Iran continues to destabilize the Middle East. Particularly in neighboring Iraq, Tehran is seeking to subvert the young democracy by financing an anti-American, murderous terrorist militia.

Hisham al-Hishami and the PMF

Hisham al-Hashimi was a specialist in Islamist combat groups — above all the Islamic State. Hardly anyone was as well informed about ISIS as al-Hashimi. He appeared regularly on television, and international think tanks valued his assessments. He even became an adviser to the Iraqi government. Most recently for Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi, who took office just two months ago. He was killed recently, most likely by the Shiite militias of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF).

The killing displays the two most prominent issues in Iraq to this day: First, despite all international efforts, young democracy remains highly volatile. Second, despite all its domestic issues, Iran seeks chaos in the region and continues to support terrorists to conduct its dirty work.

In Iraq Speaking Out Against Iran Can Be Deadly

Al-Hashimi had recently made the Tehran-led militia his subject of study. He criticized its role in Iraqi politics unusually openly and received death threats as a result of it.

The Hashd Ash Shabi, as PMF is called in transliterated Arabic, was founded in 2014 after an appeal by Ayatollah Sistani and was intended to work as a temporary emergency force. The primary goal of its creation was to stop ISIS from advancing on Baghdad at the time. Iran finances part of the militias, making it Tehran’s extended arm in Iraq.

The Iraqi government announced victory over ISIS three years ago. However, the PMF stayed and is not only concerned with subordination towards the Iraqi state. The terrorist units, moreover, pursue their political agenda. They fire missiles at American facilities in Iraq and attack demonstrators who protest against the country’s corrupt political elite.

Recent Raid on Kataib Hezbollah Nets Dozens of Arrests

Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi recently arrested 14 members of the Kataib Hezbollah organization in a raid. It was a brave novelty in dealing with the radical association. For this, al-Hashimi — the Prime Minister’s advisor — may very well have paid with his life. His death can be understood as a message to not interfere with the terrorists.

Al-Hashimi is a victim in the power struggle between the Iraqi state and Iran-controlled militias. A power struggle that has been going on subliminally for three years, and which is now being fueled by the tensions between the United States and Iran.

The Menace of Kataib Hezbollah

Most recently, Kataib Hezbollah was responsible for an attempted attack on the US embassy. It was not the first time that the US Embassy and other American institutions in Iraq had been targeted. There have been at least 32 attacks since October. The hardest took place on December 29 at an Iraqi military base near Kirkuk.

In retaliation, the Pentagon bombed Kataib Hezbollah’s bases and killed a number of their fighters. Two days later, terrorists, disguised as civilians attempted to storm the US agency in Baghdad’s green zone.

The US Killing of Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis and Qasem Soleimani

Iranian interference in Iraq first came to the attention of the world when an American drone hit Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis’ car at Baghdad Airport on January 3.

The latter was the leader of the People’s Mobilization Units (PMF).  Iranian General Qasem Soleimani of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards died in the strike along with al-Muhandis. Soleimani was the main individual who militarily implemented Tehran’s foreign policy and destabilizing efforts in Iraq and Syria.

The death of the two well-known leaders did not change the distribution of power in Iraq. The Shi’ite militias continue to act like a state within a state, including with maintaining its array of army, businesses and influential political representatives.

How Much of a Mark Can al-Khadimi Make Against Iran-Backed Militias?

It remains uncertain whether the new prime minister al-Khadimi can eradicate the terrorists or at least get control of the situation. What offers some hope is that al-Khadimi managed to get his candidates for the Department of Defense and the Home Office into his cabinet — in particular, making Othman Al-Ghanmi the Iraqi army’s former chief of staff — into Minister of the Interior, which was a smart move in the fight against the Iranian-backed terrorists.

Nonetheless, despite progress in the resistance to Iran’s violent influence in Iraq, al-Hashimi’s death may be a bitter warning for the Prime Minister and is also evidence of Iran’s ongoing destabilizing actions and the volatility of a young Iraqi democracy.

L'articolo Iran’s Interference in Iraq’s Quest for Democracy proviene da InsideOver.

Intensified relations between Turkey and Iran continue to develop as the two nations recently joined together to launch a series of coordinated artillery barrages and air strikes on Kurdish targets in northern Iraq over the last eleven days, according to Arab News. 

