Erbil—After a period of frostiness, Iraq’s Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) and Turkey seem intent on mending the ties, as each of the parties show signs of needing the other.
But the Kurds appear more cautious this time around, leery of moving too close to Ankara lest they alienate the new Iraqi government in Baghdad with which they signed a breakthrough oil deal Tuesday.
The agreement, which will give Baghdad greater control over oil produced in Kurdistan and Kurdish-occupied Kirkuk in exchange for the KRG’s receipt of a bigger share of the central government’s budget, may signal an effort to reduce Erbil’s heavy reliance on Turkey.
The warmth between Iraqi Kurds and Turkey was a rather strange affair to begin with. It emerged unexpectedly and evolved dramatically since the 2003 US invasion of Iraq.
Whereas Turkey is a major player in the Middle East and Eurasia regions, Iraqi Kurdistan is not even an independent state. The imbalance of power between the two parties made their development of a “strategic” relationship particularly remarkable.
Given the deep historical animosity in Ankara towards all things Kurdish, the change of heart on its leaders’ part also seemed almost miraculous, even if highly lucrative to Turkish construction companies in particular.
But those ties suffered a major blow in August when the forces of the Islamic State (ISIS or IS) marched toward Kurdish-held territories in Iraq.
With IS threatening Kurdistan’s capital city, Erbil, Turkey did little to assist the Kurds. Many in Kurdistan and beyond were baffled; it was a case of “a friend in need is a friend indeed” gone wrong.
The overwhelming sense in Erbil was that Turkey had abandoned Iraqi Kurds in the middle of a life-and-death crisis. KRG President Masoud Barzani, Ankara’s closest ally, felt moved to publicly thank Iran, Turkey’s regional rival, for rushing arms and other supplies to Kurdish peshmerga fighters in their hour of need.
In their efforts to simultaneously develop an understanding and save face, some senior KRG officials defended Ankara, insisting that its hands were tied by the fact that more than 40 staff members in its consulate in the Iraqi city of Mosul, including the consul, had been taken hostage by IS. Other officials were more critical, slamming Ankara for not having acted decisively in KRG’s support.
The that the country was experiencing elections where the ambitious then-Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan was running for the newly enhanced office of president was also invoked as a reason for his reluctance to enter into war with such a ruthless group.
It also appeared to observers here that Erdogan did not want to do anything that could strengthen his archenemy, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, even if that meant effectively siding with the Sunni jihadists.
But last month’s visit to Iraq by Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu appears to have helped repair the relationship with the Kurds in the north. Davutoglu turned on his personal charm to reassure his hosts, even visiting a mountainous area where Turkish special forces are now training members of the Kurdish peshmerga.
The question of how long it takes for the relationship to bounce back to the point where it was six months ago is anyone’s guess.
It’s clear, however, that despite the recent slide in relations, both sides need each other.
As a land-locked territory, Kurds will be looking for an alternative that they can use to counter pressure from the central Iraqi government.
Focused on laying the foundation for a high degree of economic and political autonomy—if not independence—from Baghdad, the Kurds’ strategic ambition is to be able to control and ideally sell their oil and gas to international clients. And geography also dictates that the most obvious and economically efficient route runs through Turkey, with or without Baghdad’s blessing.
As for Ankara, Iraqi Kurdistan is now its only friend in an otherwise hostile region.
Once upon a time, not long ago, politicians in Ankara boasted of the success of their “zero-problems-with-neighbors” policy that had reshuffled regional politics and turned some of Turkey’s long-standing foes in the region, including Syria, into friends. But that era is now gone.
Ankara has come to see Iraqi Kurdistan as a potential major supplier of its own energy needs and has generally sided with the KRG in its disputes with Baghdad.
Kurdish leaders have been criticized for putting most of their eggs in Ankara’s basket.
