The Iran Deal and the Next Iraq War
by DANIEL GREENFIELD September 18, 2015
In his sales pitch for the nuclear deal with Iran that even he admitted gives the terrorist regime a near zero breakout time to the bomb, Obama pulled out every conceivable stop. He even accused opponents of trying to get the country into a war with Iran just as they had “brought the country” into the Iraq War.
But Obama was responsible for the rise of ISIS and his deal with Iran sets the stage for the next Iraq War. His original Iraq treason led to his Iran treason today.
To understand why that is, it’s important to realize how we got here.
Obama campaigned on a rapid withdrawal from Iraq. As with so much else, he lied. But his plan for a rapid withdrawal did win an endorsement from one key ally. Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki backed Obama’s push for a swift withdrawal, stating that American soldiers should leave “as soon as possible.”
Maliki was Iran’s man in Baghdad who had been picked by Qasem Soleimani of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). The IRGC had conducted the Shiite terror campaign against American soldiers in Iraq. Maliki’s endorsement of Obama meant an endorsement from the godfather of Iran’s terror machine whose IEDs were responsible for the murder of over 500 American soldiers.
In exchange for backing Maliki, the Iranian terror boss had demanded that the Iraqi leader get all American soldiers out of the country. Obama’s proposal for Iraq was really Iran’s proposal for Iraq.
Soleimani and Maliki both wanted Americans out so that Iran could advance the Shiite takeover of Iraq.
While Obama had no say during Maliki’s first government, he made sure that Iran’s puppet would get a second government. Ayad Allawi, the former interim Prime Minister, stated that Biden told him to drop his bid. Allawi claimed that the administration wanted to keep Maliki in power so as not to upset Iran.
“They wanted to leave, and they handed the country to the Iranians,” Allawi said.
Handing over Iraq to Iran had been a key part of Obama’s plan.
In the Senate, Obama had insisted that the only answer to Iraq was a “political solution.” This “political solution” in which Iraqis and their “neighbors” would work things out could only take place after a troop withdrawal. All these were euphemisms for letting Iran and its puppets in Baghdad take over Iraq.
When asked about the danger of Iran taking over Iraq, Obama replied, “We have to send a clear message to the Iraqi government as well as to the surrounding neighbors that there is no military solution to the problems that we face in Iraq.”
Iran and Soleimani however remained unconvinced that there was no military solution to Iraq. After all they had used military means to force the United States out of Iraq by discrediting the war so badly that no one except a known anti-war activist like Obama could possibly be elected on the Democratic ticket.
Obama owed his White House win to the “military solution” that Iran’s terrorists had imposed on Iraq.
The idea of using Iran to get out of Iraq was not a new strategy. It was being pushed aggressively in ’08. But once Obama turned over Iraq to Iran’s Shiite proxies, the Sunnis began revolting against Shiite rule. ISIS, in its earlier form, began building support, but so did a variety of Sunni terrorist groups, including Baathists, and some factions that the United States had supported and worked with.
The Arab Spring turned ISIS into a terror empire, but the momentum for the civil war had been created by Obama’s Iranian “political solution” for Iraq.
Seven years later, the left has no new ideas for Iraq except turning it over to Iran. Underneath the various arguments in favor of negotiations with Iran was the suggestion that a nuclear deal would somehow lead the Iranian regime to stabilize Iraq out of the goodness of its murderous little heart.
The problem with that plan is that Iran had been the single biggest regional destabilizing force in Iraq.
When the United States was there, Iran funded the Shiite end of the civil war while the Al Qaeda terrorists passed through Syria. The combination of terror tactics made it difficult to stabilize Iraq. Once the United States left, Iran began strangling the Sunnis. By the time ISIS genocide forced Obama to demand the removal of Maliki, the Iraqi army was toast and in its place were Shiite militias.
The same Shiite terrorists we had been fighting in Iraq were now in control of Baghdad and operating under the command of Soleimani. And Obama let them use us as their air force for a war they started.
Whatever happens next, it won’t be a stable Iraq. The United States has an interest in stabilizing Iraq. Iran wants it to be as unstable as possible. A divided unstable Iraq will be dependent on Iran. Its isolated Shiite regime will need Iran’s protection. And in exchange, Iran will have free run of the place.
Obama’s “political solution” let Iran destroy the Iraqi government and its military leaving behind empty shells. The country is run by Shiite militias and clerics and Obama is defending their rule and his “political solution” in an endless war in which the Shiites oppress Sunnis and the Sunnis go on the warpath.
The next Iraq War may take place when ISIS becomes strong enough that Obama or his successor are forced to send in group troops. It may come with a resurgence of ISIS’ Baathist allies. Or it may come when Iran’s own ISIS, its bloodthirsty Shiite militias, begin engaging in blatant genocide.
The fighting will not stop and the odds are good that the United States will be drawn into it again.
Obama accused Iran deal opponents of being responsible for the Iraq War, but it’s his deal that once again ratifies Iranian authority in the region in general and in Iraq specifically. Deal supporters claim that letting Iran go nuclear will dispose it to work with us on Iraq. The State Department claimed Iran and the US had a “shared interest.” Kerry had already suggested last year that Iran could help in Iraq.
But the last thing that Iran will be doing on its victory lap is helping America.
Obama’s sanctions relief will help Iran increase its funding to sectarian Shiite forces in Iraq and the flow of cash to its terror militias. Meanwhile the deal sends the clear message that Iran beat America. That will further alter the balance of power in Iraq while driving more Sunni and Shiite internecine warfare.
The next Iraq War may already be here. When it drags in our soldiers, it will be because Obama’s Iraq policy continues driving a civil war by favoring Iran over Iraq’s Sunnis. The nuclear deal gave Obama the opportunity to avert that war by sending a clear message to Iran. Instead Obama sent up a white flag.
The current phase of the war in Iraq was caused by Obama’s original Iranian political solution. The next phase of the war will be caused by the fallout from his latest dirty deal with Iran.
Daniel Greenfield is a blogger, columnist and freelance photographer born in Israel, who maintains his own blog, Sultan Knish.
No comments:
Post a Comment