds. They hate his policies, which have denied them representation and support. He has ousted all Sunni elements from his government and brutally suppressed all Sunni and Kurd opposition. Besides, the Kurds bear a deep grudge against Maliki too. Although the sectarian strife has not moved into Kurdistan as violently as expected, yet the unfulfilled wish of the Kurds to take over the oil city of Kirkuk as their capital is yet to materialise.
The interesting part of the evolving crisis in Iraq is that it is having deep impact on its neighbours. The disturbing events in Syria have troubled Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon, where millions of Syrians have taken refuge. But the ISIS of Iraq has successfully erased part of the international border between Syria and Iraq. It has also started to gain the hearts and minds of the people on both sides of the border. Thus, ISIS is laying the foundation of a future state there. So if Iraq is to stop itself from being compartmentalised, ISIS must be contained both in Syria and in Iraq. But then, checking of ISIS will only benefit President Basher Al Assad, who is its mortal enemy.
The role of Iran is also important in stopping the split up of Iraq. It is already supporting President Bashar Al Assad and is simultaneously negotiating with the US and the West to resolve its nuclear standoff. Given this state of things, all sides see ISIS as a spoiler and want the advance of its forces resisted. Iran has already dispatched elite troops from its Al-Quds brigade to go to Iraq and support Prime Minister Maliki's interest. So Iran's new effort could bolster Iraq's effort to keep ISIS at bay.
At the end of the day, the biggest deterrent to the break-up of Iraq is to begin a dialogue among the political groups in Iraq. If successful talks are held and an effective government is formed that enjoys a national consensus, then a bright future awaits Iraq. The country's parliament will meet on June 30 to elect a speaker and a new president. If a prudent and pragmatic person takes over as the new president of Iraq, the country could still be saved.
Time is running out, but in Iraq time is at a standstill when reconciliation is being seriously considered.

The writer is a former Ambassador and a commentator on contemporary affairs.
E-mail: [email protected]