Amir Hussain and Awfa Abdullah got married in Falluja in 2004 but their lives were turned upside by the birth of their two babies.

Their first child, a baby boy born in 2006, had brain damage and died last year. The second, a baby girl who was born in 2007, suffers from severe skin rashes and has one leg longer than the other.

“We’ve decided to stop having babies. We don’t want any more, because it means new suffering and a new battle against new diseases,” Hussain said. “It is our bad luck. Maybe because we got married in the wrong time and in the wrong place.”

Falluja, in the desert province of Anbar, served as a base for Iraqi fighters after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, and witnessed two major conflicts in 2004. U.S. troops used overwhelming force, tanks, fighter jets and helicopter gunships to crush insurgents there.

Falluja’s residents await the U.S. withdrawal by year-end with a mixture of relief and fear that al Qaeda militants might return. Some are still seeking compensation for the suffering they endured.

At Falluja Hospital, pediatrician Samira al-Ani said the most insidious legacy of the war is seen every day in a startling increase in deformed newborns since 2005.

“Unfortunately, we don’t have documentation. But before the war, we used to receive two or three cases in a week,” said Ani, who has worked at the hospital since 1997. “On October 11 alone, we had 12 different types of deformed births.”

Fallujans tend to blame U.S. weapons for ailments that were not seen in the city before 2004. U.S. forces have admitted using white phosphorous, a chemical that can cause severe burns but is not legally considered a chemical weapon.

WHAT CRIME HAVE WE COMMITTED?

“At last they are leaving,” said English teacher Thar Abdulkhaleq, 39, as he smoked shisha in a cafe. “For all these long years, I have asked myself the question: ‘What crime have we committed in Falluja to suffer such an ordeal?’”

U.S. troops withdrew from all urban centers in the summer of 2009 and redeployed to bases outside, including one in the province near Falluja.

In April, Iraqi lawmakers debated whether the U.S.-led battles in the city constituted genocide, but resolutions calling for prosecution went nowhere.

Compensation is still very much on the minds of Fallujans, though their views differ and the issue is a touchy one.

“What compensation could be paid to those who lost their loved ones? Let them go, we want nothing, just let them go,” Abdulkhaleq said.

Abdullah Muhammad, a 45-year-old tailor, reacted angrily to those comments. “What U.S. forces did in Falluja can never be forgotten. They must compensate Falluja,” he said.

In late 2004 U.S. and Iraqi officials launched a compensation campaign for the city. Fawzi Mudhen, deputy head of the reconstruction committee formed at the time, said the compensation to residents was “almost fair,” though it overlooked the extensive damage caused to the city’s infrastructure.

Of the $1 billion allocated for compensation, Mudhen said, half of the 500 million destined to affected homeowners was paid, while only $100 million out of $500 million for infrastructure was spent.

The showpiece rebuilding projects were a water purification plant and a wastewater treatment project launched in 2004. But seven years later, the sewage system is not finished, he said.

“The project’s future is uncertain,” said Mudhen.

REVENGE?

From a peak of 170,000 troops and 505 bases in Iraq, U.S. forces are down to 10,000 on just a few bases. A steady stream of troops, trucks and tanks are headed for the Kuwait border, leaving security firmly in the hands of Iraqi forces.

Although many are glad to see the Americans leaving, some residents in places like Falluja also fear a wave of revenge killings if al Qaeda and other militants return.

“Anything is possible. Insurgents and al Qaeda were defeated when the Americans were here. Now they are leaving. Will they (insurgents) return? Maybe. Why not?” said Ayman Ali, 26, a seller in a tea kiosk.

The formation of the government-supported Sunni Sahwa militia, insurgent fighters who switched sides and took up the battle alongside U.S. forces against al Qaeda, helped turn the tide of the war. Sahwa are frequently targeted by a still-lethal Sunni insurgency, and Fallujans fear it could get worse.

“If that happens, security will deteriorate in Falluja,” Ali said. “Regrettably, our security forces cannot stop them.”

(Additional reporting by Fadhel al-Badrani in Falluja; Editing by Jim Loney, Alessandra Rizzo and Sonya Hepinstall)

Just weeks before the last American troops leave, growing appeals for local control mark disenchantment with the Shi’ite Muslim-led government and could widen rifts between the country’s Sunni and Shi’ite communities.

Desire for provincial power has simmered for years in Iraq, a maelstrom of ethnic, sectarian and tribal conflict. In Basra province, some residents fed up with lagging development want more control of their oilfields, among the world’s largest.

