Iranian role in fighting IS in Iraq: Where will it lead?

[webfact]

Iranian role in fighting IS in Iraq: Where will it lead?

WASHINGTON (AP) — Iran's growing influence in Iraq is setting off alarm bells, and nowhere is the problem starker than in the high-stakes battle for Tikrit. It marks a crucial fight in the bigger war to expel the Islamic State group from Iraq, and yet Iran and the Shiite militias it empowers — not the U.S. — are leading the charge.

This is both a political and military dilemma for the Obama administration, which is under heavy criticism for negotiating with Iran over limits on its nuclear program. Iran, meanwhile, is asserting itself in a divided Iraq like never before.

The battle for Tikrit raises the question: Who is really running this war? Iraq? The U.S.? Iran?

Defense Secretary Ash Carter, under questioning from Sen. John McCain this week, acknowledged his concern when McCain asked if it alarms him that Iran "has basically taken over the fight."

"It does. It does," Carter replied, adding, "We're watching it very closely."

Watching, but not participating.

The Iraqis did not ask the U.S. led-coalition to coordinate or provide airstrikes in support of the Iraqi ground forces in Tikrit, even though it was largely U.S. air power that halted Islamic State advances after its fighters swept across northern Iraq last summer and captured key cities, including Tikrit and Mosul, as the Iraqi army quickly folded.

Instead, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey told McCain's committee, about two-thirds of the Iraqi forces fighting for Tikrit are Shiite militias supported by Iran, which also has provided artillery and other resources. The rest are regular Iraqi soldiers.

The issue is the two major powers — the U.S. and Iran — might be running parallel campaigns with different goals. Both want the Islamic State group out of Iraq, but the U.S. hopes for an inclusive Iraqi government that includes Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. Iran, the major Shiite power in the region, would prefer a largely Shiite Iraq.

The Iranian involvement has also raised concerns among key members of the U.S. coalition fighting the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria.

"What is happening in Tikrit is exactly what we are worried about. Iran is taking over the country," Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said at a news conference on Thursday in Riyadh with Secretary of State John Kerry.

Kerry, however, said he was glad to see the Iraqi government taking the lead, even if it meant Iranian involvement.

"This was put together by the Iraqis, formulated by the Iraqis, executed by the Iraqis, and that's the best thing all of us could, frankly, ask for," Kerry said. "So we take it the way it is and we'll hope for the best results and move from there."

Tikrit is ripe with irony. It is the birthplace of Saddam Hussein, the former president who led Iraq into a devastating 1980-88 war with Iran. Now Baghdad has embraced Iranian military leadership in the fight for Tikrit, to the exclusion of the Americans, who invaded Iraq 12 years ago this month to topple Saddam and lost thousands of lives trying to ensure a stable, multi-sectarian and independent Iraq.

Stephen Biddle, a professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University and an occasional consultant to U.S. commanders, said the Iraqis see the Iranians as a convenient alternative to the Americans as Washington pushes Iraq to be more accepting of Sunni political interests.

"So if we push them too hard they can just go to the Iranians," Biddle said. "The Tikrit offensive is a terrific example of that in practice."

Dempsey called the Iranian involvement in Tikrit "the most overt" Iranian military support thus far in Iraq's campaign against IS, but he held out hope that it could work out.

"Frankly, it will only be a problem if it results in sectarianism," Dempsey said, referring to the fact that the Shiite militias could inflame sectarian tensions in Sunni-dominated Tikrit

Analysts at the private Institute for the Study of War wrote Wednesday that the presence of Shiite militias in the Tikrit area could generate sectarian reprisal attacks.

"The greater question," they wrote, "is one of Iran's involvement in the operation," including the presence of Iranian Gen. Ghasem Soleimani, commander of the elite Revolutionary Guard's Quds Force, and Iranian military advisers.

"It raises questions about the independent capability and operational leadership" of the Iraqi security forces, the analysts wrote, and "calls attention to next steps and where Iran's battle plans will stop."

