I remember the end of 1994 when the first conference of Iraq’s neighboring countries was held in Tehran, attended by Syria, Turkey, and Iran only. Discussions took place on the developments in Iraq at that time and the possibility of new U.S. intervention in Iraq. There was also a large number of Iraqi refugees in Iran and Turkey. At that time, I was a journalist working for the newspaper “Al-Shahada,” affiliated with the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, led by Mohammad Baqir al-Hakim.
I was looking for a press statement after the representative of the Syrian Republic, Abdul Halim Khaddam, left the meeting. I ran towards him, unintentionally putting my hand in the pocket of his jacket. He stopped, and as if a thief wanted to snatch something from him, I laughed, quickly apologized, and presented the small recording device in front of his face. I asked him about the significance of a meeting of three countries to discuss the fate of a fourth country without the presence of its representative.
Abdul Halim Khaddam faced me with a broad smile and said, “Are you a journalist or something else?”
Then he continued what he wanted to be recorded in history, saying, “We fear that the fourth [country] will not remain a state, and we are trying to deal with any new developments,” referring to Iraq.
At that time, we used to call Saddam Hussein “Mr. Yes” due to his frequent concessions after his foolish invasion of Kuwait and the ensuing calamities and humiliations for Iraq and Iraqis. This was caused by Saddam Hussein’s actions, including the blockade and destruction of infrastructure, and the humiliation of international inspections even in the president’s wardrobe, inspecting the clothes of his wife and daughters. Due to the numerous resolutions imposed on Iraq by the United Nations, more than 500 resolutions related to Iraq were issued in just two years, imposing a blockade and U.S. intervention in the management of resources and infrastructure. This was the humiliation that followed Saddam Hussein’s foolishness, and he could not escape the consequences of the occupation of Kuwait and the cancellation of his presence by a decisive decision.
The Iranians, Syrians, and Turks continued to coordinate with each other, and they did not add Jordan, Syria, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia to their list of meetings until what the participants feared happened. The state in Iraq was canceled, just as Abdul Halim Khaddam had feared. However, the Iranians and Turks benefited somewhat from the collapse of the state in Iraq. Meanwhile, Syria was utilized as a corridor for international terrorism, which was brought in to create a breeding ground for Islamic extremism. Soon, Syria was punished, and every decision of its government was reflected upon them. Terrorism took root in their country, and Syria followed its neighbor Iraq in joining the club of failed states.
The problem I am trying to address in this conference is that Iraq has problems it is trying to solve with its neighboring countries. However, these countries have problems with each other. How can opposites be brought together at one table, and will the meeting be in favor of Iraq? Or will Iraq be a mediator between its neighbors to reconcile their differences? This role is not suitable for Iraq at this stage, as it needs the support of its neighbors considering that the political process imposed by the American occupier in Iraq has not yet established a stable state. Those who benefit from chaos in Iraq include some neighbors who seek to keep Iraq in this state. They manipulate all the threads and strings to prevent stability and the return to a state.
Therefore, I say: Bringing problems to solve one issue will not lead to success.
