ArDO: Yes we want Lebanon to be the Switzerland of the East and Beirut the Paris of the East


 | HomeArchives  | Links|


 Device  Articles  Politics  Language  Pictures  History/Culture  History 
Dr. Walid Phares



Dr. Walid Phares


Published 05 Sep 07

Iran's plan for Iraq

by Walid Phares, Ph.D.
World Defense Review columnist


[Part one of a series on "Freedom Lines," adapted from seminars conducted for the U.S. House of Representatives' Caucus on Counter Terrorism, summer 2007]

In March 2003, the United States made a strategic decision to send troops into Iraq and defeat the Saddam Hussein regime militarily. This decision is still being debated nationwide and internationally as to its legitimacy and rationality.

One camp claims Washington didn't have a right to change the regime and engage in an armed confrontation with Iraqis. Another camp says Saddam was a threat, the region is now better off without him, and Iraqis have been liberated from a bloody dictatorship.

   Above, general Directions of the Iranian Syrian Plan for Post Withdrawal Iraq.

 Above, advances by
1. Iran: Center, South and Saudi and Jordanian borders; pressure on the Kurds in the North
2. Syria: Anbar, limits of Sunni Triangle, pressure on Kurds
3. Turkey: Tentative: Pressure on the Kurds

 Above, final advances
1. Iran: Central, South, West
2. Syria: Anbar, borders enclaves
3. Al Qaeda and Jihadists: in the Center

In reality, only historians will determine if it was the right decision at the right time for one simple reason: While U.S. military operations aimed at dismantling the regime's military power ended in April 2003 very successfully as a matter of fact the second much longer road for the following set of U.S. goals is now under scrutiny.

Should American and Coalition forces withdraw immediately, begin pulling out, or staying the course, is the center of the ongoing debate. But to answer, one has to understand the goals of the adversaries in this ongoing conflict. Al Qaeda has a plan for Iraq, and U.S. forces are fighting it along with Iraqi units. But the direct geopolitical threat that is linked to the role of U.S. troops in that country is the Iranian regime and its allies in the region and inside Iraq. How does Tehran see the American presence, what are its plans for Iraq, and what will happen if U.S. forces are withdrawn abruptly?

Prior to 2001, the Iranian regime had developed regional ambitions, including a military alliance with Syria, continuous support of Hezbollah in Lebanon and a slow-pace development of a nuclear weapon. In the 1980s, its proxies delivered blows to the U.S. in Beirut and by May 2000, its allies in Lebanon had reached international borders with Israel.

During the decade following the first Gulf War, the Pasdaran were training and arming Iraqi militias for future mission in Iraq. The Khomeinists and Hafez Assad had an Iraq plan years before the U.S. invaded in 2003: overrun the Shia areas in the center and the south and open a land bridge between Iran and Syria.[1] But 9/11 shook off the foundations of the Iranian plan. By December of that year, U.S. and Coalition forces removed the Taliban and opened the path for a democratic government in Afghanistan.

The regime change in Kabul was a first problem for the Mullahs in Tehran: democracy defeating a Jihadi regime wasn't a good example to watch. By April 2003, a second catastrophe hit the Islamic Republic: Saddam was removed, but worse, democratic elections were succeeding each other in Iraq. But more dramatic was the fact that U.S and NATO forces were deployed to the East and to the West of Iran.

In strategic reading, the Khomeinist project was geographically contained: no more bridge to Syria and a greater menace was hovering over the nuclear program. Even more catastrophic was the proximity of two democratic experiments to the Iranian society. Students, women and workers have been challenging the theocratic regime since the late 1990s.

To Khamanei's ruling elite, successes across the borders meant a condemnation to the regime inside Iran. Thus the Pasdaran were tasked with a plan to destabilize Afghanistan and crumble the political process in Iraq. Since the summer of 2003 and for the following four years, Iranian backed Terrorism against civilians, Syrian passage for the Jihadists and pressures against U.S. and Coalition forces aimed at provoking a quicker and chaotic pull out.

If Washington withdraws catastrophically from Iraq what would the Iranian regime do? In about six to nine months, this is what would happen:

  1. The pro-Iranian militias (SCIRI, Badr Brigade, Muqtada al Sadr, act.) would seize the control of two thirds of Iraq between Baghdad and Basra. The militias would create "security enclaves," perform several terror acts and assassinations leading to a crumbling of the central Government, and a pro-Khomeinist regime established.

  2. Most moderate Shiite politicians and liberal elements in those areas would be eliminated, as did Khomeini with his partners in the Iranian Revolution in 1979. Within less than a year, most Shia partners of the Pro-Iranian forces would be eliminated.

  3. And as it was practiced in Lebanon in 1990, the pro-Iranian future regime of Iraq will call in Iranian "brotherly" forces to assist in security and in the defense of the borders. The Pasdaran and the Iranian army will deploy in the southern Oil fields, along the borders with Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Jordan and would connect with the Syrian forces across the borders. The latter will be asked to help in the Anbar province.