A U.S. defense official said Thursday that Washington has confirmed that Soleimani is in Iraq and providing military advice but not necessarily at the front lines in Tikrit. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence information.

Carter's view, shared by the Army general who is overseeing the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq, Lloyd Austin, is that to gain a durable defeat of the Islamic State, the Iraqis have to decide for themselves what will work and whom they will partner with.

"We will enable their efforts with our air power, with our advice and assistance in any way we can," Austin said Tuesday. "But at the end of the day, they have to be able to do this," and at times that has meant partnering with Iran.

"I can say that Iran's influence is growing in Iraq," Austin said, "but how much they have, I can't speak to that."

Biddle, for one, is skeptical of chances that the Iraqi government under Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, a Shiite, will make the political reforms Washington thinks are necessary, including replacing sectarian military and police commanders.

"The Iraqis don't want to make those changes for a variety of perfectly understandable reasons." he said, and the Americans may not have sufficient leverage to force them to change, given Iran's willingness to provide an easy alternative.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-03-06

[FangFerang]

The Shock and Awe Campaign, a brutal assault, concluded with the declaration Mission Accomplished!

The attack on Baghdad killed more civilians in a 72 hour period than any conventional weapons campaign since the bombing of Dresden in WWII. It was not mission accomplished, it was a devastating assault made under false pretenses and erroneous conclusions. Afterwards, everyone was in lock-step until the truth came out, and to this day there are still sheeple who bleat "It was necessary" (it was neither necessary nor a fight for any part of Western freedom, and instead was a huge money laundering operation for the weapons dealers, like Dick Cheney's Haliburton, and politicians who sought to give the public a sense that the 9/11 attack had been avenged). Others burbled "We warned them to get out" (like telling someone to abandon their homes to looters was a humane alternative).

Flash forward twelve years, and the region is destabilized. Even all the King's horses and all the King's men, couldn't clean up the mess that Bush made.

[Daniel Ingalls]

back to Iran!

[siampolee]

Indeed we are now witnessing the results of the removal of the ''strong men'' who didn't fit those with vested interest agenda's of the industrial military complex.

The tribal system needs a strong leader who of course is not loved by all.

Remove those leaders and we now see the proliferation of extremist groups who have gained access to powerful weaponry and also the minds of those they conquer.

The balance of power is changing and we are now living in traumatic times as a result of ill advised and illegal previous actions .

[JingerBen]

The Shock and Awe Campaign, a brutal assault, concluded with the declaration Mission Accomplished!

The attack on Baghdad killed more civilians in a 72 hour period than any conventional weapons campaign since the bombing of Dresden in WWII. It was not mission accomplished, it was a devastating assault made under false pretenses and erroneous conclusions. Afterwards, everyone was in lock-step until the truth came out, and to this day there are still sheeple who bleat "It was necessary" (it was neither necessary nor a fight for any part of Western freedom, and instead was a huge money laundering operation for the weapons dealers, like Dick Cheney's Haliburton, and politicians who sought to give the public a sense that the 9/11 attack had been avenged). Others burbled "We warned them to get out" (like telling someone to abandon their homes to looters was a humane alternative).

Flash forward twelve years, and the region is destabilized. Even all the King's horses and all the King's men, couldn't clean up the mess that Bush made.

That sums it up very well.

[Chicog]

back to Iran!

The topic says ".....in Iraq".

[Daniel Ingalls]

The way it will end........Iran will eventually take over Iraq......old memories of the Iraq Iran war still looms. I think small suitcase nukes that blow up city blocks should do the trick. Much cheaper than Scuds. They will save the big boys for Israelis. "Can't wait to see the fireworks as I sit back in my lazy boy and turn on the tube!"...........................Damn these so called human debree ....so dumb!

back to Iran!

