Team Trump is About to Let Iraq Fall into Iran’s Hands: Benny Avni, New York Post, Oct. 16, 2017 — If President Trump wants to stop Iran from making the entire country of Iraq a subsidiary of the Revolutionary Guard, he’ll need to intervene in the burgeoning crisis in Kurdistan — and fast.
What's Happening in Kirkuk and How the US Should Respond: Tom Rogan, Washington Examiner, Oct. 16, 2017— Kurdish Peshmerga forces appear to have ceded the city of Kirkuk to the Iraqi military.
Instability Set to Follow Islamic State Collapse: Zeina Karam, Times of Israel, Oct. 17, 2017— The Islamic State group, responsible for some of the worst atrocities perpetrated against civilians in recent history, appears on the verge of collapse.
How to Prevent a New Wave of Millions of Iraqi Refugees: Dr. Mordechai Kedar, BESA, Oct. 2, 2017— Syrian President Basher Assad is regaining power with the help of an Iranian Shiite coalition made up of Iranian fighters joined by Hezbollah as well as Iraqi and Afghan militias.
As ISIS Falls, Don’t Forget the Lessons of the Recent Past: David French, National Review, Oct. 16, 2017
How Barzani Destroyed His Kurdistan: Near East Center, Oct. 16, 2017
The West Should Support Kurdish Independence — With Conditions: Geoffrey Clarfield & Salim Mansur, National Post, Oct. 17, 2017
A Kurdish State is Inevitable: Mohammad Amjad Hossain, Jerusalem Post, Oct. 14, 2017
TEAM TRUMP IS ABOUT TO LET IRAQ FALL INTO IRAN’S HANDS
Benny Avni
New York Post, Oct. 16, 2017
If President Trump wants to stop Iran from making the entire country of Iraq a subsidiary of the Revolutionary Guard, he’ll need to intervene in the burgeoning crisis in Kurdistan — and fast. On Monday, Iraqi forces trounced Kurdish fighters and emerged victorious in a short fight for control of the oil-rich northern Iraqi town of Kirkuk. And they couldn’t have done it without us.
When ISIS stormed Iraq in 2014, the demoralized Iraqi army collapsed, its troops deserted and fled. Baghdad was utterly humiliated. Then Kurdish fighters, known as Peshmerga, entered Kirkuk, secured the key city and kept it jihadi-free. Since then, a better-trained, better-equipped US-backed Iraqi army has been fighting alongside the Peshmerga to chase ISIS out of the country. Now, with ISIS nearly dead, the Iraqi army turned its attention to Kirkuk — and chased the Kurds out in the name of national unity.
The successful blitz is a feather in Prime Minister Haider al Abadi’s cap. He’s struggled to keep Iraq unified in the aftermath of a Sept. 25 nonbinding referendum, in which Iraq’s Kurds overwhelmingly expressed their desire for independence. So America should be happy, right? After all, US advisers turned the Iraqi army into a viable fighting machine that just proved its worth. Plus, the State Department publicly opposed the referendum declared by Kurdish leader Massoud Barzani. Problem is, the Iraqi army wasn’t alone in defeating the Kurds. Much of the fighting was done by Iraqi Shiite militias — many of which swear allegiance to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Tehran’s vanguard, even as they, too, get American arms. On Friday, President Trump declared the IRGC a terror organization. The Treasury Department hit the group with new sanctions to confront its growing global influence.
Yet the fall of Kirkuk is undeniably “a big victory for the IRGC and its commander, [Qassem] Soleimani,” Zalmay Khalilzad, a former US ambassador to Iraq, told me. Khalilzad advocates active US involvement in negotiations between Baghdad and Erbil, the Iraqi-Kurdish capital. Such talks should include agreements for sharing power and oil revenue from Kirkuk. Ultimately, Kurdish self-determination must be addressed, says Khalilzad. “It is not in our interest for Kurds, who have been good friends of the US, to be destabilized [and] defeated,” he adds.
