June 20-2014
by Warren L. Nelson
Both the United States and the Islamic Republic are trying to figure out what to do to reverse the advance into Iraq of a Sunni militant band, but they aren’t going to launch any joint operations, despite some florid news reports going the rounds.
The activity has been confused in the public mind by some highly inaccurate reporting.
Last week, The Wall Street Journal said Iran had sent two combat battalions into Iraq the day after Sunni troops from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) advanced deep into central Syria. But a week later there is no evidence that Iran has sent any combat troops into Iraq.
What Iran did do was send Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, the commander of the Qods Force, to Baghdad to talk to Iraqi officials. (Iraq informed the United States that Soleimani was coming.) The Qods Force is the branch of the Pasdaran that operates beyond Iran’s borders. It has no combat units. But it advises, trains, funds and arms a number of militias in other countries, including Iraq.
While it isn’t known what Soleimani and the Iraqis decided, it was noted that troops from one of the Shia militias Iran supports in Iraq joined Iraqi Army units in fighting in central Iraq. There is a good chance that Soleimani is organizing that support.
There is also a good chance that there are officers from the Qods Force in Iraq helping to do that. Several hardline websites in Iran have been reporting that a Pasdar fighter named Alireza Moshajari died Saturday in Iraq. Some websites said he was Iran’s first martyr in the fight against ISIS inside Iraq. But others said he died in an accident after he returned to Iran from a mission inside Iraq.
Much of the news coverage has suggested that ISIS was on the verge of taking over Iraq. But US military and intelligence analysts said that was grossly overwrought.
ISIS has long kept troops inside Syria. Earlier this month, the troops quickly advanced through Sunni areas, where they enjoy much support, into central Iraq to a point as close as 65 kilometers (40 miles) north of Baghdad. But in the past week, ISIS has not advanced further and in fact has been pushed back a bit. It appears less concerned with advancing into areas with a Shia population than with consolidating its position in northwestern Syria and forming a ministate with the areas it occupies in northeastern Syria.
Some ISIS leaders spoke last week of seizing the Shiite cities of Najaf and Karbala. But few see that as anything more than blowhard rhetoric.
ISIS is believed to have fewer than 10,000 troops in Syria, perhaps as few as 5,000. It cannot hold an area dominated by Shiites. Its success to date appears to be based on speed and surprise. It jumped on Iraqi Army units around Mosul that were in garrison and unprepared for war. The Iraqi troops simply cut and run. ISIS did not defeat them so much as scare them and chase them away.
On Monday, US Secretary of State John Kerry gave a muddled response to a question during an interview that prompted news stories saying the Obama Administration was ready to work with Iran to stop the ISIS thrust. But Kerry said no such thing. The White House, Pentagon and State Department quickly tried to spike such talk, explaining that Washington was prepared to talk diplomatically with Iran about Iraq, but was not prepared for military coordination of any kind.
Before that was clarified, some critics rushed to the television cameras, with Senator John McCain saying, “It would be the height of folly to believe that the Iranian regime can be our partner in managing the deteriorating security situation in Iraq.”
A written State Department statement said any engagement with Iran “will not include military coordination or strategic determinations about Iraq’s future over the heads of the Iraqi people. We will discuss how ISIS threatens many countries in the region, including Iran, and the need to support inclusivity in Iraq and refrain from pressing a sectarian agenda.”
US Deputy Secretary of State William Burns did talk about Iraq with Iran on the sidelines of the nuclear negotiating session that started Monday in Vienna. US officials wouldn’t say what was said, but made clear the talks were “brief.” If past history is any guide, the US told Iran what military action it had under consideration, assured Iran there would be threat to Iran and warned Iran against doing anything to undermine US efforts.
Many news commentaries spoke about a prospective Iranian-American alliance because both countries share an interest in stopping ISIS. And the two countries do share that interest. But such pop analysis ignored the fact that the two countries do not share a long-term interest in Iraq. Most basically, Iran wants to reduce US influence in Iraq to nil while the US wants to reduce Iranian influence in Iraq to nearly nil.
The Islamic Republic’s primary goal in Iraq is to protect Shias and see a Shia-led government in control. The United States, on the other hand, has emphasized for a decade the need for a government that includes Sunnis, Shia and Kurds in a coalition that respects and serves all three groups.
Washington blames the success of ISIS on the fact that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has run a sectarian government that offends Iraqi Sunnis and has led many of them to welcome ISIS. In recent days, President Obama has made a mantra of his insistence that Maliki completely change the way he runs the country and bring Sunnis into the government. Obama has hinted that he won’t provide much help if Maliki doesn’t change because he doesn’t believe Maliki can win if he doesn’t change.
