Jamal Wakim
On September 2, Iraqi Prime Minister Muhammad Shia al-Sudani laid the foundation stone for the Iraq-Iran rail link project in the port of Shalamcheh in Basra governorate, in the south of the country, in the presence of the Iranian Vice President, Muhammad Mukhber.
The Iraqi Prime Minister’s press office announced that “ the project is one of multiple episodes to transport travelers and visitors to the sacred shrines, planned to reach the Najaf and Karbala ” governorates, and underlined “ the importance of the rail connection project in transporting passengers from Iran and the countries of Central Asia, as well as its importance to improve the infrastructure of the Iraqi economy and increase its growth.
Iranian First Vice President Mohammad Mokhber considered the “ project to be a strategic plan for Iran and Iraq, which involves a transformation of trade in the Middle East region, and that it is considered a complement to international transport corridors, in addition to joining the railway line of the two countries ”.
The inauguration of this line represents a strong boost to trade between Iraq and Iran, and to Iraq’s trade with the countries of East Asia, to connect it with the countries of Western Asia and reach the Eastern Mediterranean.
Tehran regards the Shalamcheh-Basora railway project as a strategic corridor linking Iranian territory with the Mediterranean Sea through Syria. In 2016, the creation of this line began, which should end at the port of Latakia to transport goods from Pakistan or the port of Chabahar, in southeastern Iran, and goods arriving by train from China and Central Asia to the Sarkhs region of northeast Iran, and from there to the Syrian ports and the Mediterranean, through the Iraqi railway network, as well as the transport of goods from Russia and Europe to Iraq within the framework of the North-South international corridor.
Iraq is Iran’s first line of defense
Iran attaches great importance to the project, as it links it to Iraq, Syria and the Mediterranean region, and will contribute to achieving significant change in the region. It depends largely on neighboring countries to market their products, in an attempt to reduce the repercussions of the stifling sanctions that the United States re-imposed after Donald Trump’s withdrawal in 2018 from the nuclear deal signed with Tehran in 2015.
This line is of importance that goes beyond the economic dimension to the geopolitical dimension, since it is related to Iranian national security. Iraq has always been considered Iran’s first line of defense.
Islamic Iran has been a target of Americans since the victory of the 1979 Revolution, which had to fight in Iraq to defend itself. From here, we understand the encouragement of the Americans to Saddam Hussein to wage war against Iran a year after the victory of the revolution, and we understand why the war lasted 8 years. Americans were aware of the lessons of history and knew that attacking Iran would launch from Iraq to the Iranian plateau.
Furthermore, the 2003 invasion of Iraq aimed to separate Iran from Syria and isolate it in preparation for launching an in-depth attack on Iran. Therefore, when Iran supported the Iraqi resistance against the American occupation, it was following the same strategy that the Persian leaders adopted in ancient times by defending Iran on Iraqi soil.
Iran’s historical tendency to reach the Mediterranean
The line to be built is a reinforcement of the old Iranian strategy of reaching the eastern Mediterranean. In general, Iran’s geopolitical inclinations to access the eastern Mediterranean have deep historical roots and are driven by a combination of historical, strategic, religious, and regional power considerations. These trends continue to shape Iranian foreign policy decisions and have significant implications for regional dynamics and stability.
One of the secrets of the relationship that Islamic Iran established with secular Syria was that this relationship allowed Iran access to the eastern Mediterranean. Because it was the base of several countries and empires, Iran has a rich historical and cultural heritage in the region. The Persian language and culture have had a great influence in countries such as Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. This historical influence creates a sense of historical connection and legacy, energizing Iran’s movement in the eastern Mediterranean.
Furthermore, Iran regards the eastern Mediterranean as part of its broader geopolitical strategy. By expanding its presence in the region, can establish a foothold in the Arab world that is a starting point for its relationship with Arabs who influenced Iran’s history and contributed to the formation of its religious and cultural identity after the 7th century AD.