Yet, as the Kurdish crisis was brewing, the Trump administration did little beyond calling for the need to maintain Iraq’s territorial integrity. Even now, some see the Kirkuk defeat as a lesson for Barzani — proof that the State Department’s opposition to the referendum was sound policy. “We don’t like the fact that they’re clashing, but we’re not taking sides,” Trump said Monday. Yet America’s seeming indifference to Kurdish independence encouraged Kurdistan’s neighbors to do things the Mideast way: Turkey, Iran and Iraq’s central government threatened war even as Barzani declined to unilaterally declare independence in the referendum’s aftermath, offering negotiations instead.
And now Kirkuk, a key regional asset, is about to be dominated by militias that answer to Suleimani, the IRGC general charged with exporting Iran’s Shiite Islamist revolution to the world. The easy victory over Kirkuk and America’s indifference could encourage a further Iranian-led push into Kurdish areas. If so, expect fighting to become increasingly bloody. And the longer the crisis remains unresolved, the more Iran gets involved — and the deeper its influence over the Abadi government becomes.
Abadi has long juggled alliances, hoping to keep ties with both Washington and Tehran. But only Americans can force him to face reality and acknowledge Kurdish aspirations. Only America can facilitate a negotiated agreement to prevent a long, bloody war between Baghdad and Erbil — which will force Abadi into Tehran’s arms. America has spent too much blood and fortune in Iraq to allow Iran to take over now that ISIS is on the verge of extinction. From National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster on down, Trump is surrounded by advisers well-versed in the nuanced realities of Iraq. They need to take charge ASAP and get Erbil and Baghdad talking. Otherwise, Soleimani will do it his way.
WHAT'S HAPPENING IN KIRKUK AND HOW THE US SHOULD RESPOND
Tom Rogan
Washington Examiner, Oct. 16, 2017
Kurdish Peshmerga forces appear to have ceded the city of Kirkuk to the Iraqi military. That difficult but courageous decision has temporarily delayed a bloody Iraqi civil war. That said, Iraq's security situation remains immensely fragile. If Iraqi forces now push north along Highway 2 towards the Kurdish capital, Erbil, the Peshmerga will fight hard and open conflict will likely follow. Be under no illusions, that conflict will quickly destabilize the region.
First off, Iranian-led Shia militias are playing a major role in the offensive. Operating under their faux-Iraqi nationalist Popular Mobilization Forces, or PMF, banner, these militias are notorious for their sectarian warfare and disregard for human rights. While their assertions are hard to verify, Kurdish news sources are already claiming that civilians have been targeted by the PMF. The key point here is that the PMF are puppets of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. As such, their aggressive involvement speaks to Iranian strategic interests in defeating any separatist movement that might spill into Kurdish-dominated areas of western Iran and weakening a major American ally in Iraq…
Turkey's role is of critical importance here. Led by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey senses an opportunity to smash Kurdish interests in northern Iraq. Turkey is considering closing its southern land border with Iraqi Kurdistan and has suggested it would respond positively to any Iraqi request for military support. Closing that border would mean crippling the Kurdish economy by cutting off its oil exports to the world. Yet Turkey is not unified on this issue. On Monday, Turkey's Kurdish-dominated HDP party tweeted, "Trying to seize the will of the people of Iraqi Kurdistan using military methods will ignite a new regional war." The HDP's message is an implicit warning to Erdogan that the crisis may ripple into Turkey. While the HDP has only 54 seats in Turkey's parliament, it retains very significant support in southeastern Turkish provinces bordering Iraqi Kurdistan. If Turkey's Kurdish community wanted to, they could instigate a major insurgency.
But let's be clear, none of these escalatory outcomes are in America's interest. A unified Iraqi, Iranian, and Turkish offensive to cripple Kurdistan wouldn't just be a moral disaster, it would be a huge blow to American interests in the region. At a basic level, the Kurds have fought alongside U.S. forces for many years now and deserve more than our abandonment. That speaks to the broader issue. While I believe the Kurds were wrong to call for independence, the U.S. cannot simply sit back and watch them be pummeled. That course would signal a lack of resolve to regional partners and degrade our ability to push them in positive political directions. But it would also invite a similar purge of the Kurds in Syria and facilitate a joint Russian-Iranian orbit of influence all the way to the Mediterranean. As I've explained, this effort is already underway as Erdogan kneels to Vladimir Putin's throne.
