The US now faces a dilemma in the ISIS fight (the coming US-Iran alliance?)

[kalu_miah]

The US now faces a dilemma in the ISIS fight - Yahoo Finance

The US now faces a dilemma in the ISIS fight

By Pamela Engel

(Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader/AP) In a photo released by the official website of the office of the Iranian supreme leader, chief of the Quds Force of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, Ghasem Soleimani, attends a meeting of the commanders in Tehran.

The fight against the Islamic State isn't going well.

Militants took over the Iraqi provincial capital of Ramadi over the weekend, overran the ancient Syrian town Palmyra on Wednesday, and moved into former dictator Moammar Gaddafi's hometown in Libya on Thursday.

And now the US is facing a conundrum on how to handle the recent advances of the Islamic State terror group (also known as ISIS, ISIL, and Daesh).

Yaroslav Trofimov wrote in The Wall Street Journal that the US now has three options in the fight against ISIS: carry on with what they're already doing, escalate the fight, or give up. And none of those options are appealing.

"To be frank, you don’t have a hell of a lot of options," former senior defense official Anthony Cordesman, who now works for the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, told the Journal.

President Barack Obama doesn't want to commit ground troops to the fight, but supporting the strongest fighting force in Iraq, the Shia militias supported by Iran, comes with its own set of problems.

Shia militias like the Badr Organization killed American troops in Iraq during the occupation, and experts say that allowing them to run the fight against ISIS in Sunni areas like Ramadi will onlyworsen sectarian tensions there.

On the other hand, the US can't let the Iraqi army fight on its own — the Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad has been reluctant to give Sunnis too many resources out of fear that it might one day turn on the government, and troops fled Ramadi when ISIS mounted a big offensive on the city, detonating dozens of car bombs that crippled the army's ranks.

(Reuters)

So far the US has gone with an in-between strategy, focusing on air strikes to take out ISIS targets, but that hasn't been enough.

Cordesman told the Journal: "This current version of train and assist is sort of like trying to be half-pregnant. It just doesn’t work. We are not embedded with the command elements. We do not have people who can provide direct combat advice, who can warn when people are not getting the reinforcements and supplies they need. And to do that you have to be willing to take casualties."

Obama met with top national security advisers on Tuesday to discuss how to move forward after the fall of Ramadi.

A senior fellow at the Center for American Progress told the Journal that Obama is unlikely to be willing to get any deeper into conflicts in Iraq since he was elected to get the US out of them.

But refusing to escalate in Iraq could mean we'd have to "cede the entire mentoring and advising piece to the Iranians," retired US Navy Adm. James Stavridis told the Journal. "We will not be able to get this done from the air and by sitting on bases."

(REUTERS/Stringer) A car is engulfed by flames during clashes in the city of Ramadi, May 16, 2015.

Other experts say that empowering Sunnis to defend their cities and towns is the best way forward, but that's unlikely to happen without the support of Baghdad.

In the end, the US seems to be increasingly turning toward the Shia militias to handle the ground fight.

A Pentagon spokesman said on Monday that "the militias have a part to play in this" and that "as long as they are controlled by the central Iraqi government, then they will participate" in fighting ISIS militants, according to The Daily Beast.

The problem with that route is that many of the most powerful militias are decidedly controlled by Iran.

 

[C130]

shia have the most to lose. so of course they and their allies are doing the ground work and with the better morale.

but will U.S/Iran ally up to fight a common enemy. I don't think it'll happen. It should, but we won't go against our benefactors Saudi Arabia and Israel.

 

[Saif al-Arab]

ISIS is something that only Sunni Muslims can deal with in this case Iraqi and Syrian Sunni Arabs with support from the remaining Sunni Arab world and Sunnis worldwide.

Simiarily the Shia militias and the Iranian Mullah regime is something that only Shias and locals (Iranians) can deal with decisively.

Every country in the region is against ISIS the difference is that some countries can live with them being in the neighborhood longer than others. Some are more under threat to.

Several Arab countries (GCC mainly but also others) have actually BOMBED ISIS in Syria and some in Iraq ALONG with the US and Western European countries while Iran has not even been close to doing that.

By that logic Iran is not even close to an alliance with USA.

In any case alliances against ISIS regardless of country should be welcomed but obviously each country has other plans too while doing such alliances.

Iran for instance are not helping the Abadi regime because they love Iraq or the Arabs in Iraq (or any other ethnic group) but because they have certain interests in doing that.

 

[kalu_miah]

shia have the most to lose. so of course they and their allies are doing the ground work and with the better morale.

but will U.S/Iran ally up to fight a common enemy. I don't think it'll happen. It should, but we won't go against our benefactors Saudi Arabia and Israel.

