Iraq is swinging among US forces , Shiite militias and ISIS
US President Barack Obama , since he took the presidency of the United States in 2009, paid a number of diplomatic visits to the countries of the international community, but he has not visited Iraq only once in the same year noting that the last visit of Foreign Minister John Kerry to Iraq was in June 2014, after the control of the state organization in Iraq and the Levant “Daash” on the province of Mosul. And the visit of US officials to Iraq was limited on the security and military side without political ones .
Some may see that the lack of the visit of US President and his foreign minister does not carry any political indications , whilst another team just see the opposite, noting that the United States of America established the Iraqi political system at the stage followed the former President Saddam Hussein in 2003, to be an ally system, so undoubtedly, the absence of Iraq on the agenda of their foreign visits , carry political messages and Washington had wanted to send it to the government in Baghdad.
In this context, we wonder why President Barack Obama and his secretary of state are reluctant to visit Iraq ? What does Washington want from Baghdad, and what is the American perception of Iraq after Daash, and what is the future of Iranian influence in Iraq after the Daash too?
Iran is mainly involved in the formation process of the security arrangements in Iraq since the fall of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003; Having invested its strong ties with the Shiite factions , and imposed itself an important figure in the Iraqi arena. But it became obvious in this context that the Iranian influence in Iraq began to emerge into the public more than ever, with the escalation of the war waged by the international coalition against al “Daash”, in which participated armed Shiite militias backed by Iran known as the units of “popular crowd “, it has raised many concerns about the growing Iranian influence in Iraq, which could boost sectarian divisions, and supports the expansion of the” Daash “inside and outside Iraq.
Despite showing fear of growing Iranian influence in Iraq by several circles in Washington , but US President Barack Obama’s administration continues to adopt a vague policy contributed to encourage Tehran to exert more influence inside Iraq. The most notable indicators in that:
- Conflicting security visions : many US officials remarks about the Shiite militias showed a clear conflict of the influence of these militias on the security situation in Iraq , Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter has expressed, in a statement to the House of Senate – his fears that Tikrit may ignite sectarian strife in Iraq, While the US Army Chief of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey (who was retired on pension) considered that Iran could have a positive role in the attack to restore the city of Tikrit as long as Iranian interference did not lead to tensions with the Sunni . While Mark Perry , military expert and analyst of American foreign policy at the Ministry of Defense , considered that the Iranian role in Iraq spared the United States a lot of problems.
- Indirect US support :Although Washington does not participate in military operations waged by Iraqi forces to restore Tikrit city from the control of the organization “Daash”, but the US air strikes that targeted sites of “Daash” indirectly contributed in the achievements of gains for the militias Shiite , which some of its elements committed numerous violations that it were evident in terms that it did not receive enough attention from Washington.
- Unstable sectarian balance :the Obama administration is seeking to establish a political system based on sectarian balance in Iraq , but there are many obstacles to limit the possibility of achieving this, in light of the sectarian violence that pursued by Shiite militias, and the damage caused to the structure of population in Iraq for the benefit of Iran .
United States realized that the ambiguous policy followed towards Iraq positively reflected in favor of the Iranian expansion project , and to correct the course of this policy found in the control Daash to Mosul and some Iraqi provinces the way to get rid of the former Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and come up with Haider Abadi Prime minister of Iraq, but despite of military and political support for his government, it did not achieve what Washington is seeking to , which is to achieve national reconciliation among the components of Iraqi society, and evidenced by the meeting between Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi in November 22 of this year, with US Deputy Secretary of State “Tony Pellnkn” which ignored the talk about national reconciliation in the government statement and the statement focused on joint efforts between the United States and Iraqi forces in fighting Daash. The leaders of the Shiite militias reject any national reconciliation where they see those leaders of the Sunni Arabs not only a record of no value in the Iraqi equation, so the face of this refusal , the United States has sought through its ambassador in Baghdad, “Stewart Jones” in enhancing communication with Kurdish and Arab Sunni leaders to form an alliance in the face of the Iraqi government and the leaders of the Shiite militias.