The strikes included assaults on areas located near the Iraqi-Turkish border. The border is of strategic importance to both Tehran and Ankara as Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) militants remain active there. Other strategic targets that Iran and Turkey plan to target include Yazidi areas near Sinjar on the Iraqi-Syrian border; and areas on the Iraqi-Iranian border, which is where other Iranian Kurdish opposition groups maintain a presence alongside the PKK.

Iran and Turkey Argue Operation is Valid Self-defense

This scenario presents a dilemma for the different alliances of nations that are emerging in the Middle East. Both Turkey and Iran argue that they are engaged in legitimate self-defense against Kurdish groups starting incursions against them from Iraqi Kurdistan.

Ankara quickly blamed the PKK for a string of recent bombings in northern Syria, which is home to many Kurds.

Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa Al-Kadhimi no doubt feels intimidated by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. The Iraqi Government, Saudi Arabia and the UAE believe that the strikes are an apparent violation of Iraqi sovereignty.

However, the rest of the world, particularly the US, remains silent on the issue and both Iraq and the Kurdistan Regional Government remain too weak to do anything about Turkish-Iranian strikes.

Soleimani’s Death Weakened Iran’s Influence

Fortunately, Iran’s influence in Iraq has been weakened by the assassination of its former influential general, Qasem Soleimani, and this was recently confirmed by Israeli journalist and veteran war correspondent, Ron Ben-Yishai. He managed to retrieve this information from Israeli security assessments. The Israeli journalist also believes that Soleimani’s successor, Esmail Ghaani, will struggle to gain the status of his predecessor.

There is no doubt that Iran’s influence in Iraq has been weakened because of Soleimani’s assassination, but the recent Turkish-Iranian strikes should worry the US in particular. The 2003 Iraq War’s purpose was to eliminate Saddam Hussein and turn Iraq into a democratic nation with a free market economy. If Baghdad falls to both Tehran and Ankara, those sacrifices made by American troops during the 2000s would have been for nothing.

US President Donald Trump insists that he wants to end America’s involvement in “pointless wars,” but if both Turkey and Iran continue to violate Iraqi sovereignty, it not only places Baghdad in danger, but all of America’s strategically important allies. This includes Saudi Arabia. As Trump continues to focus inward because of the coronavirus, he still leads a country that has a duty to protect vulnerable allies from the influence of powerful leaders like Rouhani and Erdogan.

Trump Must Continue to Help Iraq

Throughout his entire presidency so far, Trump has made tackling Tehran one of his main priorities, but if Turkey and Iran use these strikes as an opportunity to further advance into Iraq, then that will only result in victory for both Erdogan and Rouhani and embarrass the US.

The US President is unlikely to achieve his original goal of bringing all NATO and US troops home. In the short-term, he may have to increase America’s military presence in Iraq. But there are other actions he can take to strengthen Baghdad, too. The Center for American Progress argues he can recruit Sunni Arabs into Iraq’s security forces, strengthen the US’s cooperation with its NATO allies to cut off the Islamic State’s funding and propaganda, and continue to ensure that the PMF’s influence completely diminishes.

US intervention in Iraq may be unpopular, but until the nation is safe from ISIS, Turkey and Iran, Washington must maintain its relationship with Baghdad and monitor Turkish-Iranian military developments carefully.

L'articolo How Should the West respond to Turkish-Iranian Strikes in Iraq? proviene da InsideOver.

The 2003 American invasion of Iraq was always surrounded by dubious justifications. Notwithstanding the obvious lies then President George W. Bush told the American people about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, paving the way for the invasion by US and coalition forces. Life under Saddam Hussein had been belligerent, oppressive, and stagnant. Iraq then was politically stable by brute force only, which was no stability at all.

Playing on the obvious downsides of the Hussein regime, the Bush Administration seized an opportunity to expand US oil and military interests by convincing ordinary Americans that Saddam Hussein was complicit in 9/11. Failing to prove this, Iraq was alleged to possess “weapons of mass destruction,” something Bush knowingly used to sanction a war, in spite of clear shortfalls in intelligence reports at the time that were at best manipulated, or at worst falsified.

