JEDDAH/BAGHDAD, 7 November 2004 — While the Bush administration routinely accused Iran of helping insurgents in Iraq, the real battle between Washington and Tehran over who will control Baghdad is taking place in the political arena. Both Iran and the United States are spending vast sums of money and exerting growing pressure on Iraqi political parties likely to do well in the projected elections.

The Bush administration began working behind the scenes as early as last July to coax its Iraqi allies into a coalition that could dominate elections scheduled for January.

US authorities in Washington and Iraqi politicians confirmed that top White House officials have told leaders of the six major parties that were on the US-appointed Iraqi Governing Council that it would be in the groups’ common interest to present a unified electoral slate.

The US effort to influence the parliamentary elections is highly sensitive, coming at a time when President Bush daily expresses his desire to bring liberty and democracy to a nation that for decades has known only authoritarian rule. But the White House move stems from concerns that neighboring Iran is using its money and influence to try to sway the elections in its favor.

US authorities disagree on the extent of Iranian efforts to influence the elections, but senior officials remain concerned about pro-Iranian candidates.

One US official in Washington said the administration now believes Iraq needs a “negotiated resolution … a scaled-back democratic process.”

Between the two conflicting key goals, “I see the arguments for stability now outweighing the calls for democracy,” said the official, who declined to be identified. The formation of a unified slate would further entrench the US-allied parties, which are mostly led by longtime exiles with dubious popular support and are still viewed with suspicion by many Iraqi citizens.

The six parties are the Iraqi National Accord, led by interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi; the Iraqi National Congress, led by former Pentagon favorite Ahmad Chalabi; two Shiite Muslim parties, Dawa, and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq; and two Kurdish parties, the Kurdistan Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan.

US officials hope that by fighting on a common slate in the January elections, the six parties would dominate at the expense of the dozens of independent parties that are expected to field candidates. They also hope that the two Shiite parties will draw votes that might otherwise go to groups with closer links to Iran, a theocratic republic where Shiites also are the majority.

There are some wild cards, including radical Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr, who launched several bloody anti-US uprisings. Sadr, widely suspected of receiving Iranian assistance, has disarmed his Al Mahdi militia, and said he will participate in elections.

The planned elections, hailed as a major step toward a new Iraq, are for a 275-member assembly that will write a new constitution. Voters will choose parties or alliances, not individuals, and the winners will be awarded seats based on the proportion of the vote they receive.

Electoral experts predict that to win a single parliamentary seat, a slate will need about 27,000 votes. With Iraq’s political landscape fractured among more than 150 parties, election specialists believe that even those independents that manage to gain a few seats may have little influence.

Some Iraqi politicians from other parties say that such a strong coalition would establish a new foreign-backed ruling class and short-circuit their hopes for a more open political environment.

“We’re afraid these parties will become six dictators,” said Jawad Obeidi, secretary-general of the independent Iraqi Democratic Congress. He predicted that most Iraqi voters would stay home if they suspected the process was producing no more than a “copy of the Governing Council.”

Senior White House officials say they believe that the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution and the Dawa Party can give Iraq’s Shiite majority the representation it expects, while screening out candidates with uncomfortably close ties to Iran.

At the same time, some US officials and outside experts acknowledge that the six parties have yet to win the respect of many Iraqis. Many view their members as outsiders who sat out the Saddam Hussein years in exile before returning with foreign backing to take control.

The six parties are in negotiations on forming the slate. Officials differ on the likelihood of a coalition being forged, because it would require a power-sharing agreement that inevitably would leave some with less influence.

Hani Idris, head of political affairs for Allawi’s Iraqi National Accord, said it was equally likely that more modest alliances would emerge — such as between the two Shiite parties or his party with the two Kurdish parties.

“Of course, if the big parties ally, they would dominate,” Idris said. “But I’m not saying there would be no space for the small parties.”

Several rules for the upcoming election were written to give independents a chance. Individual candidates can register themselves as a “political entity” by gathering 5,000 signatures and essentially present a party slate of one name.

Even if the top six parties do not unite, many observers expect they will be able to use their superior organization and insider status to remain the dominant force in Iraqi politics. “There are groups who will be left out. That’s what happens in elections,” says a Western diplomat in Baghdad. “The beauty is, they can learn from their mistakes and come back a year later and try again.”

Obeidi, of the Iraqi Democratic Congress, sounded willing to face the difficulties and learn the political ropes, with an eye on eventually loosening the major parties’ grip on power.

“Yes, they may be terrible elections, and the next ones will be terrible too,” he said. “But one day they’ll improve.”