Around one million Iraqis have fallen victim to the American invasion and ongoing occupation of Iraq, according to independent American and British estimates. However, the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is now calling for an international tribunal, to prosecute the perpetrators of the bloody Wednesday's deadly bombings on the 19th of last month. On Tuesday August 18, the Iraqi Prime Minister was forging a strategic alliance with Syria. Nevertheless, he returned on the next day to Baghdad and was received there with the explosions. Before the week was over, fingers started being pointed at Syria, while the latter was strongly denying any role in the incidents. In any case, brother Maliki did not specifically accuse Syria of the bombings in his letter to the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon. Instead, he just called for an international tribunal to prosecute those responsible for the attacks on that day, which mainly targeted the Iraqi Ministry of Foreign Affairs and its surrounding areas, on the sixth anniversary of the bombing of the UN headquarters - which at the time, did not bring about a request for an international tribunal. There is something odd about the bombings and the position of Maliki's government with regards to this issue: The foreign minister Hoshyar Zebari, for instance, complained that the huge concrete barriers were removed, allowing a truck to enter an area, where the entry of trucks is usually prohibited, and he seemed to be thus accusing the security services of neglect. Also, the Minister of Interior, Jawad Bulani, accused both the defunct Baath Party and al-Qaeda of being behind the bombings, and he should have chosen one of them for his accusations. As for the Defense Minister Abdul Qader Obeidi, he accused both Syria and Iran, and again he had to make up his mind on one of those. At the end of the day, the accusation campaign was namely pointed at Syria. Is it in Syria's interest to mastermind attacks of the kind that occurred on that Wednesday, while it is struggling and trying very hard to break the siege imposed on it during George W. Bush's tenure? Do the Iraqi dissidents, who are currently present in Syria, and have no other resort in the world, dare to carry out such a terrorist operation, which would harm the country that is hosting them? In fact, I have not heard anything novel in the accusations made against Syria, but rather took notice of old allegations that I thought the two countries have gone beyond, following the official visits and the mutual exchange of ambassadors between Syria and Iraq. As I am writing this article, I have, in front of me, the transcript I wrote when I was interviewing President Jalal Talabani at the Churchill Hotel in London on 7/8/2005. I had interviewed him then, on the sidelines of the annual meeting of the United Nations General Assembly. At the time, Mam Jalal was concerned about the possibility that religious parties in Iraq may win in the election, which is what happened indeed, and about the possibility that Shiite parties linked to Iran may seize power, which is what also actually happened. Also, President Talabani called on Syria to establish relations with senior Iraqi officials, as a response to the growing Iranian influence. He was of the view that while Iran is indeed meddling in Iraq, its interference is intelligent, strategic, and based on proxies and spy networks. Mam Jalal also said that only Syria can confront this influence. He expressed to me his wish to visit Syria, in order to present his ideas and to revive his old alliance with Damascus. At the time, he was only a party chairman and not the head of a state as he is right now. The official visit to Damascus took place after that, and I do not know whether President Talabani raised some of the points he had mentioned in our discussion. He wanted the Syrians to suspend the activities of the Iraqi Baathists or to expel them altogether from the country, and ban them from any public activities. He said that a large number of captured terrorists admitted that they had received training and arms through the Baathists in Syria, and that there were several stolen amounts of money being spent on terrorism in Iraq and on workshops that manufacture explosive belts. I came across other interesting material in that interview, some of which is unrelated to the subject matter of terrorism, such as Mam Jalal's relationship with the then Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari and Talabani's opinion in the latter's Iranian connections, as well as the names of those accused of terrorism, and who I do not know whether they still exist. In other words, I already heard, four full years ago, everything that was said about Syria in the recent days, and heard similar things, and even more, about Iran. Nevertheless, Prime Minister al-Maliki has decided, today, to demand the heads of the terrorists responsible for Wednesday's bloody attacks, and to forget all the terrorism before and after that day. As such, he is willing to overlook similar or worse accusations already made against Iran, all while noting that what could have been believed about Syria in 2005, in the days of the Bush administration and its threats to overthrow the regime in Syria, is hard to believe now, with the current atmosphere of openness and Syria's need to continue engaging in it. Brother Nouri al-Maliki is outside of the Shiite coalition that will run in the next elections on the same sectarian lines, which dominated the last elections. He already has rivals competing with him for the leadership of the Dawa party, and I even heard that he is desperately looking for an issue, though which he can establish his leadership. However, I hope that this is untrue, and that Iraq and Syria will indeed emerge out of this crisis and return to cooperation in security, economy and all other domains, because both countries need each other, without the mediation of any other party, whether near or far.