Ba’athism And Coups: Iraq’s Troubled History

The greater backdrop to the invasion, however, was a country ill at ease with itself, its neighbors, and its role on the world stage. After Hussein seized the reins from former Ba’ath Party leader Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, a series of badly miscalculated wars with neighbors⁠ – started by Hussein⁠ – as well as failed internal policies, created hardship and discontent for the Iraqi people.

Although the Ba’ath Party had been in power since 1963, the leader Hassan al-Bakr staged a coup upon being ousted, retaking the reins of power. A 1968 bloodless coup saw al-Bakr take complete control of the country, ousting Colonel Abdel Salam Aref whom he had previously helped to install. Over the next decade, Hussein rose from being chief of intelligence services in al-Bakr’s regime, to succeeding his former leader in 1979.

Life was initially good for common Iraqis under al-Bakr, notwithstanding his chosen route to ascension, and Iraq’s image in the Arab world was shifting to one of enhanced standing. Internal tensions within the country’s majority Shia community were persistent, however, and in fact Hussein rose to the presidency on the back of his oppression of a bout of anti-government social unrest, something he crushed in a power grab marked by the brutal oppression of protesters as well as a purging of the Ba’ath Party.

Dreams of Syrian Union Dashed by Hussein

At the time of Hussein taking power, President Al-Bakr had been close to concluding negotiations with Syria to merge the two countries. Such a development would have seen Hussein politically sidelined. Then Syrian president Hafez al-Assad would have become deputy leader of the union under al-Bakr. Instead, under threat of force, the ailing al-Bakr ceded the presidency to Hussein, whereupon Hussein staged a purge, executing opposing voices in his own party in short order. Citizens’ protests were violently suppressed, and all dissenting voices within the party were silenced.

Although Hussein’s Ba’ath regime was officially secular, Iraq’s Sunni Muslim community felt entitled under the new dispensation, Hussein himself being a Sunni Muslim. While actually more nuanced, political upheaval became delineated along that fault line, and Hussein’s belligerence towards largely Shia Muslim Iran also eventually led to the devastating Iraq⁠—Iran war starting in 1980. Iran had experienced a revolution in 1979, at the same time as Hussein was still crushing street protests and executing rivals, and this led to the belief that Iran would be a weak target.

Trading on this assumption, and with the ancient Shia-Sunni factionalism having now become the broad backdrop to conflict in the region, the war between the neighboring states was anything but swift, persisting for eight brutal years.

Iran-Iraq War Ceasefire

A ceasefire was reached in 1988, and a stalemate became the final outcome of hostilities between the two countries. Hussein had failed to demonstrate Iraq’s ability to quash its far larger eastern neighbor, while at the same time he entrenched a pattern of brutal suppression of dissent on the home front. Iraq’s prosperity had evaporated, to be replaced by politics of fear and simmering tension. Hussein’s mismanagement of the economy and regional belligerence had taken its toll.

When the US and coalition forces invaded Iraq in March 2003, they found a weakened and divided nation. In a war now considered one of the larger deceits of the American public (no “weapons of mass destruction” were ever found⁠—the premise upon which Bush had insisted on the immediate need to topple Hussein), Iraq fell within a month. Since then, life in Iraq has been a constant, violent political conflict with diverse armed combatants sporadically detonating bombs that have claimed thousands of lives. Iraq has become a truly fragmented nation and another ugly quagmire for the US, much like Afghanistan.

Iraq Remains a Fractured Nation

Although a government of “national unity” has been in place since the US toppled the Ba’ath regime upon invasion, national unity is an elusive animal in Iraq. Over a dozen armed factions are currently vying for various kinds of control, from territorial to national, while loyalties and allegiances often chop and change too, making attempted solutions and likely outcomes unpredictable. A clear line towards national unity, and political and economic stability remains elusive.

Iraq’s current turmoil is but another moment of social upheaval in a broken country, one bedeviled by foreign interests and acts of aggression, as well as internal fractures that involve religious, cultural, geographic and historical grievances. The latest unrest has an elevated pitch, however, as common Muslims rarely defy clerical dictates on behavior. The last few weeks in Iraq have seen anti-government protesters defy a Shiite cleric and take to the streets, something indicative of the level of discontent common Iraqis are feeling.