So what should be done? Well, first, the Trump administration should redouble its efforts to get the Kurds and Iraqi government to the table. The defining objective here should be slowing down Kurdish movements towards independence and restraining Iraqi/PMF forces from further offensives into Kurdish-dominated territory. While the former Iraq-Iraqi Kurdistan status quo was tense, it was far better than the current situation. I believe Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi's government would be amenable to a compromise, but is being influenced by Iranian hardline interests. To console Abadi, Trump should be prepared to offer a new aid package to Baghdad.
The second U.S. response is to challenge Iran. If we are not already, the U.S. should give the Peshmerga intelligence on the movement of PMF forces. The benefit of U.S. technical and aviation intelligence platforms would allow the Kurds to anticipate PMF movements and isolate them. Although it entails obvious risk, I also believe the U.S. should station Special Forces in an observational, though not embedded, capacity around Erbil. This deployment would deter PMF attacks or, in the event of an attack, give the U.S. a pretext to launch air strikes on PMF formations.
Third, the U.S. should make clear to Erdogan that we will respond negatively to any Turkish land offensive or restriction of aid supplies into Iraqi Kurdistan. As I noted late last year, the U.S. has untapped diplomatic means with which to influence Erdogan's assessment of his interests. The humanitarian concerns here cannot be discounted: If Kurdistan is cut off from the outside world, its people will suffer immensely. Ultimately, while this situation is fraught with risk, U.S. leadership is crucial. Our objective should be the restoration of a messy status quo between Baghdad and Erbil and the marginalization of Iranian and Turkish efforts to escalate this brewing conflict.
INSTABILITY SET TO FOLLOW ISLAMIC STATE COLLAPSE
Zeina Karam
Times of Israel, Oct. 17, 2017
The Islamic State group, responsible for some of the worst atrocities perpetrated against civilians in recent history, appears on the verge of collapse. After brutalizing residents living under its command for more than three years, the militants have now lost their self-proclaimed capital of Raqqa and are battling to hang on to relatively small pockets of territory in Iraq and Syria, besieged by local forces from all sides. Few, however, expect the Islamic State to completely go away, or for the bloodshed in the two countries and the region to end quickly.
IS, which emerged from the remnants of al-Qaida in Iraq, began its spread across the Mideast in early 2014, overrunning the Iraqi city of Fallujah and parts of the nearby provincial capital of Ramadi. In Syria, it seized sole control of the city of Raqqa after driving out rival Syrian rebel factions. In June 2014, IS captured Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city, from where its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, declared a self-styled “caliphate,” a declaration tantamount to an earthquake that would temporarily redraw borders and shake up the entire region.
IS promised justice, equality and an Islamic, religious utopia. But over the next few years, it terrorized people living under its control, systematically slaughtering members of Iraq’s tiny Yazidi community, kidnapping women and girls as sex slaves, beheading Western journalists and aid workers and destroying some of the Mideast’s spectacular archaeological and cultural sites. IS also attracted a motley crew of foreign fighters, mostly marginalized European youths and other foreigners who took up its cause. But it alienated mainstream Sunni Muslims, who found IS’ crude interpretation of Islam also spreading in areas far from Syria and Iraq. Creating a territorial caliphate created a target, and an international anti-IS coalition soon took shape.
The United States launched its campaign of airstrikes against IS in Iraq in August 2014, and a month later in Syria. In Iraq, it partnered with government forces working with state-sanctioned Shiite-led militias as well as Iraqi Kurdish fighters known as peshmerga. In Syria, it partnered with local Syrian Kurdish-led fighters, the Syrian Democratic Forces. Supported by tens of thousands of US-led airstrikes, these forces drove IS militants from one stronghold after another over the years. The biggest blow came in July when Mosul, long regarded as IS’ administrative capital, was liberated.
In Syria, IS appears to be heading for collapse as the US-backed, Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, or SDF, and Syrian government forces, backed by their Russian allies, are attacking them in separate, simultaneous offensives. A senior SDF commander on Tuesday said his forces liberated Raqqa from IS militants and would formally announce victory soon after clearing operations to remove land mines and search for sleeper cells. Mayadeen, a town in the heart of Syria’s Euphrates River Valley near Iraq’s border where the militants had been expected to make their last stand, fell to Syrian government troops over the weekend.