But a recent declaration of autonomy by Salahuddin province, where former Sunni dictator Saddam Hussein’s hometown is located, has sharpened the debate.

“The Salahuddin declaration, and what happened after that, proves sectarian conflict still exists and is strong in Iraq’s political scene,” said Yahya Kubaisi, an analyst at Iraq’s Institute for Strategic Studies.

Salahuddin’s bid was partly an angry reaction to a central government arrest campaign that snared more than 600 people authorities said were former military officers and members of Saddam’s banned Baath party. Baghdad said there was a Baathist plot to seize power once U.S. troops depart.

Iraq is slowly getting back on its feet after decades of war. Sectarian fighting peaked in 2006-7, but Iraqi forces continue to battle a Sunni insurgency and Shi’ite militias.

AN OLD STORY

The issue of autonomy is not new in Iraq. Minority Kurds in the north have enjoyed semi-autonomy for years since Western powers imposed a no-fly zone after the 1991 Gulf War.

But the Kurdistan Regional Government and Baghdad are locked in disputes over land and oil. The central government heatedly objected to a recent deal between the KRG and U.S. oil major Exxon Mobil to explore for oil in the north.

In other parts of the country, Iraqis are impatient with shortages of power, water, jobs and housing.

“For us, establishing autonomy is a sore choice but it is an inevitable one,” said Omar Hassan, head of the municipal council in Samarra, one of Salahuddin’s main cities.

“It’s because of dismissive, exclusionary and marginalising central government policies. People are fed up,” he said.

Autonomy would give a province more power over finances, administration and laws, and an upper hand in supervising public property, which could loosen Baghdad’s grip on oil facilities.

Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, who took part in writing the constitution in 2005, supports powerful central government.

In both public pronouncements and in private meetings with tribal leaders, his government has tried to quiet the autonomy movement, partly out of concern that it could lead to instability as the U.S. troop withdrawal hits high gear, with the remaining 18,000 scheduled to be gone before December 31.

BAATH BAN

The Baath Party was banned after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion that toppled Saddam, who was later executed. The exclusion of Baathists has been an open wound in Salahuddin.

“No less than 60 percent of the population of Salahuddin were Baathists,” provincial council member Sabhan Mula Chiyad said. “They have been excluded from top jobs according to the de-Baathification law but it’s not logical to de-Baathify them for life.”

Iraqi officials have long expressed concern that Baathists would try to retake power when U.S. troops depart. Maliki said ex-Baath Party members want to use Salahuddin as a safe haven.

Autonomy tensions have simmered for months. Parliament Speaker Osama al-Nujaifi said this year minority Sunnis might consider seceding if Baghdad didn’t treat them more fairly.

Maliki warned in July that secession by any group would lead to bloodshed and said while Iraq’s constitution allows provinces some autonomy but does not permit secession.

“We believe that this would lead to grave consequences,” Khalid al-Attiya, a senior member of Maliki’s Dawa Party, said at a news conference on Wednesday. “We need wisdom in dealing with this issue to maintain the unity of Iraq.”

In the mainly Shi’ite southern oil hub of Basra, autonomy talk has bubbled for years as residents watch crude exports increasing and lose patience with power blackouts, joblessness and slow development of housing and businesses.

The constitution says a public referendum has to be held to determine autonomy. The central government must send any formal request for autonomy to the electoral commission within 15 days.

Salahuddin Governor Ammar Tuama said Baghdad has already missed the constitutional deadline.

“We will meet with the president, as he is the guardian of the constitution. We will try to convince him to intervene,” Tuama said. “So far, we are not seeking an escalation.”

(Writing by Serena Chaudhry; Editing by Angus MacSwan)

But they found it difficult to utter the words without raging about the flip side of what they saw as the U.S. occupation of their country.

“OK, we have democracy. We can talk freely with no fear. We can demonstrate and vote freely. All these are available, and all were not before 2003,” said student Hussain Ali, 20, as he waited for his haircut.

“But why don’t you ask us about the other side of the story of the U.S. presence in Iraq? Why don’t you ask about their crimes, atrocities, the pain and anguish that we suffered because of their military presence here?” Ali said, his face turning red with anger.

On April 9, 2003, U.S. forces toppled a statue of dictator Saddam Hussein in central Baghdad, marking the end of more than 35 years of iron-fisted rule by Saddam’s Baath Party.

Then-U.S. President George W. Bush said Iraq could become a model of democracy in the Middle East.

