Iraq’s borders are disappearing: this is a disaster
The Islamic State of Iraq and greater Syria (ISIS) is shredding Iraq. After seizing the northern city of Mosul on Monday, on Tuesday ISIS stormed down Iraq’s route 1 highway to take Tikrit. This victory has left them emboldened and only 110 miles from Baghdad. The Iraqi military seemingly overrun, Nouri al-Maliki’s government is greatly concerned.
Unfortunately, the disaster isn’t confined to Iraq. After all, ISIS isn’t interested in Iraq per se. Instead, it seeks a caliphate that stretches from western Syria to Iraq’s eastern border with Iran. A dominion preserved under an iron fist of brutality (think Fallujah 2004) and a base from which to export global terrorism.
What’s happening in Iraq and Syria today is the nightmare that drove George W Bush to gamble everything on his January 2007 surge. He knew that Iraq’s collapse might enable Al-Qaeda in Iraq to rip the Middle East apart. And today Al-Qaeda in Iraq’s successor – ISIS – have never been closer to their dream.
ISIS are pure terrorists: their strategy is to use extreme violence to drive Iraq into a sectarian melee. The group knows that with each atrocity it commits, Iraq’s geographic borders and government institutions lose form. That with each Shia market it bombs, Iraq moves closer to the bloody civil war of 2006 (Shia terrorist groups are far from silent). That with each ISIS victory, Iraq’s basic viability becomes ever more tenuous. Exacerbating the crisis is Maliki’s long term authoritarianism: this has empowered ISIS.
ISIS believes that if it can push Maliki, he’ll make policy from his own paranoia. It hopes he’ll overreact: killing Sunni civilians and attracting support to the ISIS banner. Already a deeply paranoid man, the Iraqi Prime Minister faces a severe test.
A big question follows. What will Maliki do next?
Though it’s a casual refrain to label Maliki an Iranian puppet, the truth of his relationship with the Islamic republic is far more complex. While Maliki finds support from Iran, he’s shown on numerous occasions that he’s his own man. Nevertheless, ISIS has forced Maliki into a crucible of two choices. On the one hand, he can attempt to restrain ISIS with his security forces and the support of certain Sunni tribes. Conversely, Maliki could reach out to a foreign party for backup. Without US guidance he’s likely to go for the second option.
Enter Iran.
Here we must forget Rouhani. Iran’s foreign-security policy is ultimately led by Ayatollah Khamenei and his revolutionary project. In polar opposition to ISIS, Iran pursues an arc of Khomeinism from Lebanon to Iraq and Bahrain. And while Iran is more calculating than ISIS, its comfort with extreme violence is nevertheless undeniable. Indeed, in its indiscriminate conflict in Syria, Iran has slaughtered countless civilians. The great risk is that Maliki will now jump into open Iranian arms and support their wholly sectarian war against Iraq’s Sunni population.
If that happens, just as in Syria, Iraqi society will collapse. In that hellhole, questions of borders, consensus, peace and the future would become irrelevant: victims of what Clausewitz would describe as absolute war.
Obviously, this places the West in a serious bind. Whatever some might say, forming an alliance with Iran to fight ISIS would be a disaster. Still, America cannot allow Iraq to collapse. Too much of our blood and our allies’ blood has already been spilled for that nation’s future. Those sacrifices must not be in vain. Correspondingly, the US should adopt a new, comprehensive regional strategy. Recognising that only the US government has the intelligence and logistics capabilities Iraq so desperately needs, Obama should support Maliki with the caveat that the Iraqi leader make reciprocal concessions. These must include power transfers to Iraqi Sunni-centered political parties and the establishment of independent democratic institutions that can cool sectarian flames over the longer term. These commitments must take form beyond words.
Regardless, we’ve heard for far too long that our absence from the Middle East would best serve our interests. Now we’re learning the opposite is true. No one wants more Iraq wars, but we must face the geopolitical disaster unfolding before us.
