To show “US defeat” in Iraq and that the American invasion has only led to an ‎unprecedented Iranian influence in the government of Iraq, the extremist newspaper ‎Keyhan claimed that “even at Iraq’s cabinet meetings everyone talks in Persian.”‎

To understand the impact of such propaganda and claims one only has to hypothesize ‎being an Iraqi or a member of Iraq’s cabinet led by Prime Minsiter Nouri al-Maliki. How ‎would we Iranians feel if an Iraqi newspaper associated with the main political faction in ‎that country reported that everybody spoke in Arabic at cabinet meetings of the Islamic ‎Republic of Iran as a way to indicate the influence that Iraq enjoyed in Iran?‎

Regrettably the Iranian media and official forums of the Islamic Republic of Iran have ‎been making such exaggerated statements about the influence of Iran in Iraq to the extent ‎that many Arab states perceive that Mr. Maleki is a stooge of Iran, and thus have ‎conditioned the normalization of their relations with Iraq to the latter’s distancing of its ‎relations with Iran.‎

The government of Mr. Maleki, on the other hand, has been striving to establish a balance ‎in its relations with Iran and the US because of its historic and religious nature. But now ‎with the growing childish propaganda that cirlces close to the Iranian regime have been ‎advancing regarding their influence in Iraq, it appears that the Iraqis are fed up and have ‎foregone Iran altogether, now striving to demonstrate their brotherhood with the Arab ‎community.‎

The remarks that senior Iraqi officials are airing these days about Iran’s interference and ‎role in the unrest in Iraq clearly indicate that the Shiite government of Iraq no longer ‎wishes to be viewed as a factional government subservient to Iran, and is attempting to ‎present itself as a national and Arab government.‎

The change in perspective from factionalism to nationalism that Shiite parties running ‎Iraq are demonstrating is of course a major transformation in the process of government ‎building and religious political thought in the Middle East which deserves a separate ‎examination. But it must not be forgotten that Iraqi nationalism, especially its extremist ‎form in recent decades, has been defined with anti Iranianism.‎

Because of the modern nature of government and historic necessity in the Middle East, ‎perhaps the path that the Iraqi government has undertaken is really unavoidable, but there ‎is no doubt that the pace and direction that this process is taking is not completely ‎uninfluenced from the childish propaganda coming from Tehran about the nature of the ‎Iraqi government.‎

I believe that despite all the noisy propaganda that has been launched about the role of ‎political religion in the Middle East, a new kind of nationalism is emerging in the region ‎which will eventually determine events in the domestic and regional spheres. ‎

If this nationalism remains peaceful and nation-loving, it can be the catalyst for an ‎inexpensive transition from the age of extremism to a just redistribution of national ‎interest and economic cooperation among regional states. On the other hand if this new ‎nationalism takes on an aggressive and racist direction, then not only will the region once ‎again spin into the exercise of accumulating hatred of neighbors, and engage in new wars ‎and conflicts, but as the obstacle to any development and progress in the region, will ‎actually fall under the shadow of extremism. ‎

So we Iranians who have the potential for expressing our nationalism must be careful and ‎sensitive about the emergence of extreme and destructive nationalism from patriotism, ‎and in particular not forget that any racial supremacy and hatred creation against other ‎races can easily lead to a similar response and reaction from the other side which could ‎only end in conflict and war.‎