In northern Iraq, the jihadis no longer hold any cities or towns after their stronghold of Hawija fell earlier this month. Iraq’s army is now gearing up to fight IS in its last territory — the sprawling desert Anbar province stretching all the way to the Syrian border. In Syria, IS still holds the town of Boukamal near the Iraqi border and scattered pockets of territory in the east.
The destruction of IS has come at a devastating cost for both Syria and Iraq, and immense suffering for those who endured the militants’ brutal reign. The fighting and airstrikes have pulverized once thriving cities, turning them into tragic vistas of crushed apartment blocks, flattened homes and collapsed roads and bridges. In Ramadi, Mosul and Raqqa, the scope of the damage is staggering.
Two weeks ago, the US-led coalition announced it has returned more than 83 percent of IS-held land to local populations since 2014, liberating more than six million Syrians and Iraqis in the process. At least 735 civilians have been unintentionally killed by coalition strikes, although activists and war monitors estimate the toll to be much higher. The nine-month battle to liberate Mosul resulted in the death of up to 1,500 Iraqi forces. At least 1,100 SDF fighters were killed in the battles for Syria’s Raqqa and Deir el-Zour up until late September, according to the coalition. In the three years since IS began building its “caliphate,” it has killed thousands of people, displaced millions and worked hard on infusing children with extremist doctrine.
The rise of the Islamic State group and subsequent wars and alliances to bring about its defeat has worsened political and sectarian fault-lines in Syria and Iraq. It gave unprecedented clout to Kurdish populations in both countries, unsettling their central governments, as well as Iran and Turkey, both battling Kurdish separatists within their own borders. Under cover of the fight against IS, Iraq’s Kurds seized the oil-rich city of Kirkuk in 2014 — a move Baghdad has now reversed, moving into the city, seizing oil fields and other infrastructure in an attempt to curb Kurdish aspirations for independence. The shifting and chaotic battlefields in Syria’s civil war, tensions between Kurds and ethnic Arabs, the presence of Shiite militias and government troops in predominantly Sunni towns and cities vacated by IS may lead to more violence. In many ways, the fight over IS spoils and territories is only just beginning…
[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]
HOW TO PREVENT A NEW WAVE OF MILLIONS OF IRAQI REFUGEES
Dr. Mordechai Kedar
BESA, Oct. 2, 2017
Syrian President Basher Assad is regaining power with the help of an Iranian Shiite coalition made up of Iranian fighters joined by Hezbollah as well as Iraqi and Afghan militias. It is possible that in the near future, this coalition will try to rid Syria of the millions of Sunnis who make up the majority of the country’s citizens, in order to prevent further rebellions of the type Syria experienced from 1976 to 1982 and over the past six-and-a-half years.
After writing last week about this possibility, I was contacted by Sheikh Walid Azawi, an Iraqi Sunni living in exile in Europe, who heads a party called “The Patriotic 20 Rebellion.” He described the situation in Iraq, where he claims that for years now, Tehran has been the real ruler, with its ayatollahs dictating Iraqi government policy and actions. Iranian hegemony blends in well in Iraq, most of whose citizens are Shiite. Now that the Islamic caliphate established by ISIS in Iraq has disintegrated, the Sunnis there have no armed organization to protect them from Iranian and Iraqi Shiite rage.
The Shiites’ attempt to rid the country of its Sunni minority is motivated by a desire for revenge. Since its creation in 1921, Iraq was ruled by the Sunni minority, less than a third the total population, most recently by Saddam Hussein, who treated the Shiites with terrible cruelty. After his defeat in the 1991 Gulf War, for example, he used artillery to butcher thousands of Shiites who attempted to find safety at the gravesite of Hussein ibn Ali in the city of Najef.
There is an even older feud between the Iranians and Saddam’s Sunni regime, dating back to the 1980-88 war, which took the lives of over a million people, both citizens and soldiers, on both sides. The war, during which both sides used chemical weapons, ended in Iran’s defeat when the chemical warfare waged against Tehran killed thousands of civilians. The Iraqi and Iranian Shiite desire for revenge on Saddam is now directed against his entire religious group, the Sunnis, who stand unprotected and unarmed against a strengthening Shiite world. The collective power of Sunni forces – made up of organizations such as ISIS, al-Qaeda, Syrian rebels, and countries such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the Emirates, and Egypt – has been weakening rapidly over the past few months in the face of the growing strength of the Shiite coalition made up of Iran, Hezbollah, and the Iraqi and Afghan militias.