Islamic State of Iraq
The Islamic State of Iraq and greater Syria (ISIS) is shredding Iraq. After seizing the northern city of Mosul on Monday, on Tuesday ISIS stormed down Iraq’s route 1 highway to take Tikrit. This victory has left them emboldened and only 110 miles from Baghdad. The Iraqi military seemingly overrun, Nouri al-Maliki’s government is greatly concerned.
Unfortunately, the disaster isn’t confined to Iraq. After all, ISIS isn’t interested in Iraq per se. Instead, it seeks a caliphate that stretches from western Syria to Iraq’s eastern border with Iran. A dominion preserved under an iron fist of brutality (think Fallujah 2004) and a base from which to export global terrorism.
What’s happening in Iraq and Syria today is the nightmare that drove George W Bush to gamble everything on his January 2007 surge. He knew that Iraq’s collapse might enable Al-Qaeda in Iraq to rip the Middle East apart. And today Al-Qaeda in Iraq’s successor – ISIS – have never been closer to their dream.
ISIS are pure terrorists: their strategy is to use extreme violence to drive Iraq into a sectarian melee. The group knows that with each atrocity it commits, Iraq’s geographic borders and government institutions lose form. That with each Shia market it bombs, Iraq moves closer to the bloody civil war of 2006 (Shia terrorist groups are far from silent). That with each ISIS victory, Iraq’s basic viability becomes ever more tenuous. Exacerbating the crisis is Maliki’s long term authoritarianism: this has empowered ISIS.
ISIS believes that if it can push Maliki, he’ll make policy from his own paranoia. It hopes he’ll overreact: killing Sunni civilians and attracting support to the ISIS banner. Already a deeply paranoid man, the Iraqi Prime Minister faces a severe test.
A big question follows. What will Maliki do next?
Though it’s a casual refrain to label Maliki an Iranian puppet, the truth of his relationship with the Islamic republic is far more complex. While Maliki finds support from Iran, he’s shown on numerous occasions that he’s his own man. Nevertheless, ISIS has forced Maliki into a crucible of two choices. On the one hand, he can attempt to restrain ISIS with his security forces and the support of certain Sunni tribes. Conversely, Maliki could reach out to a foreign party for backup. Without US guidance he’s likely to go for the second option.
Enter Iran.
Here we must forget Rouhani. Iran’s foreign-security policy is ultimately led by Ayatollah Khamenei and his revolutionary project. In polar opposition to ISIS, Iran pursues an arc of Khomeinism from Lebanon to Iraq and Bahrain. And while Iran is more calculating than ISIS, its comfort with extreme violence is nevertheless undeniable. Indeed, in its indiscriminate conflict in Syria, Iran has slaughtered countless civilians. The great risk is that Maliki will now jump into open Iranian arms and support their wholly sectarian war against Iraq’s Sunni population.
If that happens, just as in Syria, Iraqi society will collapse. In that hellhole, questions of borders, consensus, peace and the future would become irrelevant: victims of what Clausewitz would describe as absolute war.
Obviously, this places the West in a serious bind. Whatever some might say, forming an alliance with Iran to fight ISIS would be a disaster. Still, America cannot allow Iraq to collapse. Too much of our blood and our allies’ blood has already been spilled for that nation’s future. Those sacrifices must not be in vain. Correspondingly, the US should adopt a new, comprehensive regional strategy. Recognising that only the US government has the intelligence and logistics capabilities Iraq so desperately needs, Obama should support Maliki with the caveat that the Iraqi leader make reciprocal concessions. These must include power transfers to Iraqi Sunni-centered political parties and the establishment of independent democratic institutions that can cool sectarian flames over the longer term. These commitments must take form beyond words.
Regardless, we’ve heard for far too long that our absence from the Middle East would best serve our interests. Now we’re learning the opposite is true. No one wants more Iraq wars, but we must face the geopolitical disaster unfolding before us.
No comments:
Post a Comment