John Kerry Suggests Iran Could Lead Fight Against Isil If US 'Fails Miserably' -- The Telegraph
Secretary of state's hypothetical scenario likely to frustrate White House and stoke Sunni suspicions.
John Kerry suggested today that the task of defeating the Islamic State could fall to Iran and the Syrian government if the US was "failing miserably" in its effort to defeat the jihadists.
The hypothetical scenario raised by the secretary of state is likely to be a new frustration for the White House, which has spent the day quashing speculation by American generals that US ground troops could be sent back to Iraq.
Mr Kerry's words may also heighten Sunni suspicions that the US secretly intends to ally with the Shia governments in Damascus and Tehran against Isil.
Read more ....
My Comment: How can one have confidence in the U.S. strategy against the Islamic State when even it appears that the U.S. Secretary of State does not have confidence in the plan.
6 comments:
I'm telling you WNU,
my prediction of the US being Iran's air force is not far fetched. There is obviously a lot more going on behind the scenes than conventional opinion says. There has to be at least an unwritten agreement on military coordination at a minimum. If true, of course all this would be verbal only for denial purposes by the US, but it would give Iran an ideal position to double cross the US.
To go further into this, I think the "boots on the ground" issue is not what the US generals are balking about. I think it's the tacit reliance on Iran with US air support that's got them upset.
Think of it this way. Who in the area has the ground forces to take on ISIS offensively in an effective manner.
Iraq no
Jordan offense no
Saudi Arabia offense no
Turkey no, will not.
Pesh Merga no, only defense
Iran yes maybe
Lebanon no
Israel yes, but
obviously can't
be considered
So this few options doesn't it.
"A lot happening behind the scenes" .... it definitely looks like that is the case.
I agree with James' comments, and would add the following.
1. There is a fundamental divergence in how the West, and specifically the USA, view ISIS, from how the players in the Middle East view ISIS.
A. For the West, ISIS comprises modern barbarians who reject everything that has happened since about 700 AD and would like to return the planet to the seventh century. From a Western perspective, ISIS is a common enemy of everyone, including all the players James identifies, and Shiites and Sunnis alike. The West thinks that everyone will subordinate their existing disputes to crush ISIS as a threat to all. For the West, destroying ISIS is an end in itself.
b. The players in the Middle East do not, in my view, see ISIS that way. From their perspective, the principal struggle is the religious war between Sunni and Shiite, on which is overlaid national struggles for domination of the region among Iran, Saudi, Turkey, etc. I think that the Saudis and Qataris, who helped create ISIS, see it as a useful weapon to use against the Shiites and at the Iranians. While the Saudis and Gulf states would not want ISIS to rule them, they think that ISIS can be diverted into attacking Shiites generally and the Iranians in particular. They are not that upset if ISIS beheads a few Westerners. Some of the more thoughtful Saudis are likely uneasy that ISIS is an uncontrollable Frankenstein monster. But for the Middle East powers, destroying ISIS is a means, not an end in itself.
2. All the Middle East players want the West to function as their air force in the struggle between them. Note that both the Saudis (and their Sunni allies) and Iran (and its Shiite allies) want this. ISIS is merely the bait.
3. I think that the USA's military's reluctance is based on recognition that (a) the West and the Middle East powers see this situation entirely differently. This is strategic confusion; and (b) there are no good guys in this fight. This is tactical confusion, and is sort of the dilemma in Syria writ large: who do we back who isn't utterly bestial?. Maybe the Kurds and the Jordanians. Clearly the Obama Administration does not see the dilemma outlined above.
4. The Iranians already have troops on the ground in Iraq and Syria. On the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights website, their daily casualty reports include a category for "non-Syrian fighters allied to the regime". I wonder if those people are, or include, Iranians?
5. There is no way for the West to attack ISIS without affecting the underlying religious war among Shiite and Sunni. I don't have a solution for this problem.
Yes Publius .... I agree .... it is hard to see what is the solution to a problem that has been festering in the region for centuries.
Reply to #5
The solution is for us to impose our strategic imperative upon them, all of them. History is littered with examples of how to do this. Unfortunately neither political party or the electorate in general as it is stands now has the will for utilizing any of them. What is paradoxical to me is that the US's stubborn refusal to face this is slowly but surely removing available options for our use. Soon it will be nukes only if we stay this course. Of course then A LOT of people will die.
Post a Comment