Last Friday, Obama said, “The United States is not simply going to involve itself in a military action in the absence of a political plan by the Iraqis that gives us some assurance that they’re prepared to work together.”
The first reaction of many Americans was to say that Obama ought to open an air bridge to Iraq to carry weapons and ammunition to the Iraqi Army. But there is reluctance to do that. US officials say ISIS captured many weapons and other American-made equipment from the Iraqi units that cut and ran. Those supplies are now being shunted across the border into Iraq,
US officials are known to be discussing the option of supporting Iraqi troops in combat with air attacks. The US aircraft carrier George H.W. Bush has been moved into the Persian Gulf. There are many more planes based in Arab states on the Persian Gulf, but local news reports say those governments have so far not given their permission for planes to fly from their countries in support of a Shiite government in Baghdad.
But the 65 carrier aircraft likely provide more than enough firepower.
Much of the military analysis appearing in print says the US planes would not be able to tackle ISIS troops because they are scattered in and among civilians. But that misses the point that US aircraft would go after ISIS troops only when they are formed up to fight an Iraqi Army advance. The problem is that planes flying what is called “combat air support” need to be guided to target by men on the ground. Iraqi troops have never been trained in how to do that. Thus, US troops who know how to do that might have to be assigned to Iraqi ground units.
Obama decided over the weekend to send up to 275 troops into Iraq—and most are already there. But those troops are not combat forces. Some of them are to guard the US embassy. Others might work as forward air controllers to guide US jets to targets.
Another option that US officials say is under consideration is the dispatch of US Army Special Forces to Iraq as trainers and advisers. It is a little late to train soldiers, but the Special Forces troops often help units of a foreign army to organize tactical actions, plotting attack routes and siting defensive points. This, by the way, is what officers from the Qods Force are understood to be doing in Syria and may be offering to do in Iraq.
The report last week that Iran had sent combat battalions into Iraq the very same day that ISIS forged into central Iraq was contrary to Iranian decision-making. In the Islamic Republic, there is an intricate decision-making process. The final decision is made by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenehi, but only after he has consulted with political, military and clerical leaders. History shows that when Iran is faced with a sudden development that requires a response, it normally takes three or four days for the consultative process to play out and a new policy to be laid down.
A basic question that is unanswered at this time is how Baghdad hopes to balance Iran and the United States. Maliki is known not to trust Tehran; his years in exile in the Islamic Republic did not breed any great affection for the regime. But he has to work with Tehran and dares not offend it.
Maliki also knows he is not well respected in Washington—but that is where real combat power emanates. The Daily Beast reported that Maliki asked Obama as long ago as his visit to Washington last November to conduct drone strikes inside Iraq against ISIS sanctuaries along Iraq’s border with Syria. Obama brushed those requests aside. But US officials say drone strikes are now an option on the table.
Little noted in all this is a rising friction between the United States and such Persian Gulf Arab states as Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which have been supporting ISIS in it battles in Syria against President Bashar al-Assad. Kerry, who has been on the phone with foreign ministers in the Arab states, said Monday, “We’re very, very concerned about [Arab backing for ISIS]…. In the end, the United States is going … to protect our citizens and our interests. And if there’s a divergence with some other people in the region, so be it.”
In Tehran, President Rohani told a news conference Saturday that Iran would study any request made by Iraq for aid. But said no requests had been made as of Saturday.
News media reported that Rohani said he was willing to cooperate with the United States in Iraq. That was yet another erroneous report. He was asked if he would cooperate with the Americans and gave a bland non-answer: “When the US takes action against ISIS, then one can think about cooperation.” All of Rohani’s remarks at the news conference similarly left the door open to just about everything without committing Iran to anything.
News reports said 5,000 Iranians have signed an online pledge at harimshia.org volunteering to go into Iraq to defend the Shia shrines there. The website said the volunteers would be organized into units and dispatched to Iraq “if the order is given by the Supreme Leader.”
Such volunteer sign-ups have been organized in the past. The effort appears to be a regime technique to make hardliners feel good. About a decade ago, thousands signed up at Friday prayers to run suicide missions against Americans “if the order is given by the Supreme Leader.” Nothing more has been heard about that group.
The Iranian public appears mainly concerned about any possible spillover of the fighting into Iran. The Interior Ministry is saying that border security has been beefed up and here is no threat to Iran. The ISIS forces are not known to be anywhere near Iran’s borders, so there is unlikely to be any real danger to Iran.
Iran has not closed the border crossing points with Iraq, something it has often done in the past when there has been a disruption in Iraq. But Iran did cancel all of its three-times-a-day flights to Baghdad starting last Wednesday.
