What the US Wants in Iraq

Tuesday, July 1, 2014
Kaveh L. Afrasiabi

As the battle between the Iraqi army and the radical jihadists of ISIS rages on in Tikrit and other parts of the country, the question of US's intentions in Iraq is mired in a thick air of ambiguity, in light of US's refusal to launch air strike against the al-Qaeda affiliate terrorists who have seized substantial arms and equipment after the fall of Mosul, thus strengthening their hands in both Iraq and (eastern) Syria.

So far, the Obama administration's tepid response has consisted of strong verbal condemnation of the ISIS assaults with little meaningful support for the embattled Iraqi government, while using the occasion to seek regime change in Baghdad and simultaneously to deepen bilateral relations with the Iraqi Kurds in the North, with talks of a separate 'status of forces agreement' with the Kurdish regional government. 

Clearly, Washington's dispatch of some 300 forces to beef up security for its huge embassy in Baghdad and or use of drones over Baghdad are insufficient remedies in terms of the international support that Baghdad needs to counter the ISIS menace. Such limited assistance may help Baghdad protect its enclave, yet far from what is needed to roll back the ISIS victories and to nullify the latter's objective of setting up a jihadist state in parts of Iraq. As a result, the Iraqi government has turned to Moscow for help, which has reportedly dispatched fighter jets and advisers, given Russia's concern that the trans-national jihadists, who include Chechens and others, represent a long-term threat to its interests.  

In order to fully understand the US's objectives in Iraq, it is important to go beyond the official Washington rhetoric and to dissect the sources of US's seemingly irrational hesitation to provide air cover for the Iraqi army operations against the ISIS. US Secretary of State John Kerry's rejection of the US airstrike as "ineffective" simply does not wash, given the comparative success of such strikes against the Taliban in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Indeed, since when the US has so little faith in air power?!

Doubtless, if the US had launched air strikes against the ISIS fighters crossing into Iraq from Syria in early and mid-June, the outcome of fighting over Mosul might have been different. Washington's playing innocent of critical intelligence on the ISIS's moves is quite unconvincing, the Kurds in particular have gone public about their repeated warnings to US and British authorities about the impending ISIS attack to no avail.

Adopting the US's official line, many US media pundits, such as Michael Crowley in a piece on "End of Iraq" in Time Magazine, flatly claim that "no one saw it coming," whereas one in the US intelligence community would have to be deaf and blind to miss the overt signs of ISIS's campaign in Iraq. 

Indeed, Obama's refusal to commit the US air support for the Iraqi army is tantamount to a dereliction of duty and evasion of the joint anti-terrorism agreement with Baghad, most likely motivated by the persuasion of US's regional allies, such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, backing the ISIS terrorists, not to overlook Israel's role, given the cordial ties between Israel and the Iraqi Kurds, who are accused by Baghdad of making unlawful oil sales to Israel. 

At the same time, this raises questions about US's strategy toward Iran, Syria, and Russia: Is the US relying on the Sunni jihadist card to (a) gain leverage over Iran in the nuclear standoff, (b) get even with Russia over Ukraine, and (c) reverse the recent gains of Bashar al-Assad, now that overnight a huge arms shipment from Mosul to ISIS hands in Syria has been accomplished, thanks to the betrayal of their duties by the US-trained Iraqi officers in Mosul? 

The problem with such a US approach is that it amounts to opening a Pandora's Box with the ISIS terrorists more than capable of focusing on their American enemy once they have realized their initial objectives. A historical deja vu, this would be reminiscent of the American fiasco in Afghanistan that culminated in the September 11 atrocities, in other words the US cannot simply afford feeding a monster that is bound to bite it sooner or later. The ISIS phenomenon is a knife that cuts both ways, destined to represent a growing threat to the moderate Arab regimes that are bankrolling its anti-Shiite efforts today. 

On the other hand, if the US persists with the current approach, complemented with the US pundits' open embrace of a new imperial "Sykes-Picot" division of the Middle East landscape into more small states, while the Israelis pursue their grand strategy of a "greater Israel" unencumbered by any Western opposition, then we should expect a future backlash in the form of a new wave of anti-Americanism, particularly by the region's Shiites, strategically located in key parts of the Middle East. 

To put in a nutshell, the present failure of Washington to provide the necessary assistance to Baghdad to rid the country of the ISIS menace reflects the diverse, and contradictory, influences under which Washington finds itself today and has already caused a great deal of "confidence-deficit" with Baghdad -- that can be wiped away only by the US living up to its treaty agreements with the central government in Baghdad and honoring the results of the recent elections, instead of seeking to 'fish in the muddy waters' as there are undeniable gaps between short and long-term gains as well as a whole host of unintended consequences. Only a firm and resolute expressed commitment by the US to Iraq's territorial sovereignty can do away with the Shiites' growing misgivings about US's intentions.

