On the 40th anniversary of the Islamic protesters' takeover of the US Embassy in Tehran, Iraqi protesters stormed the Iranian Consulate in Karbala, Iraq, and demanded Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei stop interfering in internal Iraqi affairs.
Iran, as usual, was quick to claim that the US and Israel were inciting the masses that have been flooding the streets of Baghdad and other cities in Iraq for the past two months. Tehran made similar allegations against Jerusalem and Washington with respect to the demonstrations agitating Beirut, Tripoli and other Lebanese cities.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter
Khamenei, for his part, has already warned protesters in both countries against "crossing red lines."
But the truth, of course, is that these are authentic civil protests the likes of which have not been seen in Iraq since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003, and in Lebanon – not since the assassination of Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in 2005. The protest has nothing to do with Israel or the United States, but it can be considered an evolution of the Arab Spring that erupted a decade ago but skipped countries like Iraq and Lebanon.
The 2011 demonstrations that began in Tunisia in protest of economic hardship, also began as a popular and spontaneous revolt against tyrannical and corrupt regimes. It never really involved a demand for democracy, rather a demand to replace dictatorships with more tolerant regimes that would heed the people's plight and instate economic reforms.
The first wave, in Egypt, Syria and elsewhere, was forcibly quelled by the rulers. In wealthy countries such as Saudi Arabia, the protests were neutralized by appeasing the regime's opponents with financial benefits. But this did nothing to solve the core economic problems, which only exacerbated over falling oil prices.
The current round of protests in Lebanon and Iraq focuses on the same problems but it still differs from its predecessor. In both countries, protesters are no longer willing to settle for "just" regime and economic reforms – they now demand a fundamental change in the system of government, namely: the resignation of the government and all ministers, the removal of the corrupt political elite from power, and the establishment of technocrat governments that will put the public's needs first.
Moreover, what makes the demonstrations in Lebanon and Iraq unique and gives them historical dimension is that they cross the sectarian, religious and party lines, and demand a change in the structure of government, which currently perpetuates these divisions and prevents unity.
This is unheard of for Lebanon, where political power is divided according to the prominence of the various sectors in society, or for Iraq, where the majority of the population is Shiite. In both countries, protesters have made it clear that they would not settle for the mere resignation of the prime minister (Lebanese Prime Minister Said Hariri has already resigned), nor with reforms that would preserve the current and corrupt system of power.
Although economic hardship and the desire to eradicate corruption are the main issues driving the demonstrations in Lebanon and Iraq, Tehran is up in arms over them. Both countries are of paramount importance in the process of "exporting" the Iranian revolution, both play a key role in repelling external attacks on Iran, and both are used as the base of operations from which Iran can use proxies to attack potential enemies.
In Lebanon, this task falls to Hezbollah and in Iraq, it is the work of pro-Iranian militias. Therefore, any threat to the internal stability in Iraq and Lebanon could undermine Iran's security and military strategy.
Tehran is also concerned that the Iranian people may catch the protest "bug," as they did in 2009 and in 2017.
The prospect of the second round of the Arab Spring in Lebanon and Iraq being more successful than its predecessor is unclear. Replacing the political system in Arab countries is no simple matter, and rulers do not give up their seats easily. But the Iranians already feel threatened by this – just as much as they feel threatened by the devastating economic sanctions the US has imposed on them.
It may very well be that Tehran's decision to renew uranium enrichment sought to distract from the internal problems of the protests in Iraq and Lebanon are creating for it. The ayatollahs much prefer the Iranian people focus on the "real" enemy that on their own plights.
