As Iraq enters its post-parliamentary election phase, the situation resembles that which Lebanon faced after its own parliamentary elections last June. The two countries have much in common and it might be useful to compare them.
Their Shia
Iraq and Lebanon have similar heterogeneous sectarian breakdowns. For Lebanon, the Shia, Sunni, and Christians represent the vast majority of the population. For Iraq, it is the Shia, Sunni, and Kurds. In Lebanon, the sectarian proportions are more equally divide (more or less), while in Iraq, the Shia make up about 60% of the population, and the Sunni and Kurds, about 20% each.
In both countries, the Shia have represented the underclass but have now come to assert their numbers. In both cases, the Shia were aided by outside forces.
Since the 1970’s, the Shia of Lebanon have been assisted by Iran and Syria with weapons and cash. The Shia have been using those resources to achieve a level of power that more accurately reflects their demographics. Today, the Shia of Lebanon (through Hizballah) are well armed and well positioned politically.
The Shia of Iraq were savagely oppressed by the Saddam Hussein regime until the US-led invasion. This is despite (or perhaps, because of) the fact that they outnumbered Iraqi Sunni 3 to 1. Today, the tide has turned, with three of the largest political groups being Shiite-led. Like the Shia of Lebanon, the Shia of Iraq are in a strong position going forward.
Both countries have powerful Shiite militias. In Lebanon, Hizballah was the only group to retain their weapons after the civil war ended in 1990. Since then, Hizballah has only gotten stronger militarily, and today is considered by the majority of the Lebanese political establishment to be a legitimate part of Lebanon national defense, primarily against Israel.
Iraq’s battle-hardened Shiite militia is Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army. Although the group faced a fierce crackdown at the hands of the Maliki government in 2007, they are still considered to be a formidable fighting force that is currently “lying dormant”.
While Hizballah has used its resources to assert it’s position within Lebanon, the group’s traditional adversary is Israel, an external threat. For the Mahdi Army, the opponent was the Saddam Hussein regime, an internal threat.
Both Hizballah and the Mahdi army are led by influential and charismatic men. Hassan Nasrallah and Muqtada Sadr themselves have much in common, a subject which is explored at length here.
The primary Shiite religious figure in Lebanon is Muhammed Hussein Fadlallah; for Iraq’s Shia it is Ali Hussein Sistani. Both men are highly respected and try to stay out of politics as far a picking sides and endorsing candidates.
Sectarian Relations
Iraq and Lebanon have each seen their fair share of sectarian strife. Violence between the sects erupted in Lebanon in 1975 and led to a wide spread death and destruction over a period of 15 years. Iraq sectarian violence took off when Saddam Hussein came to power 1979. In this case, the violence was one-sided and state-sanctioned, with Hussein’s Sunni-Baathist government brutally oppressing both Shia and Kurds over the years.
Today, as both nations try to make their way in a new era, the different ethic and religious groups are still learning to coexist. In Iraq, the Shia and Kurds are weary of the Sunnis, who treated the Kurds so poorly when they were in charge of the country.
In Lebanon, the Sunnis and the Christians were the dominant groups. While the levels of violence and oppression over the minority groups did not reach that of Iraq, the Shia of Lebanon were marginalized and their people saw a minuscule portion of state resources allocated to them.
In both cases, there is still considerable tension between the sects. Nevertheless, the competing groups likely realize that they need to cooperate going forward, and that all groups must feel represented in order to achieve any lasting stability. Lebanon is much further in this process than the Iraq.
External Influence
Both nations have been subjected to substantial outside influence, war, and occupation.
Iraq was involved in a brutal and savage war with Iran (1980 to 1988), which claimed hundreds of thousands of lives on each side. Iraq has been under occupation since the US invasion in 2003.
Lebanon was involved in a lengthy civil war (1975 to 1990), made more complicated by the presence of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). In 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon to destroy the PLO and to establish an Israel-friendly government there. The plan ended in disaster with the assassination of Bashir Gemayel shortly after he became president. Israeli forces remained in Lebanon until 2000, when they were expelled largely due to the efforts of Hizballah. In addition, Lebanon was occupied by Syrian forces from 1978 to 2005, when Syria was forced out after the assassination of Rafik Hariri.
Both Iraq and Lebanon are influenced by other nations. For Iraq, this means Iran and the US, and to a lesser extent, Saudi Arabia and Syria. The United States’ influence is on the decline, as its 8 year occupation comes to an end. It’s questionable just how much political influence the US ever really had in Iraq, as no politicians ever felt it was acceptable to align themselves with the Americans.
If US infleunce in Iraq is on the decline, Iranian influence is on the rise. Iran’s geographic advantage is that it is right next-door to Iraq. Also, both Iran and Iraq are now Shiite-dominated, which is a rarity in the Sunni-dominated Muslim world.
Syria also has influence in Iraq due to its geographic proximity. This will make them important trading partners in the future. Also, Syria likes to expand its outside influence whenever it can, as this is historically how the regime in Damascus wields power. Syria is extremely poor, has a weak military, and has no natural resources. So keeping proxies and maintaining influence in other countries is seen as their primary way of executing their agenda.
Saudi Arabia influence in Iraq comes from its oil wealth as well as its position of respect as the keeper of Islam’s two holiest cities of Mecca and Medina. The Saudis would like to curb extremism in Iraq- largely coming from Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI)- in order to prevent the spread of extremism in the Kingdom itself. Also, Saudi Arabia is likely interested in seeing that the Sunni of Iraq are not mistreated there now that they are part of the minority.
