U.S. And Iran Hit ISIS, Ignore Each Other -- Eli Lake, Daily Beast
With ISIS over-running Syrian bases, the time might seem right for a grand alliance against the Islamic State. But so far, the U.S. isn’t talking to Iran or Syria’s armies.
U.S. warplanes striking targets in Iraq. Iranian tanks are reportedly moving into the northern part of the country. But the two foreign militaries fighting the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) are not talking to one another.
U.S. and Iraqi officials tell The Daily Beast that, for now, there is no direct channel to coordinate military activities inside Iraq. Instead messages are occasionally passed by senior Iraqi officials who have for years served as interlocutors between Iran and the United States.
“Our channels are no different than they were a year ago,” said one senior U.S. official. “There is a lot of activity, but we have not opened a new channel.”
Read more ....
My Comment: There has to be some coordination between the two .... and I am willing to bet that Iraqi forces are playing the intermediary role between the U.S. and Iran.
2 comments:
I agree that there must be some indirect coordination between Iran and the USA. This article raises additional interesting matters:
1. This article demolishes the panicky Daily Beast piece nearby that "no force now on the ground can beat ISIS".
2. ISIS has no allies. No nation state wants the caliphate to succeed. For example, Turkey has tilted toward Islamist rebels as a way to oppose Assad. But Turkey has no interest in a thriving caliphate on its borders. ISIS would behead Erdogan as happily as it would Assad. As ISIS expands in Syria, Turkey will clamp down on ISIS' use of Turkey as a portal for people and goods.
3. For Iran, ISIS is an existential threat. As much as ISIS hates the West, they loathe the Shiites more. Moreover, the Sunni zealots running the caliphate are Arabs, while the Iranians are Persians. I humbly submit that Iran cannot tolerate a caliphate on its borders.
4. My premise that Iran must oppose the caliphate no matter what is very risky (think Hitler's treaty with Stalin). But in this case, I think that it is extremely unlikely that the caliphate and Iran could reconcile.
5. I think that Iran views the showdown with the West and Israel over its nuclear program as a more urgent concern than the advance of ISIS, at least so far. Note that Iran is trying to trade its cooperation against ISIS for Western abandonment of the sanctions, i.e. acceptance of Iranian nuclear weapons. We need not make concessions to Iran to buy their cooperation against ISIS. In fact, Iran faces pressure to make concessions to us regarding their nuclear program to secure our active resistance to ISIS. The West and Israel should exploit this.
6. The Daily Beast article also muddles the question of what it means to "beat" ISIS. While physically invading those parts of Iraq and Syria that ISIS controls would certainly take many thousands of men, billions of dollars, years, etc., I don't think that this is the only choice.
7. Hitherto, ISIS has had the advantage of conquering territory in which the majority of the local population is either sympathetic or can be bought or cowed into cooperating. ISIS has taken territory populated mainly by Sunni Arabs who have been shafted by Maliki or Assad, and who observe Islam rigorously. Isis will not have that advantage when they try to conquer territory populated by people ISIS has vowed to slaughter without mercy. The Shiites in Southern Iraq, and the Iranians cannot run (as a practical matter, how can tens of millions of people run?), and have nowhere to go. They cannot surrender either, which will result in their beheading, crucifixion, slavery, etc. ISIS's very savagery pretty much guarantees a fight to the death from the Shiites, with quarter neither asked nor given.
8. To Iran, the world must look pretty dark just now. Hamas lost their war with Israel. Hezbollah have lost at least hundreds of men to date in Syria. Assad's forces just lost a major air base, and seem to have lost the strategic initiative to ISIS. The Iraqis Shiites are in such bad shape that Iran had to sacrifice its long-term ally Maliki and has already sent troops, tanks, planes, etc. to Iraq. Iran's foreign entanglements must be expensive. The Iranian economy is not doing very well, and I am sure that Iran could use its extra oil revenue at home. Yet all Iran's foreign clients urgently require money too.
9. The West certainly must combat ISIS and help our allies fight them. I agree that no Western leader will commit thousands of troops and billions of dollars/pounds /euros to fight ISIS. But I do not think that such measures by the West are necessary now.
10. ISIS' rise gives the West some leverage over Iran regarding its nuclear program. I hope that the United States Administration exploits this.
Publius .... you have summed up the situation in the region perfectly.
Post a Comment