Obama seems to be looking out for Iran.
TIM CONSTANTINE: Obama's odd love affair with Iran - Washington Times
Conservative Review - What Truly Motivates Obama's Love Affair with Iran?

Victor Prada

What Truly Motivates Obama's Love Affair with Iran?
Daniel Horowitz | March 31st, 2015

In November 2013, Barack Obama agreed to lift sanctions on Iran as part of an interim agreement with the largest terror-supporting state in return for curtailing their nuclear weapons program and agreeing to negotiate a permanent deal.

• When Congress reconvenes in two weeks, Democrats will face the following test: are they weaker in combating Iranian terror than the France’s governing socialist party?
  
  The negotiations have been extended twice over the past year, allowing Iran to reap as much as $700 million in unfrozen assets per month.
  
  The entire premise of these negotiations were immoral as the Islamic terror state was given a gratuitous bailout at the very moment they stepped up their support for Hezbollah on Israel’s border and began taking over other parts of the Middle East. Yet, faux pro-Israel Democrats said they just wanted to allow the negotiations to run its course before they agree to re-impose sanctions. Well, that deadline has come and there are no more excuses. Now, the Administration is calling for another extension.
  
  When Congress reconvenes in two weeks, Democrats will face the following test: are they weaker in combating Iranian terror than the France’s governing socialist party? Republicans will confront the question of whether they are willing to hold Democrats’ feet to the fire on something as critical as national security.
  
  Which brings us to the broader question: what is motivating Obama and his party to engage in a breathtaking embrace of Iran and alienation of Israel – to the point that an Iranian defector recently said the American negotiation team is essentially there to “speak on Iran’s behalf.”
  
  Let’s zoom out and take a broader look at what this Administration has done over the past year in the Middle East:
  • The Administration has essentially ceded Yemen to Iran’s Shiite proxy, almost risking another Benghazi in the haste to evacuate American personnel.
  • They are using our Air Force to bail out Iran from a humiliating defeat against ISIS in Tikrit, even though the Iranian-backed Shiite militias are engaging in the same atrocities and ethnic cleansing as ISIS.
  • They are turning a blind eye to Iran’s massive buildup of troops near Israel’s Golan border and arming of Hezbollah with guided warheads.
  • They expunged any mention of Iran and Hezbollah in the annual assessment of terror threats.
  • They have gone out of their way to not to offend Iran and to pander to all of their sensibilities, despite their chants of “Death to America.”
  • At the same time, Obama has declared a cold war on Israel by leaking details of their nuclear program and threatening to leave them hanging at the UN.
  • He has also openly opposed the new Egyptian government, led by a pro-American leader who is fighting ISIS and other terror groups and is cooperating with Israel.
  • Last summer, Obama imposed a de facto arms and travel embargo on Israel to stop them from dismantling Hamas, even though Israel was being cheered on by Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE.
  
  When you are outraging the Europeans and other Arab countries over your backwards treatment of Iran and Israel, there is clearly a more sinister motivation.
  
  Taken as a whole, this goes well beyond credulous appeasement. When you are outraging the Europeans and other Arab countries over your backwards treatment of Iran and Israel, there is clearly a more sinister motivation.
  
  Putting the pieces together, there is only one sensible explanation for Obama’s historically immoral realignment of American foreign policy. It’s all about the creation of an Arab (so-called Palestinian) state in the heart of Israel.
  
  If socialized medicine is the crown jewel of liberal socialism for domestic policy, the creation of an Arab Palestinian state – at any cost – has always been the raison d'etre of liberal foreign policy-makers in America and Europe. It has been the ultimate goal of all globalist elites since the failed Oslo Accords. The “two-state solution” has consistently been promoted as the consummate solution to all foreign policy problems in the world, much like some American politicians promote “comprehensive immigration reform” as the fix-all for domestic problems.
  
  Frustrated by 20 years of the failed pursuit of this goal, as a result of endless terror on the part of the Palestinian Arabs, Obama has decided that he will use the terrorism of Iran’s proxies as the weapon, not the obstacle, to the creation of the Palestinian state. He figures that by pretending to solve the issue of Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, in conjunction with strengthening Hezbollah and isolating Israel, he can force the creation of the new state with brute force.
  
  Republicans must step in and stop Obama’s dangerous double game before he does irreparable damage. The House should immediately pass sanctions on Iran and defund any effort on the part of the State Department to push a Palestinian state at the UN.
  
  As for the so-called pro-Israel Democrats, there is no longer anyway to straddle the fence between Obama and our national security and support for Israel. It’s time for them to internalize the words of Elijah in Kings 18:21 "Until when are you hopping between two ideas? If the Lord is God, go after Him, and if the Baal, go after him."
  
