Ever since it decided to withdraw from Iraq, the United States has planned to protect its achievements in Mesopotamia and in the Middle East in general, and to prevent Baghdad from becoming the middle link in the alliance between Iran and Syria. In order to achieve this, Washington has relied on isolating Iran and Syria internationally and in the region, and on pressuring Iraq into being under its umbrella politically and militarily. It has also encouraged the “Awakening” movements, which fought Al-Qaeda and expelled it from their areas, to enter the political process. It has engaged, and continues to engage, in dialogue with Islamist movements, especially those that have adopted the Turkish model in the direction they have taken, such as the Renaissance Movement (Nahda) in Tunisia and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Indeed, the US is certain that no one can fill the vacuum left by its allies but the Islamists, as they are the most organized, in addition to the fact that their “moderation” poses no threat to its interests, and that they will not take sides with Tehran or Damascus for numerous reasons, the most important being perhaps their doctrinal religious disagreement. As for the other political parties, nationalist, liberal and left-wing, they cannot keep the street under control, and their policies cannot be predicted. Obama, Clinton and Panetta have taken turns in directing messages of warning to Tehran and Damascus, asserting that withdrawal does not mean abandoning Iraq, as there is between the two countries a strategic agreement stating cooperation at the level of security, economy, culture, education, etc… There will also remain in Baghdad 16 thousand US Embassy employees, as well as hundreds of mercenaries to protect interests, facilities and corporations. This is why Washington did not seem too upset at the failure of its talks with Maliki to grant the legal immunity needed to the trainers who will remain after the withdrawal. The two sides have found a way out of this disagreement in a preliminary understanding on training the army after every new deal to purchase advanced weapons. In addition to this, the US Administration considers that if over 150 thousand troops could not stop Iran's influence, then how can a few hundred trainers? What reassures the United States that it can contain Iraq militarily and prevent it from falling into the clutches of Iran is the fact that it has military bases in the region, as Obama said – bases prepared to take action at any moment, without opposition from the countries that “host” them. Indeed, the Incirlik Air Base in Turkey, for example, is prepared, and Ankara, which opposed making use of this base in 2003, has since changed its stance and participated with NATO in toppling Gaddafi. It also heads those who are demanding regime change in Syria. Qatar perhaps provides the best evidence for the importance of these bases and the role they will be playing after the withdrawal. Indeed, there is Doha leading a new alliance that has emerged from the NATO campaign against Tripoli – an alliance that may not be temporary, and may seek to repeat this experience in other places. The Middle East is changing. Its popular revolutions are toppling dictatorships allied to Washington. They are putting forward slogans of freedom and democracy, and with them the policies of the United States are changing. It portrays itself as leading the Arab Spring and speaking in its name, as revolutions provide a fertile soil for exploitation.