  4. The Sunni areas will be left to be dealt with later, along with Syrian interventions.

  5. The Kurdish areas will be submitted to isolation, pressure and internal divisions, in a concerted effort with Syria and the Islamic Government of Turkey.

This is not a theoretical scenario. This is the projected reality if U.S. forces would prematurely and abruptly withdraw from Iraq before achieving one major strategic objective in Iraq and the region: Helping the independently minded Iraqis to reform and solidify their Government, erect their Army to a regional level and along with U.S. forces establish a containment system for Iranian expansionist ambitions. Any lesser goal achieved in Iraq is a direct invitation to the Iranian regime to become the greatest threat in the 21st century against Peace and Security, in the region and worldwide.

[1] See Phares, Walid "The Syrian-Iranian Axis" Global Affairs. Spring 1992.

Dr. Walid Pharees is a senior fellow with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) in Washington, D.C., and director of the Future Terrorism Project of the FDD. He is a visiting fellow with the European Foundation for Democracy in Brussels. His most recent books are Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies against the West (2006) and The War of Ideas: Terrorist Strategies against the West (2007).
    Dr. Phares holds degrees in law and political science from Saint Joseph University and the Lebanese University in Beirut, a Masters in international law from the Universite de Lyons in France and a Ph.D. in international relations and strategic studies from the University of Miami.
    He has taught and lectured at numerous universities worldwide, practiced law in Beirut, and served as publisher of Sawt el-Mashreq and Mashrek International. He has taught Middle East political issues, ethnic and religious conflict, and comparative politics at Florida Atlantic University until 2006. He has been teaching Jihadi strategies at the National Defense University since 2007.
    Dr. Phares has written eight books on the Middle East and published hundreds of articles in newspapers and scholarly publications such as Global Affairs, Middle East Quarterly, the Journal of South Asian and Middle East Studies and the Journal of International Security. He has appeared on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, BBC, al Jazeera, al Hurra, al Arabiya, as well as on many radio broadcasts.
    Aside from serving on the boards of several national and international think tanks and human rights associations, Dr. Phares has testified before the US Senate Subcommittees on the Middle East and South East Asia, the House Committees on International Relations and Homeland Security and regularly conducts congressional and State Department as well as European Parliament and UN Security Council briefings.

Visit Dr. Phares on the web at and

2007 Walid Phares

Also by Walid Phares:
Iran's plan for Iraq [05 Sep 07]
Military Jihad in modern times is illegal [31 Jul 07]
Preventing the West from Understanding Jihad [18 Jul 07]
The Car Bomb Jihad: Is Britain seeing clearly? [02 Jul 07]
Palestinians: "Taliban" versus "Mujahideen"? [26 Jun 07]
Syro-Iranian massacre of politicians in Lebanon [16 Jun 07]
The Syrian-Jihadi "highway" in Lebanon [02 Jun 07]
Losing the War in Congress: Not in Iraq [24 Apr 07]
Royal Navy incident: The larger plan of Teheran's regime [26 Mar 07]
A Muslim Resistance against Jihad? [08 Mar 07]
London warning: A new step in Jihad Terror [08 Feb 07]
President Bush's new plan: Redirecting Iraq's campaign [29 Jan 07]
FUTURE JIHAD Terrorist Strategies against the West and other Democracies [11 Jan 07]
Hezbollah offensive in Lebanon: Days One, Two, and Three [08 Dec 06]
On Iraq: Listen carefully to General Abizaid [20 Nov 06]
Hezbollah's offensive in Lebanon has begun [13 Nov 06]
The "Caliph-strophic" Debate [23 Oct 06]
The Continued Misunderstanding of the Salafi Jihad Threat [09 Oct 06]
U.S. Embassy: Assad allows attack, offers "protection" and aims at confusion [13 Sep 06]
Hezbollah's Political Blitzkrieg [14 Aug 06]
Israeli targets in Lebanon [27 Jul 06]
Zarqawi: Killing the future chief of al Qaida [09 Jun 06]
From London to Toronto: Dismantling cells, dodging their ideology [05 Jun 06]
The Strategic Waves of Iraq's Liberation [01 May 06]
Are you ready for Hezbollah's Preemptive Terror? [10 Apr 06]
A Jihad window at the Emirates' gate? [28 Feb 06]
Osama's unmistakable message [26 Jan 06]
The US and Pakistan
Allies or Not Allies Is the Question [16 Jan 06]
Catch them, but do not watch them!
Spying on al Qaeda in America [20 Dec 05]
Iraqi Victory, American Achievement
The October 15 Referendum [17 Oct 05]
Debate on al Qaida's losses in Iraq
Newsweek's speedy conclusions lead to analytical crash [29 Sep 05]

NOTE: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author, and do not represent the opinions of World Defense Review and its affiliates. WDR accepts no responsibility whatsoever for the accuracy or inaccuracy of the content of this or any other story published on this website. Copyright and all rights for this story (and all other stories by the author) are held by the author.

The articles published on this site represent the opinion of their writers and not the opinion of the webmasters.