  Daniel Horowitz is the Senior Editor of Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @RMConservative.
  
  - See more at: Conservative Review - What Truly Motivates Obama's Love Affair with Iran?

 

[Saif al-Arab]

@kalu_miah

Please read my post number 3. GCC alone has a 5 times as big economy as Iran. It hosts US military bases too (Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar).

Not to speak about the remaining Arab world. USA will never prefer Iran over the Arab world in its entirety. Not even over the GCC.

The GCC/several Arab states have bombed ISIS along with USAF and several Western European states. Iran is nowhere near doing that and will not do that.

Secretely cooperating or even cooperating openly against ISIS is something that all players in the ME more or less do as ISIS is a threat to all of them. It really means little.

Lastly Obama will be gone in 20 months.

Also Iran is nowhere near controlling Iraq. Most Shia militias in Iraq are made up by ordinary Iraqi Shia Arabs from the South. Only a few groups are allied to Iran.

@SALMAN AL-FARSI

 

[kalu_miah]

@kalu_miah

Please read my post number 3. GCC alone has a 5 times as big economy as Iran. It hosts US military bases too (Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar).

Not to speak about the remaining Arab world. USA will never prefer Iran over the Arab world in its entirety. Not even over the GCC.

The GCC/several Arab states have bombed ISIS along with USAF and several Western European states. Iran is nowhere near doing that and will not do that.

Secretely cooperating or even cooperating openly against ISIS is something that all players in the ME more or less do as ISIS is a threat to all of them. It really means little.

Lastly Obama will be gone in 20 months.

Also Iran is nowhere near controlling Iraq. Most Shia militias in Iraq are made up by ordinary Iraqi Shia Arabs from the South. Only a few groups are allied to Iran.

@SALMAN AL-FARSI

Perhaps, but Obama's actions are not easy to explain. ISIS should be dealt with by local people and even Iran and Iran's proxies, why does the US need to provide Iran a helping hand against whoever? The US should not be helping Iran in anyway whatsoever, even if it is to beat ISIS. Let Iran spend its own resources to beat ISIS. That will be good for the world.

My feeling is that the US still somehow feel ownership about Iraq and its mess and still cannot let go, what ISIS does there should be none of US business, let ISIS and Iran and Iranian proxies kill each other, that serves US and world interest. Helping Iran in this way in the name of fighting terror, US is shooting itself on its own feet, just like it did with the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The US still has not learned its lessons it seems, getting itself involved where it has no business.

 

[Saif al-Arab]

Perhaps, but Obama's actions are not easy to explain. ISIS should be dealt with by local people and even Iran and Iran's proxies, why does the US need to provide Iran a helping hand against whoever? The US should not be helping Iran in anyway whatsoever, even if it is to beat ISIS. Let Iran spend its own resources to beat ISIS. That will be good for the world.

My feeling is that the US still somehow feel ownership about Iraq and its mess and still cannot let go, what ISIS does there should be none of US business, let ISIS and Iran and Iranian proxies kill each other, that serves US and world interest. Helping Iran in this way in the name of fighting terror, US is shooting itself on its own feet, just like it did with the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The US still has not learned its lessons it seems, getting itself involved where it has no business.

I disagree.

As I see it Obama and his administration are simply unwilling to engage themselves in the ME more than necessary. Far from as much as their predecessors did. Here I am especially thinking about the Bush administration.
That's a clever choice because the Chinese threat is several times bigger for the US and its ambitions of remaining a hegemon.

The only reason why the attention of the US has returned to the ME/Muslim world is ISIS. That and the several conflicts from Nigeria to Afghanistan.

What do you mean by helping? US's goal is to remove ISIS and so is that of Iran and most players if not all in the ME. That their interests collide is not strange and this has happened before with many regimes in the ME on other fronts.

Iraq will never become peaceful unless the government becomes truly independent. As of now Iraq is not ruled from Baghdad but from Washington, Tehran, Istanbul, Riyadh, Moscow etc. That's unfortunately the truth and that's why Iraq is such a mess. Aside from always being a mess almost. A division or genuine federalism might solve the most grave problems.

 

[IR-TR]

This thing is going WAY over your heads. ISIS IS USEFUL to the US. It gets rid of unwanted regimes/country borders and puts pressure on Iran. Really, that's it. Nothing more nothing less. Controlled chaos is what it's called. And no, sunni arab country won't do sh!t. Saudis are using their entire air force to bomb the houthis. They could destroy half of ISIS with that firepower, but don't do anything. The Saudi boy king thinks ISIS is tomorrow's problem. Soon, they'll storm Riyadh. Think the US will lift a finger? I suspect not.