*Kaveh Afrasiabi, PhD, is the author of several books on Iran’s foreign policy. His writings have appeared on several online and print publications, including UN Chronicle, New York Times, Der Tagesspiegel, Middle East Journal, Harvard International Review, and Brown's Journal of World Affairs, Guardian, Russia Today, Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, Boston Globe, Mediterranean Affairs, Nation, Telos, Der Tageszeit, Hamdard Islamicus, Iranian Journal of International Affairs, Global Dialogue.

Key Words: US, Iraq, ISIS, Obama Administration, Kurdish Regional Government, Russia, US Air Support, Syria, Afrasiabi

More By Kaveh L. Afrasiabi:

*The New Iraq Crisis: Iran's Options: http://www.iranreview.org/content/Documents/The-New-Iraq-Crisis-Iran-s-Options.htm

*Security Dimension Missing in Nuclear Talks:http://www.iranreview.org/content/Documents/Security-Dimension-Missing-in-Nuclear-Talks.htm

*French Role in Iran Nuclear Talks: http://www.iranreview.org/content/Documents/French-Role-in-Iran-Nuclear-Talks.htm

ISIL terrorists will turn guns against sponsors: Analyst

Press TV has conducted an interview with Kaveh Afrasiabi, author and political scientist from Boston, about the Iraqi military's push against Takfiri militants.
What follows is an approximate transcription of the interview.

Press TV:  It seems the Iraqi army is slowing down the ISIL advancements and in some regions it’s pushed back the terrorists. How do you evaluate the future of this crisis? Will the Takfiri militants be defeated?

Afrasiabi: Obviously, this is a foreign-induced crisis that is principally the result of all the foreign meddling in Syria and supporting these terrorist groups who have now made the inroad into Iraq and caused the security crisis that will hopefully be stemmed by the Iraqi government and indeed the international community that has invested interest in defeating these very extremist violent, ultra-violent, terrorists who are wrecking havoc in Iraq and Syria.

This is a very volatile and fluid situation that much depends on the efforts of the Iraqi government that unfortunately did not do too well in Mosul recently and we have seen that the government and security forces are able to rebound and fight back and cause some partial retreat by the ISIS terrorists. Hopefully this trend will continue and very soon we will see the end of this crisis. 
 
Press TV: Some analysts refer to a plot hatched by Israel, the Iraqi Kurdish officials, Turkey, and some Arab states of the Persian Gulf to disintegrate Iraq. What will each of these countries gain, do you think?

Afrasiabi: There are different players with different interests that may coincide in the short run but may also backfire against them in the medium term and long run.

Take the case of the Kurds, for example, that some of them are seeking independence and taking advantage of the security vacuum by controlling Kirkuk and so on and yet at the same time, they are very worried and should be worried about being next-door neighbor to desire ISIS terrorists who recognize no national borders and want to establish a seventh century caliphate with the most backward and barbaric set of self-made rules.

Or Turkey the same thing, has a very complicated relations with ISIS because there are confirmed reports of some ISIS leaders, being given medical treatment in Turkey and so on, some opposition leaders in Turkey are questioning the attitude of the present government with respects to these terrorists inside Syria. But,while they are supporting them in Syria, the Turks are also very worried about what’s happening in Iraq because these terrorists have taken some Turkish prisoners, hostages, the consulate in Mosul was, of course, released and so on.

As for Israel, it has always pursued its own sinister objectives of divide and conquer while it’s pursuing its own grand idea of greater Israel.

With respect to the Persian Gulf states of the [Persian] Gulf Cooperation Council, I think they are following a very shortsighted and self-defeating approach by giving money and other support to these terrorists who will sooner or later turn the guns against them. 

Press TV: Western media have from the beginning of the ISIL offensive have to some extent become a mouthpiece for the group. Why do you think this is the case?

Afrasiabi: Wars as well as crises are profitable for big corporate media, especially in the West. It’s not a surprise that the big Western media corporations are jumping on this and so for trying to get out of the summer doldrums.

On the other hand, it goes back to the ambivalent and ambiguous intentions of the US in this situation because we have heard from President Obama asking the US Congress for funds to the Syrian rebels and this is at the same time when the US Secretary of State John Kerry is warning the neighboring states of Iraq not to meddle in the internal affairs of Iraq. This is really hypocrisy run amok because how can President Obama justify meddling in the internal affairs of Syria while its own officials are saying, “Don’t meddle in Iraq” to Syria and others.

That hypocrisy aside, the question is what is US’s real intention? Does it want to see a divided Iraq, balkanized Iraq and so forth and there are some who suggest that what the US is doing is revenge from Mr. Putin in Russia in order to achieve huge arm cash transfer to Syria in order to cause a setback for Mr. Bashar al-Assad who has achieved tremendous victory against terrorists inside Syria.