Furthermore, the eastern Mediterranean is home to a large Shiite Muslim population, especially in countries such as Lebanon and Syria. Iran, as a Shiite-majority country, seeks to maintain its relationship with the region’s Shiite communities, especially the Shiites on Mount Amel in southern Lebanon, especially since the ulama of this region played the most prominent role in the conversion of Iran to Islam.
Eastern Syria from Washington’s perspective
On the other hand, the United States seeks to besiege Iran by preventing it from reaching the eastern Mediterranean through the land separation between Syria and Iraq, occupying northeast Syria and the Al-Tanf region. After the withdrawal of the US occupying forces from Iraq in 2011, as a result of the blows they suffered at the hands of the Iraqi resistance, Washington kept several American advisers and trainers under the guise of advising Iraqi forces.
Washington has taken advantage of the expansion of the Islamic Caliphate in eastern Syria and western Iraq to redeploy its forces in Iraq to a large number of military bases. The number of US forces in Iraq has increased to tens of thousands on the pretext that they are military advisers, and have begun to support armed groups against the Syrian state in eastern Syria, led by the Syrian Democratic Forces.
In 2014 the United States began carrying out air strikes in Syria under the pretext of fighting the Islamic Caliphate, without asking the Syrian government for permission. US forces occupied strategic areas, such as oil fields, under the guise of depriving the Islamic Caliphate of income and providing resources to its local partners.
The number of US forces in eastern Syria is estimated at 2,000 at dozens of military sites and bases. In 2019, as a result of the invasion of Turkish forces from various areas in northern Syria, US forces adjusted their position to focus more on the Syrian-Iraqi border to prevent ground communication between the two countries.
By preventing ground communication between Syria and Iraq, the United States intends to contain what it considers “ the expansion of Iranian influence ” in the region, especially since Iran is one of the main supporters of the Syrian government. It was launched from Iraq to ensure that its supplies reach the Syrian government and people. Therefore, from the point of view of the Americans, the occupation of parts of eastern Syria and the prevention of ground communications between Syria and Iraq aim to “ obstruct the flow of arms, fighters and funds to Syria ”.
Furthermore, the United States seeks, through its occupation of parts of eastern Syria, provide support to the Kurds in the SDS and to the armed groups fighting against the Syrian State, in order to prevent it from regaining its sovereignty over the northeast part of the country. By preventing ground communication between Syria and Iraq, and therefore Iran, Washington seeks to support its allies such as the Zionist entity, Jordan, and the Gulf States, who have declared that Iran represents a threat to them.
Therefore, preventing ground contact aims to “ protect the interests of these regional allies and protect their borders from potentially destabilizing activities ”. By separating Iraq and Syria, Washington also seeks to support its agenda of dividing the Fertile Crescent, including Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, under the guise of federalism, pluralism and the protection of minorities.
The recent American escalation
The United States has recently begun to intensify tensions in eastern Syria by increasing its military concentration there and redistributing roles between Kurdish militias affiliated with the SDS and Arab tribes that they have expressed their discontent with the hegemony of the Kurds in northeast Syria with the support of Washington.
Washington aims to gain greater support for its presence in eastern Syria and to reinforce its illegal occupation of the region, following the inability of Kurdish forces to control the region, considered the homeland of the Arab tribes par excellence. Furthermore, this step would please Turkey, which fears the SDS, considered the Syrian wing of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, which seeks to separate eastern Turkey.
This escalation comes after the visit of Iraqi Prime Minister Muhammad Shia al-Sudani to Damascus and his meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and his confirmation of working to strengthen economic and political relations between the two countries, especially since Iraq was one of the few Arab countries that did not break its relations with Damascus during the war that was launched against it from March 2011.
Washington feared that this would lead to strengthening relations between Iraq and Syria in a way that supported ground communication between them and connected Syria and Iran, at a time when rail connectivity projects between Iraq and Iran were in full swing.
SYRIA 360° INTERNATIONALIST 