From Memri:
http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/2347.htm
Iyad Jamal Al-Din says in an interview:
The political parties that are friends with Iran must realize that there is one country called Iraq and another called Iran. Their relations with Iran must not come at the expense of the interests and stability of Iraq. Unfortunately, we did not see an [Iraqi] response on the scale of the Iranian [seizure of the Fakkah oil well]. On the contrary, some Iraqi politicians have volunteered to defend Iran and its measure, without any justification, and without trying to resolve the issue diplomatically.
...
The issue is Iraq – whether it is an independent country, or a country under Iranian occupation. In my view, this is the most abominable form of occupation.
The American occupation – if you want to call it that – is evident: There are tanks, there are planes, and there are the UN Security Council resolutions, which enable us to force the US to protect Iraq, in accordance with international law. But with regard to Iran – there is nothing. There are no Iranian tanks at which we can point our finger.
We need to exert an effort to prove the existence of this Iranian occupation. Iran never bears the responsibility for anything. There are people in Iraq who are more eager to defend the policies of the Iranian regime than the Iranians themselves. The [pro-Iranian] Iraqis are much more fanatic than Mir-Hossein Mousavi, Mohammad Khatami, or the reformists in Iran. They could as well be Ahmadinejad's cousins for all their hatred of the [Iranian] reformists. This is very peculiar, because the way I see it, the reformists are Iranian patriots who believe that Iran should come first, unlike the global regime of Ahmadinejad, who protects the oppressed in Venezuela more than the oppressed in Qom.
...
The Islamists do not recognize the modern state. They do not recognize the borders between Iraq and Iran, and so on. Their motto is: "God has destroyed the borders they have built." They do not recognize nation states. The Ba'thists believe that there is one country – from Iraq to Morocco. That's why they use terms like the Iraqi "territory" or the Tunisian "territory." They consider it all to be one country, without borders.
...
There are 1, 000 opposition groups in Iran that no one supports – in addition to the domestic reformist movement. There are Arabs, Kurds, Baluchis, and the Turkmens. I know Iran because I lived there for 16 years. I know it as well as I know Iraq – maybe even better. There are many loopholes that any patriotic ruler in Iraq can use. As weak as it is, Iraq can harm Iran twice as much. Double. Two times.
Al-Din explains here best the goals and world views of the Islamists, Sunni and Shia, and the Arab nationalists (one country from Morocco to Iraq). Westerners still have issues with accepting the very Arab imperialism Al-Din, an Iraqi, explains here.
The Arab nationalists accept only some nations, among them the Arabs. They certainly do not acknowledge rights of even the existance of non-Arab nations in the area they have claimed for themselves. Imazighen, Egyptians, Jews, Nilo-Saharan/African tribes, Somalis, Lebanese, Aramaeans, Assyrians, Kurds; they all don't exist or shouldn't.
The Islamists recognise no nations and no religion but their own version of Islam. They do not respect a people's culture and they do not respect Islam's own principles regarding other monotheistic faiths.
I do wonder if those who were against the invasion of Iraq will now tell Mr. Al-Din that the fact that can give interviews is a violation of "international law" and that, from a morally justified point of view, he belongs in one of Saddam's torture chambers.
I for one am glad that he can speak up.