As seems the rule in the Obama era, America has few good choices for handling the Iraqi mess, but subcontracting the solution to Iran, as the Obama administration is evidently contemplating, is probably the worst.
President Obama & Co. know the situation calls for some US action, but, typically, are taking their time weighing all options. By the time they finally decide, it may be too late.
Last week swarming jihadi fighters captured large swaths of Iraq in a well-planned offensive, making mincemeat of Iraq’s army and ransacking its US-supplied arms in the process (not to mention more than $1 billion in cash).
The ruthless Islamic State of Syria and al-Sham, a k a ISIS, now threatens Baghdad and major Shiite holy sites.
Nouri al-Maliki, Iraq’s prime minister since 2006, is in a bind.
The Shiite politician can’t rely for help on the Sunni communities he’s oppressed for years — so much so that they’re now allied with ISIS. And the Kurds he has alienated will only peruse their own interests. So he wants foreign assistance.
America is his best hope: The US military can easily control the skies, our intelligence can help him pinpoint ISIS targets, and US troops already proved, in the 2008-9 surge, that we can move Sunni tribal leaders from the jihadis’ side to ours.
But Obama, having long boasted that we’ve all but won the war against “core” al Qaeda and promised to “end” wars rather than re-engage in them, just isn’t going to rush in.
Which inevitably prompts talk of an obvious “solution”: Since we’re already involved in discussions with Iran over its nuclear program, why not ask Tehran to cooperate with us in Iraq, where Iran’s Revolutionary Guard is already involved in the fighting?
“We’re open to discussions if there is something constructive that can be contributed by Iran,” Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday.
Yes, he did allow that such unprecedented cooperation is possible only if “Iran is prepared to do something that is going to respect the integrity and sovereignty of Iraq and ability of the government to reform.”
Right. When pigs fly — and win a Halal stamp from Tehran’s ruling clerics in the process.
Iran’s aims in Iraq simply aren’t ours. We want a stable and inclusive Iraq; Iran smells an opportunity to turn its already-strong influence into outright dominance.
We want Iraq re-stabilized to calm oil markets, rattled since the ISIS assault. (Obama certainly doesn’t want $6-a-gallon gas in the summer before a big election.)
And we want Iraq’s government to be fully inclusive — that is, Maliki needs to share power with Sunni Arabs and the Kurds.
Iran’s goal, by contrast, is to strengthen its Syrian-Lebanese-Iraqi “Shiite crescent.” As in Lebanon and Syria, Tehran is creating its own proxy Iraqi militias that are loyal to it, rather than to Baghdad.
Here’s the State Department’s own April 2014 report on nations supporting terrorism: “Despite its pledge to support Iraq’s stabilization, Iran trained, funded and provided guidance to Iraqi Shia militant groups.”
Even more interesting, from the same report: Iran hosts al Qaeda operatives, enabling them “to move funds and fighters to South Asia and also to Syria.”
To dominate the region, Iran seeks to encourage sectarian strife. Even support for Sunni insurgents can at times help this goal: It would weaken Iraq’s central government to the extent that it’d be utterly dependent on Tehran for survival.
So Obama was absolutely right on Friday when he conditioned US assistance on Maliki taking steps to share power with Kurds and Sunni Arabs.
The worry is that he won’t stick to that position — that he’ll either help an unreformed Maliki (playing into Tehran’s hands), or, more likely, decline to offer Maliki enough help to make reform worth his while.
Meanwhile, many among the Mideast’s Sunni powers believe that Obama already favors the region’s Shiite minority — or at least seeks to create a “balance of power” that would weaken the Sunni majority. Allying with Iran would “confirm” such theories.
But more crucially, an alliance with Iran now would be contrary to America’s interests. It’d weaken Iraq, bury any hope of sectarian reconciliation and turn Tehran into a regional kingmaker.
Obama’s reluctance to avoid any involvement in Iraq is understandable.
But, without getting into the partisan bickering over who’s to blame for the current mess, the simple fact is that a stable Iraq is clearly in the US interest — and America is the only world power that can make Iraq whole again.
If we avoid responsibility, allowing a jihadi state to grow in Iraq or letting Iran take over, we’ll rue the mistake for decades to come.