But Iraqis who applauded the event and dreamed of a better future were disappointed as their nation descended into vicious sectarian warfare in which tens of thousands died. Recalling those years, many talk about the prisoner abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib, and what they call the U.S. misuse of power.

Since the invasion, Iraqis have chosen representatives in parliament and provincial councils in a series of elections deemed largely free and fair.

Newspapers and news agencies have been established. New television channels are on the air. Non-governmental organizations and new political parties have been formed.

Nearly nine years after the invasion, the U.S. military presence in Iraq is quickly coming to an end. The remaining 24,000 troops are due to leave before December 31.

But political parties are at odds, sectarian divisions are rife, Sunni insurgents and Shi’ite militias threaten stability with scores of attacks each month and many people are uncertain that Iraq’s brand of democracy is what they need or want.

“We got rid of Saddam, but the problem now is that we have many,” said Ali’s friend, Hamza Jabbar, 23, an unemployed security guard sitting in the barber shop.

Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi are jobless. The unemployment rate is 15 percent, with another 28 percent in part-time jobs. The government says just under a quarter of the estimated 30 million population lives in poverty.

In conversations with dozens of Iraqis in Shi’ite Sadr City, all reluctantly conceded that U.S. forces had brought democracy. The teeming slum supports Moqtada al-Sadr, a fiercely anti-American Shi’ite cleric whose followers fought U.S. forces.

Iraqis freely express disappointment in the performance of their own leaders since 2003 and bitterness over brutal political infighting.

“Americans brought democracy to Iraq. But our leaders undermine it. They exploit it for their own personal benefit,” said Khalid al-Taei, 35, a computer shop owner in the northern province of Nineveh.

On the other side of Baghdad, in the Sunni area of Adhamiya, dozens of Sunnis had a different take on the situation.

Sunnis dominated Iraq under Saddam and have felt marginalized politically since the invasion, which propelled majority Shi’ites into power. Sunnis are part of Shi’ite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s frail governing coalition but many say they are oppressed under his government.

“Do you see this soldier in this checkpoint” asked shop owner Wael al-Khafaji, 48. “He can do whatever he wants to me right now and I can’t say a word. Is this democracy?”

“What democracy are you asking me about, when my basic rights as a human being are stolen? If this is what Americans mean by democracy, let it be damned.”

Hundreds of checkpoints still dot the landscape, and Iraqis are frustrated by a near nine-year security crackdown.

Nearly two years after the last national election, Khafaji is still disappointed that former premier Iyad Allawi’s cross-sectarian Iraqiya bloc, which won the most seats with heavy support from Sunnis, could not form a government.

“Can you tell me who won the vote and who formed the government? Answer my question before you ask me to answer yours. Is this democracy?

“Unfortunately, we Arab nations, and not only Iraqis, do not know yet what democracy means. So we don’t deserve it.”

Inspired by “Arab Spring” uprisings in Egypt, Tunisia and other countries, Iraqis have demonstrated this year against corruption and poor basic services, and for political reform. But when asked whether Iraq needs its own Arab Spring, many reject the idea.

“It means more bloodshed, and we are fed up with this. Look at people in the countries of the Arab Spring. They are fighting each other,” said Hussain Ali, at the barbers. “We can vote. And we can make change through voting.”

“If this does not work, then there will be no option but to topple them by force,” he added.

Looking beyond the year-end departure of U.S. troops, many Iraqis say they are worried about the fate of their democracy.

“Islamic fundamentalist parties are waiting for this opportunity to swoop in and grab power,” said Mosul taxi driver Mohammed Jassim, 42. “If it happens, it means bye-bye democracy.”

(Additional reporting by Jamal al-Badrani in Mosul; Editing by Jim Loney and Andrew Heavens)

Syria-based Arrai television aired on Thursday an audio tape of a man it identified as Douri, the head of Saddam’s banned Baath Party and the highest-ranking member of Saddam’s regime still at large. There was no independent confirmation of the speaker’s identity.

Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s government launched an arrest campaign last month against Baathists and former military officers who allegedly plotted to oust the government when U.S. troops depart by year-end.

Maliki said more than 600 people had been arrested on evidence that they sought to undermine security in Iraq.

“The claim of the government that Baathists have a conspiracy, or would attempt a coup, is a lie,” the man identified as Douri said. “It is a part of their de-Baathification project.”

Baathists were banned from participating in politics after the 2003 invasion that toppled Saddam after 24 years in power.

The man said the government had arrested more than 900 people, targeting those on a list of thousands of names that originated with Iran’s Quds force, the covert operations arm of Iran’s powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

He also hailed the imminent withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.