In this undeclared tense environment in the US-Iraq relations , US Secretary of Defense, “Ashton Carter” announced on the first of December / December this month that it is to deploy a “special forces in Iraq to carry out operations against ISIS including launching raids on centers of the organization in Syria . Carter said in front of the Armed Services Committee that “a specialized exploratory forces” deployment is to be fulfilled in Iraq to help the Iraqi forces and the Peshmerga to fight Daash so “in full coordination with the Iraqi government.” And added that the US Special Operations forces have a unique set of capabilities that enable it to perform multiple tasks stressing “We are ready to use the capabilities of this unique force in any suitable opportunity.” He added that these special forces also capable of intervention in neighboring Syria, which Washington announced to send about 50 of special operations troops to its territories . Carter said “These special forces will be able to do Raids in the long run , and free the hostages, and intelligence gathering and the arrest of the leaders in Daash”.
He added that this force also able to “carry out unilateral operations in Syria.”Carter said he was “ready to expand” the role of special forces in Syria and called on world powers to strengthen its efforts to defeat al Daash. This announcement led to the emergence of the dispute between Baghdad and Washington publicly, as Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi announced clearly that his government rejects the resolution, which was adopted without consulting with them. Where the Iraqi prime minister defended his country’s troops, saying it was able to defeat the “Islamic state” without the help of foreign combat troops. His comments came in a statement released after a few hours of an interview with US Secretary of Defense, Ashton Carter, in front of the Congress at the date indicated above, for the deployment of a new special operations in Iraq to intensify the fight against the organization, which controls a large area of land in Iraq and Syria. AL-Abadi said that “the Iraqi special operations forces, and the forces of counter-terrorism, played an important role in the fight against Daash gangs, and its capabilities were proven in targeting the organization’s leaders, and the implementation of the serious tasks to restore vital areas”, the Iraqi prime minister indicated that his country is in need of training, weapons and counseling of the international community, and does not need combat foreign troops on Iraqi territory .” But Abadi did not close the door completely in front of such a possibility, he said, “The Iraqi government stresses that any military operations, or deploy any special or not special foreign forces on any part of Iraq, can not be made without its consent, and full coordination with it , and respect full Iraqi sovereignty. ” US Secretary of State John Kerry has responded to this denial of Iraqi government by saying Washington informed the Iraqi government on the full plans to deploy special forces». He added that «the two governments will hold close consultations to determine the tasks and places of deployment.»
For its part, Shiite militias and the Iraqi Shiite political forces of influence in Iraq rejected the deployment of US forces in Iraq, and pledged to combat it . In this context, Jaafar al-Husseini , a spokesman for the Hezbollah Brigades, said his group would hunt down and fight any US force deployed in Iraq. He added that any US force will become a major goal of his group. He pointed out that his group fought the Americans before and is ready to continue their fight. And spokesmen of Badr Organization backed by Iran and Asaib Ahl-Haq (League of the Righteous ) made similar remarks and expressed their lack of confidence in US forces after the invasion, the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 and toppled former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and the subsequent occupation. Spokesman of the «People crowd», declared that «the American decision is unacceptable». He added that «Iraq does not need foreign forces»
MP from the Sadrist movement, Dr. Diaa al-Asadi stressed that the permanent position of the movement is to reject any foreign intervention in general and the US in particular, noting that the United States was the main cause of the problems in Iraq, and have proven in the past that their presence in Iraq was the cause of the problems, not the solution to the crises.
The « Sadrists do not see the need for the presence of US troops in Iraq because his people can meet the capacity of the organization Daash. » Diaa al-Asadi expressed through that the Iraqi people may be forced to use all means and ways to counter any US force if thought to enter Iraq. He pointed out that the American people also did not want their sons to return to Iraq, because they tried before, and they saw the huge losses their forces incurred , they know that the Iraqi people do not welcome them.
The head of the Security and Defense Committee in Parliament “of the National Alliance”, Zamili , rejected the existence of an American force in Iraq, vowing to combat it if they reach Iraqi territory.
Zamili vowed in a statement and televised meeting to fight any force «Western or Islamic» comes to Iraq , saying: «We We will fight any force enters to Iraq, whether Arab or Islamic or Western as we fought Daash .Zamili said in a statement that «Iraq has significant human capabilities represented by the Iraqi army, the police and the crowd and the Saraya and volunteers and do not need a foreign intervention to fight on behalf of the Iraqi people», warning that «this malicious scheme is intended to sow discord among the Iraqi people and to encourage extremists to come to Iraq to raise extremism and division of the country. » The deputy of the «the state of law coalition» Mohammed Chihod said «Carter’s statement and his decision to deploy special forces on the border with Syria to carry out combat missions , without returning to the federal government, reflects the extent of the violation of Iraqi sovereignty, which requires a firm position of Abadi and political forces».
