Iran more dangerous to Iraq than ISIS: U.S. terror experts
Iran presents a far greater threat to Iraq’s future than ISIS terrorists, experts told U.S. senators Tuesday.
An ideologically divergent group left the Armed Services Committee with little doubt that the ISIS threat will ultimately diminish, but Iran will maintain its ability “to dominate the region.”
“It has a greater ability to control the region and sustain that control if allowed to do so,” testified Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution as he compared Iran, ISIS and Al Qaeda.
Ray Takeyh, a Middle East expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, noted the tricky reality of Iran training Iraqi Shia militia, presumably for the ongoing domestic conflict in Iraq against ISIS.
His fear, he told the panel, is an Iranian ulterior motive of training them for “transnational purposes,” meaning as “the ISIS threat diminishes, they may have plans for them to operate in Syria and beyond the boundaries of Iraq.”
Both Pollack and Takeyh sought to slightly qualify their views of Iran by saying that its regional influence is not necessarily a permanent reality.
But to avoid it being so, an array of changes must place.
Those include a dramatic beefing up of the potency of the current Iraqi government via more U.S. military and civilian help, as well as somehow avoiding Iran producing nuclear weapons.
The consensus was that the latter might just be a pipe dream, and that ongoing nuke talks led by the U.S. can avoid that prospect.
Iran will likely get a nuke whether or not there is an agreement in the ongoing talks, said Retired Army Col. Derek Harvey, who was in charge of an internal think tank on Afghanistan and Pakistan at U.S. Central Command.
Dafna Rand, a deputy director of studies at the Center for a New American Security, said the question was no longer Iran’s nuclear intentions.
Instead, the key matter is whether the rest of the world can somehow use a mix of export controls, sabotage and economic sanctions “to provide obstacles to those intentions.”
And, she said, “The logic for waiting for a better deal has a lot of holes in it.”
An ideologically divergent group left the Armed Services Committee with little doubt that the ISIS threat will ultimately diminish, but Iran will maintain its ability “to dominate the region.”
“It has a greater ability to control the region and sustain that control if allowed to do so,” testified Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution as he compared Iran, ISIS and Al Qaeda.
The hearing
chaired by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) underscored fears about Iran’s
historic clout in the region, the persisting weakness of the Iraq
government and doubts about ongoing international bargaining over Iran’s nuclear program.
Ray Takeyh, a Middle East expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, noted the tricky reality of Iran training Iraqi Shia militia, presumably for the ongoing domestic conflict in Iraq against ISIS.
His fear, he told the panel, is an Iranian ulterior motive of training them for “transnational purposes,” meaning as “the ISIS threat diminishes, they may have plans for them to operate in Syria and beyond the boundaries of Iraq.”
Both Pollack and Takeyh sought to slightly qualify their views of Iran by saying that its regional influence is not necessarily a permanent reality.
But to avoid it being so, an array of changes must place.
Those include a dramatic beefing up of the potency of the current Iraqi government via more U.S. military and civilian help, as well as somehow avoiding Iran producing nuclear weapons.
The consensus was that the latter might just be a pipe dream, and that ongoing nuke talks led by the U.S. can avoid that prospect.
Iran will likely get a nuke whether or not there is an agreement in the ongoing talks, said Retired Army Col. Derek Harvey, who was in charge of an internal think tank on Afghanistan and Pakistan at U.S. Central Command.
Dafna Rand, a deputy director of studies at the Center for a New American Security, said the question was no longer Iran’s nuclear intentions.
Instead, the key matter is whether the rest of the world can somehow use a mix of export controls, sabotage and economic sanctions “to provide obstacles to those intentions.”
And, she said, “The logic for waiting for a better deal has a lot of holes in it.”
No comments:
Post a Comment