Edited March 6, 2015 by Daniel Ingalls

[Jingthing]

Seems more confirmation that Bush going into Iraq was the biggest foreign policy mistake in U.S. history. Now the U.S. is flirting with yet another Bush.

[Chicog]

If it's Iranian troops getting shot at instead of US ones, Obama is doing his job well.

It's more in their interests to fight IS than it is America's.

[Robby nz]

The US backed Saddam all those years back in the war against Iran on the assumption that Iran would split into Sunni Shiite factions with the Shiite joining Saddam, didn't happen that way as both factions got behind their country and eventually booted Saddam out.

To make the assumption that Iran is solely Sunni could well be making the same mistake again.

To make the assumption that Iran is trying to take over Iraq could well be another mistake, they certainly dont want IS as a neighbor who would try to take over and apply the IS form of government in their country as they are doing elsewhere.

Better to fight them in someone elses country than to wait till they get to yours.

[96tehtarp]

Seems more confirmation that Bush going into Iraq was the biggest foreign policy mistake in U.S. history. Now the U.S. is flirting with yet another Bush.

Quite possibly you are correct.

However there is one other possibility; that it was a deliberate effort to destabilize the region.

Similarly the NATO humanitarian bombing of Libya which led to the ouster of its leader has led to total chaos, a failed state, and further destabilized the region. A foreign policy error, or?

It is incomprehensible that one could expect anything less than the present state of chaos when Iraq was invaded and occupied with no post invasion plan whatsoever. Likewise there was no plan for a post Qaddafi Libya. Who couldn't foresee the chaos? It was guaranteed, absolutely. A mistake or... ?

I say let the Iranians take the fight in Iraq. They are Shiites after all. I pity the Sunni's though as the Shiites are out for revenge.

[Steely Dan]

It will lead to a capitulation on the question of Iran's nuclear program by an Obama regime anxious to avoid boots on the ground. It will lead to a blind eye when it comes to Iran and their proxies occupying Syrian territory next to the Golan and in Southern Lebanon. It may lead to a large scale Sunni-Shia war, but I think we all know that.

Iran have to fight ISIS for their own reasons, no need to aid them in doing so any more than it would be wise to aid ISIS to fight Iran. Should we get a large scale conflict between the two let's hope in the words of Henry Kissinger that they both lose.

[BKKBobby]

The way it will end........Iran will eventually take over Iraq......old memories of the Iraq Iran war still looms. I think small suitcase nukes that blow up city blocks should do the trick. Much cheaper than Scuds. They will save the big boys for Israelis. "Can't wait to see the fireworks as I sit back in my lazy boy and turn on the tube!"...........................Damn these so called human debree ....so dumb!

back to Iran!

Old memories of the Iran-Iraq war dont still loom. It wasnt the Iraqis war. It was Saddams war.

As for the few million Iranian arabs living in Iran at the Iraqi border, they didnt welcome Saddams army. Saddam failed in trying to make the Iranian region with a arab majority a new Iraqi province. It proved to be a big miscalculation on his part.

The sunnis and previous Baath members in particular in Iraq are unhappy, for obvious reasons. Of course theres many years of accumulated anger among the kurds and the shiites in Iraq.

And Iran is obviously more than happy to help the shiites.

There are currently active Iraqi politicians that were living in exile in Iran until Saddams rule of Iraq was over.

[BKKBobby]

Seems more confirmation that Bush going into Iraq was the biggest foreign policy mistake in U.S. history. Now the U.S. is flirting with yet another Bush.

Quite possibly you are correct.

However there is one other possibility; that it was a deliberate effort to destabilize the region.

Similarly the NATO humanitarian bombing of Libya which led to the ouster of its leader has led to total chaos, a failed state, and further destabilized the region. A foreign policy error, or?

It is incomprehensible that one could expect anything less than the present state of chaos when Iraq was invaded and occupied with no post invasion plan whatsoever. Likewise there was no plan for a post Qaddafi Libya. Who couldn't foresee the chaos? It was guaranteed, absolutely. A mistake or... ?