This American insistence on sending troops to Iraq poses several questions on the reasons for it despite the Iraqi government’s refusal including: Do it relate to changes in the balance of power that was recently known by the battlefields of the two countries , especially after the extended military intervention of super powers such as Russia, France and Germany, as well as Britain, which is expected to join them in the near future after the approval of the House of Commons on Wednesday evening? Is the American conscience suddenly woke up and decided to aid the thousands of victims of the civilians? Or is it that President Barack Obama’s administration put the last imaginable to Iraq after Daash.
The United States of America in front of two options , only two, in respect of an Iraq after Daash, the first of these two options is to get a political settlement in the country such as Iraq suffers from all crises of the political system that brought it to the ranks of the failed state, and for the revival of Iraq as a strong cohesive state , it must be back to strengthen the state system and without detriment to the geographic frontiers and support the central government authorities-regardless of its nature in order to extend its control and monopoly of “legitimate violence” in its territory. The second option embodied in the sharing of influence and continue the dismemberment of the Iraqi state, noting that the early adoption to the idea of the “National Guard” as a local force, and the concept of the active federal as an institutional way out of the grave Iraqi crisis , it seems that the United States might think that the decentralization of governance in the country, such as Iraq represents the best effective solutions for it . But so far it has not been passed necessary adjustments to the restructuring of the government in Iraq.
It does not appear that this could happen without engaging in more conflicts. The bet on the “alternative Sunni power is still “a theoretically bet , not because of the control of Daash over most of the areas identified as the “Sunni “, but also because there are many obstacles to abstain from returning to the Petraeus approach without a fundamental development of it , noting that the United States is not the same level of political and financial commitment to allocate revenues which was in a time of Petraeus, and the local exhausted community who has been exposed to the largest displacement in its history has not the same previous potential to make a homogeneous alternative and not factions which may fighting with each other in the future. If this option depends also on the Iraqi government’s commitment to supporting the Sunni armed force, this commitment will always call into question in light of the Shi’ite –Shiite conflict which may weaken the ability of Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi to achieve an historic settlement based on the distribution of power in the manner posed by United States of America .
It remains the biggest challenge is to balance between the distribution of power and maintain the structure of the state, the balance seemed so far elusive, especially in a matter of growth of cross-border ideas and the intervention of major regional powers and declining resources. Hence ,it seems that any ambitious vision to build stability, coupled with frameworks of more justice for governance , there is a need to a major regional settlement which its elements has not prepared yet , and it does not seem that the United States consider it as a serious option. US policy has moved in the post-cold war of trying to remake the Middle East in order to serve their geopolitical interests , to try to contain the effects of the ongoing transformation because of the internal dynamics of the region and its conflicts and the fall of the old rule models and the launch of alternative identity tendencies to replace the national state. This process did not happen in isolation from the role played by the American policy for decades in the region, but it is made to some extent of independence of the control of such a policy. But what about the future of Iranian influence in Iraq after Daash?
The control of the organization “Daash” on the many areas in Iraq has an opportunity to Tehran in order to increase its influence, especially in light of Washington’s disregard for the growing influence of Iran due to its concern of facing the organization .But that does not negate that post “Daash” could see a decline in the influence of Iran, for two considerations: The first, in the escalation of the influence of many Iraqi political movements forces opposing to the Iranian presence as a result of sectarian practices, and violations of human rights carried out by Shiite militias , which could have a regional and international support during the next phase. And the second is the growing opposition of Republicans in the US Congress to any Iranian influence in the region, especially after the signing of the potential nuclear deal, a path that is taken into considerations by many directions to see that the arrival of a Republican president to the White House in the next phase could push Washington to adopt a new policy to curb the Iranian influence in Iraq.
The new developments on the Iraqi arena , represented by the control of the organization “Daash” on a large areas in northern Iraq beginning from June 10, 2014 , imposed an Iranian role more strength in Iraq, but that may produce challenges to Iran, especially that Shiite militias backed by Iran has become a major threat to the sovereignty of Iraq, in the way that it perhaps pushing many directions to move in the coming period in order to work on the curb of Iran’s role in Iraq, despite the fact that it faces many obstacles that do not seem easy
Rawabet Research and Strategic Studies Center
