THE assassination attempt on the Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa Al-Kadhimi is a clear message of where matters would go if the state does not succumb to the blackmail practices of gangs funded by Iran. This is aimed to downplay the recent parliamentary elections, which revealed the true popular size of those gangs, and their awful defeat by the power of the voices of the component it considered as a natural incubator based on its sectarian discourse, and the falsification of its representation in the past two decades.
Iraq, under the leadership of Al-Kadhimi, has succeeded in this difficult test. The Iraqis have proven that the October uprising three years ago is capable of bringing down the hideous mask that the Iranians tried to put on this great Arab country by force, either by threat, terrorism, murder, treason, or enticement with money, influence and jobs.
All of those tactics flopped perhaps forever, especially if the Arabs particularly the Gulf states worked on supporting Al-Kadhimi, who alone faced these gangs that made Iraq a mere backyard for the Mullahs regime where it throws its racist and expansionist filth, and uses the blood of Iraqis in its project.
Every cloud has a silver lining … what happened in the last two days may be an occasion to revive the memory of the Iraqis who celebrate this year the centenary of the establishment of their state, which began after the Twentieth Revolution in which both the Shiites and their Arab references participated strongly.
They were spearheading it by confronting the English and their Persian ally, who at the time sought to lay their hands on the Shiite holy sites in Najaf and Karbala, and transfer the authority to Qom. However, national confrontation from both Sunnis and Shiites thwarted the project at that time.
For a century, Mesopotamia did not witness any creedal and sectarian discrimination like the way it happened in the past two decades when the Mullahs regime managed to form some political forces as a sectarian Trojan horse to penetrate this sensitive region. It succeeded for a while, taking advantage of the civil war that ignited under the title of Shiite oppression, which is the same title that they tried to market in Lebanon and spread its influence through the terrorist group Hezbollah.
Despite the unified Iranian role in Baghdad and Beirut, some people are comparing the two countries, forgetting that the first consists of two large majorities – Sunnis and Shiites – and small minorities, while the second consists of 19 sects that form a political mosaic, which can only be controlled through bullying by an external force.
This is evident from the way Hezbollah usurped the Shiite sect’s decision, and worked towards isolating it from the rest of the sects. It paralyzed its role in Lebanese political life, taking advantage of its military and security influence, while the levels of wisdom declined among many of those who proclaimed themselves leaders of the sects, and were drawn into the game of quotas in its worst forms.
This eventually weakened the national sense in the interest of stirring up the sectarian instincts that led Lebanon to the beginning of its demise.
There is no doubt that the return of Iraq to the Arab side is much easier than the return of Lebanon, perhaps in the current stage. Therefore, standing behind Mustafa Al-Kadhimi is a Gulf necessity, before it is Arab, because what is currently required is to cut off Iran’s arms in the region, the first of which is in Mesopotamia which the Persians are trying to maintain as a passage to the rest of the Arab countries.
By Ahmed Al-Jarallah
Editor-in-Chief, the Arab Times