I say let the Iranians take the fight in Iraq. They are Shiites after all. I pity the Sunni's though as the Shiites are out for revenge.

Im not saying that you are wrong.

Lets say that the goal was to create chaos in these regions.

What was there to gain and what was the goal of making chaos in these two regions? The goal cant be to make chaos just for the sake of it, I guess.

Edited March 6, 2015 by BKKBobby

[GentlemanJim]

Iranian role in fighting IS in Iraq: Where will it lead?

Maybe it will lead to someone kicking ISIS' ass! Something definitely needed as they do not give a flying fig about sanctions, financial sanctions or any international or UN rulings, they just want to kill people. How funny, "The enemy of your enemy is your friend", what a screwed up situation we have now.

[Srikcir]

Seems more confirmation that Bush going into Iraq was the biggest foreign policy mistake in U.S. history. Now the U.S. is flirting with yet another Bush.

No, it is not the US that is flirting with another Bush. It is Republican congressional moderates that are flirting with Jeb Bush. And Jeb really hasn't taken any foreign policy position on the Middle East other than to say he is not like his brother. Indeed, much of his ideology is better aligned with Democrats.

[Srikcir]

Iraq allowing Iran to be an active centralist in the war against ISIL actually serves a useful outlet for its pursuit of political dominance without the backing of nuclear weapons! That in turn may motivate Iran to accept a Deal with the P-6 for abandonment of nuclear weapons development. An Iran-Iraq alliance essentially cross-checks Saudi Arabia political influence.

The US may not like losing its eminance as a major political player in the Middle East, but it should. There are many long-term, complex cultural issues in the Middle East that require solutions from Middle East countries. The US can gracefully withdraw having lent its very effective diplomatic efforts to cause a coalition to develop. US does appreciate countries building coalitions to solve regional issues, preferrably in democratic fashion. Americans also appreciate not having to have Americans fight more wars in the Middle East that do not best serve American interests.

[Jingthing]

Seems more confirmation that Bush going into Iraq was the biggest foreign policy mistake in U.S. history. Now the U.S. is flirting with yet another Bush.

No, it is not the US that is flirting with another Bush. It is Republican congressional moderates that are flirting with Jeb Bush. And Jeb really hasn't taken any foreign policy position on the Middle East other than to say he is not like his brother. Indeed, much of his ideology is better aligned with Democrats.

He is no moderate.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Chicog]

The US backed Saddam all those years back in the war against Iran on the assumption that Iran would split into Sunni Shiite factions with the Shiite joining Saddam, didn't happen that way as both factions got behind their country and eventually booted Saddam out.

To make the assumption that Iran is solely Sunni could well be making the same mistake again.

To make the assumption that Iran is trying to take over Iraq could well be another mistake, they certainly dont want IS as a neighbor who would try to take over and apply the IS form of government in their country as they are doing elsewhere.

Better to fight them in someone elses country than to wait till they get to yours.

You appear to be somewhat mixed up.

Saddam kept the Shi'a down and was fighting a country that is 90% Shi'a. America backed Saddam as payback for the 1979/80 embarrassment.

It was the Americans that "booted Saddam out".

To make the assumption that Iran is more than 9% Sunni is wrong. It is a Shi'a country.

To make the assumption that Iran is backing the Iraqi Shi'a government is correct.

The reason IS exists is because the Iraqi Shi'a took over Iraq with Bush's help and then went for revenge against the Sunni. Out of that came AQI and then ISI.

IS is a Sunni organisation, so it's fairly logical that the Shi'a are fighting against it.

Many Shi'a holy sites are actually in Iraq.

Iran was a Sunni country until it was conquered and its occupants told to convert to Shi'ism or die.

And to your last point, better to let someone else fight them in their country than send your troops to die fighting someone else's war (again).

Edited March 6, 2015 by Chicog