Iraq is a country of many armed and adamant factions. Quite apart from opportunistic aggression by smaller groups or coalitions seeking local dominance or other benefits from their belligerence, the current Iraqi army was assembled and trained under American and other foreign oversight. It lacks legitimacy for many, as well as its own genuine sense of identity and purpose at times. Sunni militias allied to Ba’athist loyalists habitually attack the Iraqi Army, and there is also a history of aggression between Islamic State (IS) and the army that reaches back decades. IS is now a major force in the region, still holding onto the desire to establish a caliphate, and populated by many of Hussein’s former military commanders.

Former Hussein strongmen make IS a formidable and persistent force, although the movement itself gives rise to internal tensions of varying degrees, while also prompting citizens’ flight from IS territory towards less politicised regions – something extremely hard to come by in Iraq. Also, up to 35 million Kurds occupy the rugged mountainous region that straddles several borders – Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Armenia and Syria. Kurdish people are in fact the Middle East’s fourth-largest ethnic group, and local and national loyalties play out within the region against the difficulties for Kurds of marrying both their cultural and national identities.

While both the Iraqi army and Kurdish forces had collaborated to combat IS, fighting started between the army and Kurdish fighters in 2017, further fracturing tenuous alliances. Previous conflicts between Turkmen and Kurdish fighters that have been manifest since 2015 add to the fragmentation, as varying objectives coexist within Turkmen politics, some aligned to national (Iraqi) unity, while others seek greater autonomy. The coalition forces on the ground in Iraq are supporting both the Iraqi government and Kurdish forces to repel IS, but are walking a minefield through the two groups’ conflict with each another. Calls for a peaceful resolution between the two warring parties seldom gain traction.

Adding to Iraq’s state of constant conflict are neighboring countries like Turkey, which previously supported Kurdish fighters against IS until around 2017, where after Turkey began systematically attacking Kurdish forces, supporting Iraq’s army in their fight against the Kurds. Ceasefires and truces are as often employed as smokescreens for various and expediently varying political aims. Iraq, weakened by years of oppressive belligerence under Hussein and blasted by the US invasion, has never been able to recover a sense of genteel politics to resolve its innumerable armed conflicts.

Hopes for Future Stability in Iraq

The current unrest in the streets of Baghdad stems from accumulated dissatisfaction with government inability and corruption, economic intransigence, and the seemingly constant stress levels the average Iraqi lives under. The economic immobility, particularly, weighs heavily upon the populace. In an unnatural situation, where a country is so bitterly fragmented and warring because of it, meaningful change is hard to effect. Glimpses of political corruption, and glimpses of the future unchanged all severely tax the collective psyche of a people who have had no rest for decades.

That recent protests occurred in spite of a prominent cleric’s admonishments gives everyone outside a glimpse of just how desperately dissatisfied many Iraqis are.

International pledges towards reconstruction of various cities and other infrastructure have been stymied⁠—it’s difficult to effect meaningful public works in such a fractured and hostile environment. There are more than 2 million internally displaced people in Iraq, floating in a homeostasis many find no longer tenable. With both the central and Kurdish governments also lamentably erratic in paying salaries, the knock-on effect in the country is huge. Economic resurgence in Iraq clearly needs stable government employees, instead that workforce is contributing to the national dissatisfaction, and points to a weak, frail state.

Could Protests Improve Conditions in Iraq?

As unpleasant, dangerous and seemingly unfortunate as protest actions might appear, perhaps they will ultimately form the basis of a long-awaited change in Iraq’s demeanor and policies. It seems that Iraq has much goodwill out in the world, with many international parties pledged to assist in rebuilding the country. Perhaps all that is needed is for common people, as they recently have, to protest loudly, until a new ethos is forced upon the current regime, all warring parties, and insidious outside interests. Iraqis have had enough of war.

The Iraqi parliament voted in January 2020 to evict all remaining US troops still in the country. In response, US President Donald Trump has threatened to slash military and other aid to Iraq that Congress has already approved. It seems the honeymoon that never was is over. Iraq always had to get to the point where it threw off the status of US colony and regained its autonomy.

