Cartoon by Hassan Bleibel

Elections showed utter limits of Iraqis’ support for Iran

By Ibrahim al-Zobeidi

Arab Weekly: The results of recent Iraqi elections showed that the section of the population that rejects Iranian occupation the most are Shia groups which were misrepresented as the loyal sectarian incubator of Iran’s encroachment in Iraq.

Through demonstrations, uprisings, sit-ins and other grassroot activities, these groups have proven their commitment to the constants of Iraqi society, including the spirit of independence and resentment of the Iranian presence.  They have remained faithful to the ideals of its resistance and deliverance from Iran, despite all the convoys of martyrs, wounded and the disappeared they have suffered in the heroic showdown with Iran’s proxies.

This was clearly made evident by the defeat of the pro-Iran parties despite unlimited government, militia, financial and military support, while independent candidates with hardly any financial means won seats in the race.

There is no more tell telling sign of the depth of Iraqis’ rejection of Iran’s presence and of its political parties and militias than the fact that the vast majority of the armed elements belonging to the Popular Mobilisation Forces and other pro-Iran armed factions, which were thought to be loyal to Iran, turned their backs on Tehran and gave their votes to independent rivals and candidates connected to the October uprising.

As one probes the reality of the Iranian presence in Iraq and its limits, it becomes clear that all the wounds inflicted by Iran and its Iraqi agents on Iraqi society have remained superficial and they will heal faster than anyone imagined.

Iran’s support base in all Iraqi regions, especially in the central and southern governorates, long described as of being pro-Iranian, has remained confined to the Popular Mobilisation Forces and other armed factions and to major government agencies and state institutions along with isolated (popular) segments that have tied their fate to Iranian presence, either out of ignorance or financial interest.

The most important conclusion that a careful reading of the final election results is that three-quarters of the Iraqi population have boycotted the elections and that the remaining quarter voted for parties not controlled by Ismail Qaani, the head of Iran’s Quds Force, but for other groups hostile to him and to his loyal followers.

If by a miracle, the elections were to be re-organised, and all abstaining voters cast their ballots, all of Iran’s agents would receive no votes. They would probably end up behind bars, being tried for eighteen bloody years and unforgivable crimes.

One of the most important benefits of the recent elections, despite all its flaws and shortcomings, is that they have punctured the myth that Iranian weapons in Iraq are there to defend the Shia community and preserve its rights.

The threat made by the “Coordination of Armed Factions” that lost in the elections, that they would resort to arms “if the demonstrators who reject the results of the elections are harmed” reveals that these militias will not shy away from burning down the country and killing its people, if the Wali al-Faqih orders it and when their interests are at risk. They know that most of those rivals who have sparked their anger by winning the elections, are from Shia constituencies in Iraq’s governorates.

But the greatest blessing bestowed upon us by the recent Iraqi elections is that they have proved to the Iraqis, Lebanese, Syrians and Yemenis, in particular, that the Iranian presence in Iraq, despite all its armed brigades and all its tyranny and brutal repressive methods, is a paper tiger and a drop in the sea of ​​authentic Iraqi society.

Unlimited thanks go to the young people of the October uprising, who have lifted the veil on a regime that is rotten from within and returned hope to the people that salvation is near.