 

[libertad]

IS is useful to the US and local allies because they keep the Shia militias occupied in Iraq so they don't join Hezbollah and Assad in Syria. Anyone except Israel that considers the US a trustworthy ally is a fool.

This thing is going WAY over your heads. ISIS IS USEFUL to the US. It gets rid of unwanted regimes/country borders and puts pressure on Iran. Really, that's it. Nothing more nothing less. Controlled chaos is what it's called. And no, sunni arab country won't do sh!t. Saudis are using their entire air force to bomb the houthis. They could destroy half of ISIS with that firepower, but don't do anything. The Saudi boy king thinks ISIS is tomorrow's problem. Soon, they'll storm Riyadh. Think the US will lift a finger? I suspect not.

Very intriguing to see Iraqi Arab Sunnis fleeing IS and being displaced, pleading to Shia PMF to confront IS and reclaim their lands. Meanwhile the GCC, Turkey etc are preoccupied with Yemen.

 

[IR-TR]

IS is useful to the US and local allies because they keep the Shia militias occupied in Iraq so they don't join Hezbollah and Assad in Syria. Anyone except Israel that considers the US a trustworthy ally is a fool.



Very intriguing to see Iraqi Arab Sunnis fleeing IS and being displaced, pleading to Shia PMF to confront IS and reclaim their lands. Meanwhile the GCC, Turkey etc are preoccupied with Yemen.

You should go to the Iraq thread, I posted a video of Sunni Iraqis from Ramadi saying that their local Sunni leaders purposefully didn't give them weapons and ammo that the Federal government made available. They didn't want them to fight. They wanted ISIS to take over. That can't be decided on such a low level. There are things at work here many don't see.

 

[Saif al-Arab]

This thing is going WAY over your heads. ISIS IS USEFUL to the US. It gets rid of unwanted regimes/country borders and puts pressure on Iran. Really, that's it. Nothing more nothing less. Controlled chaos is what it's called. And no, sunni arab country won't do sh!t. Saudis are using their entire air force to bomb the houthis. They could destroy half of ISIS with that firepower, but don't do anything. The Saudi boy king thinks ISIS is tomorrow's problem. Soon, they'll storm Riyadh. Think the US will lift a finger? I suspect not.

What are you talking about? Are you drunk or what? Entire air force? Are you joking or what? Are you located on Mars? High on heroin? Pistachio? ISIS marching on Riyadh? What have you smoked? I want the shit that you just smoked.

Tell me did you pick it up from the Moroccan dealer in Amsterdam? You know those that always venture around the Red Light District looking for tourists they can mug?!

Are ISIS not the private Saudi Army because 2000 Saudi Arabians out of 50.000 ISIS members are part of it? Can you Farsis make up your mind?

Do you really believe that the 1.7 Billions Muslims will let KSA engulf in chaos? THe holy land? Do you think that the US will look silently at one of the most natural resource rich countries on earth being in such trouble? KSA gone entire GCC gone. Most rich area on the planet in terms of natural gas and oil. It would destroy the world economy. Cradle of Islam.

Man, you are really drunk. Remember what happened when a certain Saddam barked in 1991? It only took 1 small Saudi coastal town (Khafji) before hell broke lose. 24 hours later his army was gone.

Do you think that KSA is another Afghanistan, Iraq or Syria? Or lawless Iranian Baluchistan/Kurdistan? Man, man you need to study geopolitics a bit more. ISIS ain't buried in the Empty Quarter or in the few lakes there.

 

[kalu_miah]

I disagree.

As I see it Obama and his administration are simply unwilling to engage themselves in the ME more than necessary. Far from as much as their predecessors did. Here I am especially thinking about the Bush administration.
That's a clever choice because the Chinese threat is several times bigger for the US and its ambitions of remaining a hegemon.

The only reason why the attention of the US has returned to the ME/Muslim world is ISIS. That and the several conflicts from Nigeria to Afghanistan.

What do you mean by helping? US's goal is to remove ISIS and so is that of Iran and most players if not all in the ME. That their interests collide is not strange and this has happened before with many regimes in the ME on other fronts.

Iraq will never become peaceful unless the government becomes truly independent. As of now Iraq is not ruled from Baghdad but from Washington, Tehran, Istanbul, Riyadh, Moscow etc. That's unfortunately the truth and that's why Iraq is such a mess. Aside from always being a mess almost. A division or genuine federalism might solve the most grave problems.