“We are at the doors of a victory in which America, the master of evil, is running away from Iraq dragging the tail of failure and defeat,” he said, saying repeatedly that he was speaking from southern Iraq’s Wasit province.

Douri served as deputy head of Iraq’s Revolutionary Command Council under Saddam.

He took over the Baath Party leadership after Saddam’s execution in December 2006. Led by Saddam from 1979-2003, the Baath Party brutally oppressed Iraq’s Shi’ites and Kurds.

Douri has seldom surfaced since the 2003 invasion. In a statement posted on a Baath Party website in August 2009, he called on Iraqi insurgent groups to move into politics, suggesting a shift away from armed resistance.

He was ranked sixth on the U.S. military’s list of 55 most wanted Iraqis and a $10 million reward was offered for his capture. U.S. officials accused him of helping lead the Sunni insurgency that erupted after the invasion.

The United States still has about 30,000 troops in Iraq. They are scheduled to leave by Dec. 31 under a 2008 security pact between the two countries.

(Writing by Jim Loney; Editing by Louise Ireland)

Sadr, whose Mehdi Army militia once battled U.S. and Iraqi troops, has opposed any U.S. military footprint and his bloc is a key part of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s fragile coalition.

“We do not accept any kind of U.S. presence in Iraq, whether it is military or not,” Sadr said in an interview aired on al-Arabiya television.

“If they stay in Iraq, through a military or non-military (presence) … we will consider them an occupation and we will resist them whatever the price will be. Even a civilian presence, we reject it,” the cleric said.

United States President Barack Obama said on October 21 all remaining U.S. troops, currently around 33,000, would be withdrawn from Iraq by December 31 after Washington and Baghdad failed to agree on immunity for American soldiers.

But a huge U.S. embassy will be maintained in Baghdad along with consular operations in Arbil in the northern Kurdish zone and in the southern oil city Basra.

Thousands of private contractors will also work as guards and trainers for Iraqi troops using U.S. hardware such as tanks and F-16 fighters.

Sadr galvanized anti-U.S. sentiment after the overthrow of Sunni dictator Saddam and led two uprisings against U.S. forces in 2004.

His Mehdi Army was crushed by Maliki in 2008 and has for the most part been demobilized, although U.S. officials say splinter groups have continued to attack U.S. soldiers.

In September, Sadr called on his followers to suspend attacks against U.S. troops to ensure they leave Iraq by the year-end deadline.

Although overall violence in Iraq has fallen from the peak of sectarian fighting in 2006-7, Iraqi security forces continue to battle a stubborn Sunni insurgency and Shi’ite militias still capable of lethal attacks.

October was the bloodiest month this year, with 161 civilians, 55 police officers and 42 soldiers killed in a series of major attacks.

Thursday, six people were killed and dozens wounded when two bombs exploded in the northern city of Baquba while 12 people died and at least 70 others were wounded in triple explosions in Basra late Wednesday.

(Writing by Serena Chaudhry; Editing by Sophie Hares)

Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi made the comments in Baghdad days after U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned Iran not to try to exploit the U.S. withdrawal at the year-end.

“Now, about the U.S. planning to build up their forces in the region … they are not following a rational and prudent approach,” Salehi told a joint news conference with Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari.

“The Americans always have a deficit, unfortunately, in rationality and prudence. So what I expect is that it’s about time for the Americans to be … more prudent and wise in their approach,” he said.

Washington is planning to bolster its military presence in the Gulf after it pulls out of Iraq, including negotiating to maintain a combat presence in Kuwait, and is considering deploying more warships in the area, the New York Times reported on Sunday.

Salehi said the region was entering a troubled period. “The consequences of these developments are not yet known to anybody, so one has to be cautious. Everybody has to be cautious, including the U.S.,” he said.

Iraq and the United States failed after months of talks to agree on keeping U.S. troops in Iraq past the end of this year.

U.S. President Barack Obama announced he would stick to plans to pull out the remaining force, about 39,000 now, by the year-end, nearly nine years after the invasion that ousted Saddam Hussein.

U.S. officials have accused Iran of interfering in Iraqi affairs by supporting Shi’ite militias in Iraq.

On Sunday Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei hailed the coming withdrawal of U.S. troops from neighboring Iraq as a “golden page in that country’s history.

“Iraq does not need anybody to meddle in its internal affairs. Iraq is an independent country,” Salehi said.