Politicians of both countries seek the approval of other nations. While this is perhaps most true in Lebanon, it is also deeply important Iraq.
Lebanon is well known as the country that other nations use to settle scores. The PLO used Lebanon as a base to attack Israel. Israel, Syria, and Iran use Lebanon as a battlefield to avoid destruction in their own countries. This includes the use of proxies. For Iran, it’s Hizballah. For Syria, it was Amal and now Hizballah. For Israel, it was the South Lebanon Army.
The United States takes an interest in both countries, although much more in Iraq than Lebanon. America’s interest in Iraq is in its oil, as well as Iraq strategic position to possibly counter Iranian influence (however, if this was part of the reason for the US invasion of Iraq, the exact opposite was the result, as Iran’s influence in Iraq has never been higher. The war has cost America the lives of thousands of US troops, as well as hundreds of billions of US dollars.
As for Lebanon, America’s interest seems to be on behalf of Israel, who is officially at war with Lebanon. In 2006, the Bush administration advocated for the complete annihilation of Hizballah, a fact which was not lost on the Lebanese as they were under assault from the Israeli Air Force. A distant second place concern to the safety of Israel might be Lebanon’s Christian population, as a Middle Eastern country not officially headed by a Muslim is an anomaly, and perhaps speaks to America’s own Christian dominated society.
In terms of other nations meddling in their countries, both Iraq and Lebanon have what you might call a “primary influencer”. In Iraq, this would be Iran. In Lebanon, it would be Syria. In both cases, the dominant country holds the weaker country as a key strategic interest. And while little progress may be made with the dominant country’s cooperation, no progress can be made without it.
Also, it is interesting to note Syria’s relation to both countries in terms of the grander struggle between the two Middle Eastern powerhouses of Iran and Saudi Arabia. As mentioned, both Lebanon and Iraq have large numbers of Shia living in them, and they also have significant minority Sunni populations. This situation is rare in the Middle East, as most other nations are dominated by one or the other.
The rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia is well known, but Damascus’ relationship with each country puts it in a unique position as a potential go-between. This is where Iraq an Lebanon come in, because both Iran and Saudi Arabia have significant interests there, and Syria is one of the only countries in the region that is friendly with both. And Syria’s closeness with Iran (both diplomatically and geographically) is probably one of the leading factors that led to Syria’s President Bashar Assad’s reconciliation with the Saudi King.
Possible Lessons for Iraq
When Lebanon is not being invaded or bombed by Israel, or being used by the PLO as a base to attack Israel, and as long as rogue forces (Syria) are not assassinating its leaders and dissidents, Lebanon is actually a relatively stable and prosperous country when left to their own devices. This has been especially true since the end of the civil war in 1990. Though threats of violence from Israel persist to this day, Lebanon is seeing significant gains from its recent stability. Construction is rampant, tourists are flocking, and business is booming. And there is no reason that Iraq should not be able to experience the same in the future.
While Lebanon and Iraq have much in common, the two also have many differences. The most glaring difference being their natural resources. Lebanon is small and has relatively few natural resources, Iraq is big and sits on a sea of oil. This fact can either add significantly to Iraq’s future prosperity, or it could lead to the country’s downfall. If all sides do not work together and try to share the wealth, then no one will win. Lebanon may not have much in terms of resources, but they also seldom let sectarian differences get in the way of doing business.
One other thing that the two nations have in common is that they are both true democracies, another rarity in the Middle East. While Lebanon’s may not seem like the most productive or fast moving government, it understands that are many competing views that must be heard in a country like that. If you don’t take a certain sect’s concerns seriously, there will be trouble down the road. The whole government is set up so that one group doesn’t come to dominate the rest. Iraq might try to do the same.
In this regard, Iraq has a significant difference with Lebanon in that its demographic proportions are different. In Lebanon, the Shia, Sunni, and Christian groups are all basically the same size. In Iraq, the Shia vastly outnumber the Sunni and the Kurds (about 60%, 20%, 20%, respectively). This actually may give Iraq a leg up, as the Shia there are large enough in numbers to assert themselves politically in order to circumvent stagnation on a possible issue. For Lebanon, sometimes each side is heard ad nauseum and nothing ever seems to get done. Nevertheless, it is important to listen to minority groups in order to prevent political discontent and possible future destabilization.
Conclusion
Both Lebanon and Iraq are fragile democracies with diverse sectarian groups. Both countries have significant Shiite populations, which draw the attention of Iran. And both countries, while zealously nationalistic, are nevertheless under a great deal of political pressure, particularly from Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and the United States. While sectarian divisions persist, Lebanon shows us what a truly diverse nation is capable of when business, not war, is the activity of the day.
Lebanon’s government functions like a cruise ship: it moves slowly and doesn’t turn swiftly in one direction or another. This is by design, because we have seen what happens in a country like this when one (or groups) run rough-shod over another. When people feel marginalized, over time their feelings of being cheated can lead them to take extraordinary actions that they might otherwise not have taken.
Lebanon learned this lesson during its civil war, and hopefully Iraq doesn’t have to suffer a similar fate in the future. Though often not in the most effective way, Lebanon’s Shia, Sunni, Christians, and Druze, etc. have all learned to work together because they know that the price of not doing so is too high. Perhaps Iraq will take heed of this lesson, and maybe that country’s Shia, Sunni, and Kurds will learn to work together for the greater good.
There are many similarities between Lebanon and Iraq, let us hope history (in terms of civil war) is not one of them. Iraq had its instances of terrible violence after the fall of Saddam, but that does not mean that it has to repeat the same mistakes going forward.