Sheikh Azawi claims that as a result of this enormous shift in the balance of power, the Shiites will do everything they can to expel the Sunnis from Iraq to any country, whether or not the receiving country is willing to accept them. If this does come to pass, about ten million Iraqi refugees will soon be joining the waves of the 15-20 million existing refugees. This new wave can turn Europe, North and South America, Asia, and Africa into economic disaster areas, leading to social unrest and political maelstroms. (Were this stark scenario to materialize, one should thank Iran and all those who strengthened that country over the past few years.)
What is the solution? I asked the sheikh what solution he and his party propose to save the Iraqi Sunnis and convince them to remain in their homeland. His answer was a surprise: “The Emirate Solution,” which he is convinced is the only approach that can save the Iraqi Sunnis from ethnic cleansing.
The Emirate Solution envisages partitioning the country into regional states along the lines of the US, or cantons as in the Swiss model, each with internal autonomy. Iraq would become a federation with a limited central government, while each emirate would run the lives of whatever group resides in its territory. Each emirate would lead its own life and refrain from interfering in the policies of the others. Each would be ruled by the local sheikh who stands at the head of the families within its borders, following the population’s social traditions. This plan, claims Sheikh Azawi, should create harmony, stability, and peaceful relations among neighboring emirates for the good of all the citizenry.
The Emirate Solution would also grant self-rule to the Kurds of Northern Iraq, making the establishment of an independent Kurdish state unnecessary and circumventing the violent antagonism of the Iranians, Turks, and Arabs to its existence. The Kurdish region of northern Iraq is surrounded by states that do not share Kurdish dreams of independence, and it has no corridor to the sea. If the neighboring states were to ally against the Kurdish state, should one be established, they would prevent goods and people from reaching it, and the Kurds would have no way of leading normal lives. How would they export oil and other products? How would they import necessities? If the Kurds were instead to achieve independence within the framework of the Emirate Solution, ending the struggle that has been going on for decades, where would be the problem? Clearly with Iran, which will not agree to such a plan now that it has taken over Iraq – unless it is forced to do so. The only power capable of forcing Tehran to agree to anything is the US…
[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]
As ISIS Falls, Don’t Forget the Lessons of the Recent Past: David French, National Review, Oct. 16, 2017—’m having a strong sense of déjà vu. Let’s rewind the tape to 2008. My unit, the Second Squadron, Third Armored Cavalry Regiment, had finally crushed al-Qaeda resistance in our battlespace.
How Barzani Destroyed His Kurdistan: Near East Center, Oct. 16, 2017—Excerpts” As of this morning (16 OCT 2017) Kurdish aspirations for statehood in northern Iraq are dead. And KRG president Mahmoud Barzani is to blame.” “Barzani’s refusal to back down on the issue of Kurdish statehood spurred the Government of Iraq (GOI) to take action. Ignoring warnings from Iraqi leaders and the global community, Barzani organized the referendum that saw the Kurds of the KRG voting overwhelming for independence from Iraq, forcing Baghdad’s hand.”
The West Should Support Kurdish Independence — With Conditions: Geoffrey Clarfield & Salim Mansur, National Post, Oct. 17, 2017—Last month, Iraqi Kurds voted overwhelmingly to separate from Iraq. This week, the Iraqi government responded by sending troops in to take control of Kirkuk – a city that Kurdish fighters seized from ISIS three years ago — as well as several oil fields.
A Kurdish State is Inevitable: Mohammad Amjad Hossain, Jerusalem Post, Oct. 14, 2017—Kurds living along the borders of Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey have been subjected to torture, humiliation and massacres since antiquity. It is thus ironic to note that the leaders of Shiite Iraq and Sunni Turkey warned Kurdish leader Masoud Barzani, president of Iraq’s autonomous Kurdish region in Northern Iraq, against holding last month’s referendum on Kurdish independence. The nearly 30 million Kurds are widely known as the largest oppressed ethnic group on Earth.
