Why do they hate Fallujah?

With the terrifying fire that was committed by the People’s Mobilisation Forces in Iraq, there are several affiliates with the Iranian axis who are now calling for the burning of Fallujah as an inevitable end or stop to the war. On the one hand, it is impossible to speak of the need to cooperate with ISIS and, on the other, there is no way to convince Fallujah of the dangers of its rebellion unless it is burnt to the ground. This is the case for all rebellious Sunni cities. In this context, when one compares what is currently happening in Iraq to the other contexts in world history, one could argue that the People’s Mobilisation Forces in Iraq are the only hope for Iraq and the region from the dangers of Sunni actions on themselves and on others.

One would need this call in order to justify and promote the belief of the Iranian axis that the People’s Mobilisation Forces are irrational monsters that are sick from the delirious beliefs of sectarianism and Wahabi isolationalism. Is the only point of comparison here really Gulf Wahabism?

In order to render accusations more credible, it is inevitable that the circle of blame and accusation is expanded to incorporate peaceful Sunni movements so that one can explain how ISIS gained control of Mosul. The problem does not rest exclusively with ISIS nor with the people who live in the cities that are currently under ISIS’s control but in Iraq’s Sunni population that is being held hostage to the “steadfast Baathist” ideology on the one hand and to extremist ideologies on the other.

There is no escaping this framework, the one that seeks to frame the People’s Mobilisation Forces as the objective counterpart of ISIS. The details are being blurred in order to hide the fact that local militias are fighting ISIS with the lowest-grade American weapons. Instead, observers choose to frame the fight on the ground as a village-based sectarian struggle, one in which Shias are struggling to gain majority rule after 1,400 years of subjugation and oppression under Sunni rule. In reality, the war against ISIS is not an occurrence that is taking place exclusively in Sunni cities.

And so, the war that is currently taking place in Iraq can simply be explained as a sectarian struggle between two barbaric parties. The first is the People’s Mobilisation Forces, which today controls many of the left over American weapons in the country after the fall of Saddam. The second party is ISIS, the Al-Qaeda offshoot in Iraq, which fought the Americans in the country.

According to the logic of the Iranian axis, the priority in such a case should be given to the more anti-colonial force of the two regardless of his or her political ideology. This is the thought process that has been adopted by Iran in their war alongside Bashar Al-Assad against the Syrian people. However, this type of logic is extremely difficult to implement in a place like Iraq unless you have individuals who are enamoured with the idea of a great deal of dogmatism and have an inclination towards the Iranian axis and their political ideology.

And yet, at the depth of the crisis, ISIS wants nothing more than to occupy, deprive, terrorise and promote sectarianism. This is undoubtedly the result of Shia dominance in the government after the collapse of Saddam Hussein. We now see that it is exclusively the Sunni parties that are waging the war against the occupation. They are paying the price for historical events.

Despite all this, Sunni cities are fighting against the Islamic State in an effort to prevent the extremist group controlling even more Iraqi cities. There have been many efforts at a previous time to prevent the expansion of sectarian divides during the American occupation, which is currently being used by Iranian forces to justify dividing Iraq. Yet, despite all this, we cannot ignore the fact that Shia parties also have a history of fighting federal oppression and that their approach was initially rejected by Sunni forces but was accepted later on in an effort to end sectarianism.

When one takes a look at the crisis currently unfolding in Iraq, it is not difficult to see that the People’s Mobilisation Forces do not differ from ISIS in any way, especially when considering their promotion of sectarian strife and barbaric ways. Yet, with the current situation some could argue that ISIS is more progressive when it comes to its anti-colonial stance and refusal to accept any type of foreign domination or interference. When we hear the calls of such groups to burn Fallujah, what we can comprehend from this is that the country has once again fallen in the trap of sectarian strife through its struggle to resist subservience to Iran. However, the question that begs an answer is: Why Fallujah? Why this bold call to burn Fallujah?

Fallujah has now become an icon of being the hotbed of Iraqi resistance during the American occupation of Iraq. Fallujah was known as a place that resisted American tyranny at all costs and it is for this reason that both Shia forces and Iran found it within their best interests to stand alongside America and the US occupation. From this moment onwards, we witnessed Shia parties following the trail of American soldiers and supporting them and they began to demonstrate a bias for Iranian colonial slogans, in an effort to promote a sort of pan-Shia axis. This imagery has undoubtedly been working in Iran’s favour.

Yet, what would happen if the Sunni cities did not resist? What would happen if there were no Fallujah?

All of the betrayals above would have been revealed and the secret project would have been exposed. Those who were engaged in the scene of resistance in Iraq never once pledged their allegiance to Iran and it is for this reason that Fallujah is a target today. It is for this reason that it evokes a sense of revenge and hatred, because of the fear from its revolutionary potential.

Translated from Arabi21 on 9 June 2015.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.