Asked if Iran was ready to make a deal with Iraq to train its forces and exchange intelligence information, Salehi said: “Sure. (There is) no problem in such a suggestion, to make a thorough pact that includes all these (ideas),” he said.

(Editing by Jim Loney)

U.S. President Barack Obama announced on Friday that all U.S. troops would leave Iraq as scheduled by the end of this year after the two governments failed to reach an agreement over giving American soldiers legal immunity.

“Now that we have put this behind us, this will let us settle the issue of training,” Maliki said. “Iraqis will ask to resume talks over the number of trainers, the duration (of their stay in Iraq) and how those trainers will be used.”

More than eight years after the invasion to topple Saddam Hussein, violence has fallen since the sectarian slaughter of 2006-2007. But Iraq still faces a stubborn Sunni Islamist insurgency tied to al Qaeda and rival Shi’ite militias.

U.S. and Iraqi officials say the local armed forces can contain violence but they need trainers to help build up air defense, maritime capabilities, intelligence gathering and moving the military to conventional warfare tactics.

Iraq will get some military training from a U.S. embassy programme and from contractors who are part of a package with the U.S.-made military hardware Baghdad is purchasing, such as F-16 fighter jets and tanks.

Military advisers working at the embassy are covered by diplomatic immunity afforded to the State Department.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Saturday that U.S. commitment to the democratic future of Iraq remains strong despite the decision to go ahead with the withdrawal of American troops as scheduled.

“Even as our troops come home, the United States’s commitment to Iraq’s future as a secure, stable, democratic nation remains as strong as ever,” she said at a news conference in the Tajik capital. “This will end the war and it will open a new chapter in our relationship.”

Clinton said Washington expected to have a “significant” security training presence at the Baghdad embassy.

Washington had hoped a few thousand troops in Iraq would help buttress its stability and offset the influence of neighbouring Iran. U.S. officials initially had sought Baghdad’s approval for around 3,400 troops.

Many Iraqis are worried about their country’s stability and security without the buffer of U.S. military presence, and fear Iraq may slip back into the sectarian tensions that pushed the country to the brink of civil conflict.

(Writing by Patrick Markey; Editing by Michael Roddy)

U.S. President Barack Obama announced on Friday that all U.S. troops would leave Iraq as scheduled by the end of this year after the two governments failed to reach an agreement over giving American soldiers legal immunity.

“Now that we have put this behind us, this will let us settle the issue of training,” Maliki said. “Iraqis will ask to resume talks over the number of trainers, the duration (of their stay in Iraq) and how those trainers will be used.”

More than eight years after the invasion to topple Saddam Hussein, violence has fallen since the sectarian slaughter of 2006-2007. But Iraq still faces a stubborn Sunni Islamist insurgency tied to al Qaeda and rival Shi’ite militias.

U.S. and Iraqi officials say the local armed forces can contain violence but they need trainers to help build up air defense, maritime capabilities, intelligence gathering and moving the military to conventional warfare tactics.

Iraq will get some military training from a U.S. embassy program and from contractors who are part of a package with the U.S.-made military hardware Baghdad is purchasing, such as F-16 fighter jets and tanks.

Military advisers working at the embassy are covered by diplomatic immunity afforded to the State Department.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Saturday that U.S. commitment to the democratic future of Iraq remains strong despite the decision to go ahead with the withdrawal of American troops as scheduled.

“Even as our troops come home, the United States’s commitment to Iraq’s future as a secure, stable, democratic nation remains as strong as ever,” she said at a news conference in the Tajik capital. “This will end the war and it will open a new chapter in our relationship.”

Clinton said Washington expected to have a “significant” security training presence at the Baghdad embassy.

Washington had hoped a few thousand troops in Iraq would help buttress its stability and offset the influence of neighboring Iran. U.S. officials initially had sought Baghdad’s approval for around 3,400 troops.

Many Iraqis are worried about their country’s stability and security without the buffer of U.S. military presence, and fear Iraq may slip back into the sectarian tensions that pushed the country to the brink of civil conflict.

(Writing by Patrick Markey; Editing by Michael Roddy)

Washington and Baghdad failed to agree on the issue of immunity for U.S. forces after months of talks over whether American soldiers would stay on as trainers more than eight years after the U.S.-led invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein.

Obama’s announcement prompted worries among Iraqis over the stability of their country and a possible slide back into sectarian violence.

“I would be very happy with this withdrawal if our military and security forces are ready to fill the gap of the American forces. But I don’t believe they are. We can’t deceive ourselves,” said Baghdad shoe shop owner Ziyad Jabari.