After the 14 year long Global War on Terror and the adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq, the US has no appetite for putting troops on the ground. Without ground troops and close coordination with them, ISIS cannot be defeated. So who has ground troops that wants to fight ISIS? Iran's Shia proxies in Iraq and Syria. No other Arab countries in the region will provide any ground troops against ISIS, because they know many of them will get killed. It is almost suicidal to fight against ISIS.

The US should at least wait till the fall of Assad, before it starts close coordination with Iran against ISIS, otherwise there is a risk that ISIS will be routed and Assad may get a new lease on life. Iran should not be given that chance by the US and it is not in the interest of GCC.

The hope that somehow Iraq's Shia dominated govt. will solve their governance problem using genuine federalism has been a US mantra since the invasion, but pursuing this policy and its failure gave rise to ISIS. What makes you think it will succeed this time around? What has changed in Iraq that will makes things different this time?

ISIS already has become a proto-state and Iraq and Syria's future is a big question mark. The only hope is that with fall of Assad, there might be some positive development in Syria and it may hopefully take care of ISIS and make things better in Sunni areas of Iraq. If the US starts full coordination with Iran now, it can jeopardize the hard work and sacrifice of Syrian people and rebels for the last 4 years.

 

[DrawingDead]

After the 14 year long Global War on Terror and the adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq, the US has no appetite for putting troops on the ground. Without ground troops and close coordination with them, ISIS cannot be defeated. So who has ground troops that wants to fight ISIS? Iran's Shia proxies in Iraq and Syria. No other Arab countries in the region will provide any ground troops against ISIS, because they know many of them will get killed. It is almost suicidal to fight against ISIS.

The US should at least wait till the fall of Assad, before it starts close coordination with Iran against ISIS, otherwise there is a risk that ISIS will be routed and Assad may get a new lease on life. Iran should not be given that chance by the US and it is not in the interest of GCC.

The hope that somehow Iraq's Shia dominated govt. will solve their governance problem using genuine federalism has been a US mantra since the invasion, but pursuing this policy and its failure gave rise to ISIS. What makes you think it will succeed this time around? What has changed in Iraq that will makes things different this time?

ISIS already has become a proto-state and Iraq and Syria's future is a big question mark. The only hope is that with fall of Assad, there might be some positive development in Syria and it may hopefully take care of ISIS and make things better in Sunni areas of Iraq. If the US starts full coordination with Iran now, it can jeopardize the hard work and sacrifice of Syrian people and rebels for the last 4 years.

You've hit the nail on the head. There is no appetite for another ground war. You're here, I'm sure you know that as well as I do. The problem is, despite of all the false bravado, we can't get any of the middle eastern countries to get something going against IS other than a few bombing runs. So we are on the verge of making this Faustian deal with Iran. The second biggest mistake we made was not breaking up Iraq into 3 different countries way back when.

 

[Saif al-Arab]

You've hit the nail on the head. There is no appetite for another ground war. You're here, I'm sure you know that as well as I do. The problem is, despite of all the false bravado, we can't get any of the middle eastern countries to get something going against IS other than a few bombing runs. So we are on the verge of making this Faustian deal with Iran. The second biggest mistake we made was not breaking up Iraq into 3 different countries way back when.

Or maybe you should not have invaded Iraq on false premises to begin with?

Tackling ISIS is the responsibility of the Syrian genocidal regime and the Iraqi regime. Both of those regimes have a big blame for ISIS. That group is not present anywhere else in the ME/Muslim world. A few sleeper cells here and there do not count or local groups such as in Yemen, Sinai, Libya, Afghanistan etc.

No US invasion no ISIS and no mess that we see in Iraq and which has now spread to Syria.

You don't want to go back to Anbar because you lost almost 1500 soldiers there alone. Your soldiers died for nothing. Ramadi and Fallujah are now ruled by people that are much worse than Al-Qaeda in Iraq and Ansar al-Islam. American incompetence vis-á-vis the ME is your main problem when engaging in this region.

 

[kalu_miah]

You've hit the nail on the head. There is no appetite for another ground war. You're here, I'm sure you know that as well as I do. The problem is, despite of all the false bravado, we can't get any of the middle eastern countries to get something going against IS other than a few bombing runs. So we are on the verge of making this Faustian deal with Iran. The second biggest mistake we made was not breaking up Iraq into 3 different countries way back when.

I am not against the Faustian deal to finish off ISIS, my concern is the timing. It should wait till Assad is gone, otherwise Iran and Assad will get a boost and it may change the current momentum against Assad. This will mean another 5 years extension of the Syrian civil war and perhaps the rise of yet another incarnation of ISIS, which will learn from the mistakes this ISIS made, just like ISIS learned from AQI.