The Washington Post recently published
an article by Munqith al-Dagher the CEO of Almustakilla for Research
in Baghdad on a public opinion survey his firm conducted on Shiite views of
Iran. The poll found a large change in people’s views of Tehran and its role in
Iraq. Dagher’s analysis of the poll however missed many important points about
how Iraqi politics work and even undermines some of his own points at the end.
The respondents expressed a significant change in their
opinion about Iran. The firm questioned 2,500 to 3,500 people in face to face
interviews conducted from 2015 to 2018. Shiites that had a positive view of
Iran dropped from 88% in 2015 to 47% in 2018. Those that had an unfavorable
view of Iran rose from 6% to 51% over those same years. Those that said Tehran
was a reliable partner went from 76% down to 43%. In 2015 24% said Iran was
unreliable. That went up to 55% in 2018. Finally, in 2016 25% said Iran was a
threat to Iraqi sovereignty. That rose to 58% in 2018.
Dagher’s opinion of those figures was that Iraqis have now
come to blame Iran for many problems. For one, there is a great disillusionment
with Baghdad as shown by the summer protests. Iran has supported all of the
Iraqi governments since sovereignty was returned in 2006 so Dagher felt they
are guilty by association. Second, Iran is a major trade partner with Iraq. It
has provided millions in cheap consumer goods to its neighbor which have
undermined domestic industries in Iraq. Third, Tehran cut the flow of water
going to Iraq during the summer, which contributed to the demonstrations. In
the end, Dagher hedged his bets by saying that the shifting mood amongst the
public might open room for nonsectarian politicians to rise in Baghdad, while
at the same time he didn’t think that Iranian influence would lesson as it has
many allies.
There are several problems with Dagher’s analysis. First,
his company provided no data for pre-2015 public opinion on Iran. One reason it
probably had such a high rating initially was that Tehran was an important ally
in the war against the Islamic State and mounted a large public relations
campaign using social media and its allies to promote its role. Now people’s
views may be reverting back to pre-war levels, but that’s impossible to tell
since Almustakilla’s data in the article starts at 2015. At the same time,
there was definitely a lot of public resentment at Iran’s influence shown
during the summer protests in Basra as people called out Tehran and burned its
consulate. Second, Iran has reduced river flow to Iraq over the years, but the
country that got blamed for the water crisis this summer was Turkey which built
a new dam on the Tigris. Third Dagher seems to believe that Iraqi politics is
responsive to public opinion. The annual summer protests and low voter turnout
in this year’s parliamentary elections show that is not true. The
demonstrations have not been able to achieve any of their goals regarding
services, corruption, jobs or better governance. This year’s balloting saw a
very low turnout as people were obviously tired of the status quo in Iraqi
politics. As Prime Minister Mahdi has tried to put together his new government
however things have been business as usual as various blocs argue over
positions to enrich themselves and maintain their patronage networks. Finally,
as Dagher himself admits at the end, Iran’s power in Iraq has nothing to do
with public support but rather its influence within the Iraqi state. Its
friends remain in power in Baghdad and it has successfully supported the growth
of its allies within the Hashd al-Shaabi who ran in the elections and are now
their own separate security force. This role will not change with a shift in
the public. Overall, because Dagher’s data comes from a limited period it can
only tell so much, and his own commentary undercuts some of his views.
1 comment:
Considering the American establishment's strong, almost fanatical, animosity toward Iran I would not take anything the Washington Post has to say about that country at face value. This doesn't necessarily mean the poll is wrong or inaccurate, but without knowing the methodology the polling company used to obtain its results, and keeping in mind the Post's longstanding role as a conduit for state department propaganda (e.g. leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq), a healthy skepticism is surely warranted.
Post a Comment