🇮🇶–?| Perhaps the sentence that brings together most Iraqis who engage in political affairs, despite their different positions and stances, is: “Iraq must stay away from the politics of competing axes and be master of its own affairs.” But the problem is not with the sentence itself; rather, it lies in the way it is used.

When people speak of the national decision, the national interest, and sovereignty, it quickly becomes clear that the discourse is, in most cases, directed exclusively at Iran’s allies and the factions of the Resistance Axis, as if they alone are required to forget their affiliations and place the national interest above everything else. Meanwhile, alignment with the American axis is treated as an unavoidable fate and an established reality that should not even be considered abandoning. When you ask, “What is the national interest?” you will receive almost the same answers: sovereignty, independence of decision-making, and Iraq’s possession of its own internal and external decisions. This is where the dilemma begins. Since 2003, Iraq has lived within a broad network of American influence extending from the economy to politics, and from foreign relations to the details of domestic decision-making. We are constantly told that there is no escape from America because it is the greatest power and that moving out from under its umbrella would cost Iraq dearly. But acknowledging that you cannot leave the umbrella of a foreign power because you fear the cost is itself an acknowledgment that you are situated within that power’s axis.

The issue, then, is not the existence of axes, but which axis Iraq is allowed to be part of and which axis it is asked to disavow. When America intervenes in Iraq’s economy, influences its foreign relations, and extends its influence into details that may appear minor but reveal the extent of that power, from preventing aircraft from landing at Iraqi airports to exerting pressure to prevent a particular person from assuming a position, and ultimately imposing financial and political restrictions and decisions that affect Iraqi decision-making, then Iraqis are told, “Be the master of your own affairs.” At this point, it must be asked: “Master of its own affairs before whom?”

This is where the essence of the issue becomes clear. If Iraq is, by force of reality, within the American axis, why does the discussion of axes become a problem only when it concerns the Resistance Axis? If Iraq has the right to maintain ties with America because it is the greatest power, why is it not understood that others may see resisting American hegemony as part of their political and security choices?

And when the factions are told, “Hand over your weapons, withdraw from the equation, and prove that you are with the state,” the question is: Which state? A state that fully possesses its own decision-making authority, or a state that is expected to implement what the Americans want in order to prove that it is a state?

The Iraq that we are told will become master of its own affairs once the factions hand over their weapons and disappear from the scene is not a more sovereign Iraq. Rather, it is an Iraq from which one side of the conflict has been removed, while the other side remains in place, more comfortable and more capable of defining the boundaries of what is permitted and what is forbidden.

🔹@enemywatch