“Our forces are still not capable of facing our security challenges. I’m afraid this withdrawal will allow al Qaeda and the militias to return.”

A stubborn Sunni insurgency tied to al Qaeda and Shi’ite militia still carry out lethal attacks in Iraq, where bombings and killings happen daily even though violence has dropped from the height of sectarian fighting in 2006-2007.

At least 70 people were killed last week as a series of attacks rocked the capital Baghdad.

In September, 42 Iraqi police and 33 soldiers were killed, according to government figures.

Iraqi security forces have been the prime target of attacks this year as insurgents seek to undermine security in the country ahead of the scheduled U.S. withdrawal by year-end.

“As an Iraqi citizen, I say to Mr. Obama, you will leave Iraq without accomplishing your mission,” said Munaf Hameed, a 47-year-old account manager at a private bank.

“No security, an unstable political regime, sectarian tensions and weak security forces, that’s what America will leave behind,” he said.

POLITICAL STABILITY

Some Iraqi leaders say in private they would like a U.S. troop presence as a guarantee to ward off sectarian troubles and keep the peace between Iraqi Arabs and Kurds in a dispute over who controls oil-rich areas in the north.

Iraqi and U.S. forces have said Iraq needs trainers beyond 2011 to develop its military capabilities, particularly its air and naval defenses.

The country’s power-sharing coalition made up of Sunni, Shi’ite and Kurdish blocs is also caught in a political stalemate many Iraqis fear could worsen without a U.S. buffer.

“I think the fighting between the political blocs will increase because the U.S. presence was a safety valve for security and political issues,” said Muntadhir Abdel Wahab, 44, a Baghdad merchant.

But some Iraqis applauded the decision by Obama and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and said the withdrawal of U.S. troops would help stabilize the country’s fragile political situation and quell sectarian tensions.

Many Iraqis still have memories of abuses committed by U.S. troops and contractors during the more violent years of Iraq’s conflict. That made securing immunity tricky for Maliki.

Iraqi lawmakers backing anti-American Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, whose political bloc is a key part of Maliki’s coalition government, said they would disrupt the power-sharing government if he agreed to keep U.S. forces.

“Iraq’s people will realize the necessity of living together in one country despite differences in religion, sect and nationality,” said engineer Mahdi Salim, who was visiting family in Kirkuk. “America tried to drag us into civil war.”

(Additional reporting by Muhanad Mohammed and Ahmed Rasheed in Baghdad and Mustafa Mahmoud in Kirkuk; Writing by Serena Chaudhry)

His statements underscore fears among Iraqi Shi’ite leaders and their allies in Iran that Syrian unrest could spill over into Iraq or unseat President Bashar al-Assad and bring to power a hardline Sunni Muslim regime next door.

The United Nations says 2,700 people have been killed in Syria’s crackdown on six months of mainly peaceful protests, making it one of the bloodiest in a wave of revolts that has toppled three Arab leaders this year.

Assad belongs to the minority Alawite sect, a distant offshoot of Shi’ite Islam. Baghdad’s relations with Damascus and Tehran have strengthened since the fall of Sunni dictator Saddam Hussein after the 2003 U.S. invasion.

“For a pivotal state like Syria, surrounded by challenges and crises, if the internal situation gets shaken and turns into sectarian war or even a change occurs along sectarian lines, the whole region will be a mess,” Maliki told al-Manar television station in an interview broadcast on Friday.

Iraq has tried to tread a fine line between urging reforms to ease protests and supporting a neighbor whose future could shift the balance of power in Iraq and the region.

Maliki, a Shi’ite whose government shares power with Sunni and Kurdish blocs, has taken a more muted response compared to other Arab leaders, who have hit out at Assad and even withdrawn envoys from Syria in protest.

“We believe that Syria will be able to overcome its crisis through reforms,” Maliki said. “We support these reforms.”

Since the fall of Saddam and the rise of Iraq’s Shi’ite majority, some Sunni leaders have talked about the emergence of a “Shi’ite Crescent” running from Iran, through Iraq and Alawite-ruled Syria to Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon.

Relations between Syria and Iraq were complicated in the past as Baghdad often accused Damascus of allowing Sunni Arab Islamists to cross the border to attack U.S. and Iraqi forces during the height of Iraq’s war.

Maliki has since forged a more pragmatic relationship with Damascus, winning Assad’s backing for the coalition government he formed after an indecisive election last year.

(Writing by Waleed Ibrahim; Editing by Patrick Markey)