Having had a glimpse of stability and even a taste of the good life over the years, the Iraqi populace’s anger is now more targeted and more urgent. Outside interests have seldom aided common Iraqis in any real sense. The coalition government is struggling for efficacy and control on many fronts. Perhaps it will indeed be common Iraqi citizens that continue to protest for a return to normality who will prove to be the many straws that break the camel’s back. Iraq desperately needs peace, to enable its citizens to regain their economic optimism and vigor.

L'articolo Iraq Descends Once More into Turmoil: is There Any Hope Ahead? proviene da InsideOver.

Over the weekend, Iraq’s parliament began the process of electing a new leader following the resignation of the country’s former Prime Minister, Adel Abdul-Mahdi. There is severe unrest spreading throughout the nation as security forces killed 45 civilians who were protesting around Nasiriyah on Thursday.

Many demonstrators are angry that Iran continues to influence Iraqi politics. Last Wednesday, government forces showed brute force following the firebombing of the Iranian consulate in Najaf.

When the US liberated Iraq from Saddam Hussein in 2003, they intended to introduce democracy to the nation. With the country divided into Shia, Sunni and Kurdish sects, Iraq’s governance had been determined along sectarian lines. Its institutions were used as fiefdoms by ministers whose political allegiances has often transcended loyalty to the state.

This has resulted in corruption and nepotism throughout the nation’s public sector. Many Iraqis have been robbed of opportunities since the nation’s oil wealth was plundered. Youths are angry that state revenues have been looted, leaving them disenfranchised. 200,000 people have been demonstrating in Baghdad and other cities ever since.

Disenchantment towards Iran has been widespread among many different sectors of Iraq’s population. Tribal leaders have concentrated on murdering security forces in the wake of the killings, which they say were orchestrated by Iranian officials who have played a crucial role in the crackdown. Qassem Suleimani is an example of an Iranian general who initiated a brutal response that began a month ago.

Furthermore, Tehran has been playing an influential role in Iraq’s affairs since the US withdrawal of 2011. The Guardian reports that the Islamic Republic is concerned about Hadi al-Ameri, the leader of the Popular Mobilisation Units (PMF), which were formed to defeat the Islamic State, becoming a potential successor to Mahdi.

As the Brookings Institute suggests, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who founded the PMF, cannot dissolve the organisation because doing so would spark a public backlash that could undermine Iraq’s Shia establishment. Although they are loyal to the Iraqi state, there are groups within the PMF who are beholden to Tehran.

US President Donald Trump should be very concerned about Iran’s influence over Iraq. The 2015 Iran Deal Barack Obama concluded failed to tackle Tehran’s interference in neighbouring countries’ elections. Since Trump has scrapped the agreement, all the nations involved in implementing the 2015 deal have failed to negotiate a new one. But the situation in Iraq is an opportunity for Western leaders to curb Iran’s electoral influence.

Iraq’s army is not strong enough to fight Iran-sponsored terrorist groups like Asaib Ahl al-Haq, which has attacked US and Iraqi personnel and civilians since they were founded in 2003. Sistani is Iraq’s best hope of resisting Iran’s influence. He successfully combated US interference in Iraq’s new constitution and ensured his country was governed by an elected assembly instead of Washington-backed elites.

If Trump is serious about thwarting Iran’s dominance, he has a responsibility to protect Iraq from its neighbour. US troops must be temporarily deployed to Baghdad to contain Iran’s proxies, which now control places like Kirkuk.

But there are other actions the US can take to contain Tehran that do not require military intervention. They could help the Iraqi government allocate $1 billion to the PMF from its national budget, but restrict their access to the billions of dollars the international community contributes towards the reconstruction of Iraq. They could also help the PMF shape Iraq’s political system according to their ideologies.

Maybe the US could also work alongside Muqtada al-Sadr, a Shia Iraqi cleric who visited Iran last month and has been a longstanding opponent of Iranian interference. Whilst he is opposed to US dominance in Iraq as well, US veteran Michael D. Sullivan wrote in Foreign Policy that he is the only politician who understands America can help strengthen his country’s security forces. Following Abdul-Mahdi’s resignation, he could play an influential role in Iraqi politics.

Trump should take Iranian influence in Iraq seriously, and he has plenty of options as to how he can tackle this crisis.

L'articolo America and Iran’s Influence on Iraq’s Elections Amid Civil Unrest proviene da InsideOver.