The last time Kurds invested so much of their trust in a neighboring country was during the 1960s and 1970s when they were supported by the Shah of Iran who used them to exert pressure on Baghdad. This produced disastrous results when the Shah abruptly abandoned Kurds in return for territorial concessions by the Iraqi government in the Shatt al-Arab River separating southern Iran from Iraq.
Turkey’s indifference and passivity in August when all of Iraqi Kurdistan came under existential threat by the IS jihadists reminded many here of the consequences of placing too much trust in their neighbors. The hoary proverb that “Kurds have no friends but the mountains” suddenly regained its currency.
IS’s siege of the Syrian Kurdish town of Kobani—just one kilometre from the Turkish frontier—compounded that distrust, not only for Iraqi Kurds, but for Kurds throughout the region, including in Turkey itself.
Indeed, Turkey’s refusal to assist Kurdish fighters against IS’s brutal onslaught has made it harder for the KRG to initiate a reconciliation.
Although Ankara has now changed its position—under heavy US pressure—and is now permitting peshmerga forces to provide limited assistance and re-inforcements for Kobani’s defenders, the process of mending fences is still moving rather slowly.
While that process has now begun, it remains unclear how far both sides will go.
Will it be again a case of Ankara and Erbil jointly versus Baghdad, or will Erbil play the game differently this time, aiming for balance between the two capitals?
Indeed, the much-lauded oil deal struck Tuesday between Baghdad and the KRG may indicate a preference for the latter strategy, particularly in light of their mutual interest in both confronting the IS and compensating for losses in revenue resulting from the steep plunge in oil prices.
Still, given the history of deals sealed and then broken that have long characterized relations between the Kurds and Baghdad, nothing can be taken for granted.
Photo: KRG President Masoud Barzani at the official opening of the Erbil International Airport and Turkish Consulate in 2011. Credit: Official KRG Photo
Mohammed A. Salih is a journalist based in Erbil, Iraqi Kurdistan. He has written for almost a decade about Kurdish and Iraqi affairs for local and international media.
]]>Hyping the Islamic State (ISIS or IS) threat risks generating flawed policies. The White House probably is a source of frustration, as its critics claim, but others seem too eager to commit US combat troops. Meanwhile, the administration, under constant pressure regarding the US effort, has not done enough to energize the anti-IS coalition that President Obama worked so hard to assemble. This inclines allies to believe Washington will do the heavy lifting for them. Although addressing IS full-bore (and unilaterally) might seem appealing to some, this urge undermines the patience needed for more sensible courses of action.
The Hagel Affair
The resignation of Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel last month resulted in criticism that the White House is unreceptive to outside views, such as expanding the US military effort against IS. Excessive micromanagement of military related issues by the White House (including the phone line to commanders in Afghanistan that bypassed Hagel) has also been cited.
Past Presidents have done likewise. In overseas crises, many presidents created their own channels, giving White House officials more power than cabinet secretaries. Franklin Roosevelt often relied on Harry Hopkins over Secretary of State Cordell Hull, Richard Nixon used Henry Kissinger in lieu of William Rogers, and Colin Powell found himself outside the Bush administration’s inner circle. Perhaps the most extreme example of presidential micromanagement was Lyndon Johnson’s handling of the Vietnam War.
The Obama White House has long had dicey relations with the Pentagon. This has been, according to the Pentagon’s side of the argument, the source of delays and confusing policy directions on several issues, with the White House accused of falling into “group think.” For his part, Hagel had complained in the early fall to National Security Advisor Susan Rice in a memo about a lack of cohesion in US policy toward IS.
Nonetheless, White House micromanagement or Pentagon-White House difficulties aside, Obama’s reluctance to ramp up the US military effort against IS excessively seems well founded. Of course, Hagel’s position is not entirely clear, but escalation had been advocated by Hagel’s two predecessors: Robert Gates and Leon Panetta.
Costs of US Escalation
IS appears ready to endure lopsided casualties to inflict some on American combat troops. And IS could follow through on this hope. Not only are its combatants fanatics, the radical Sunni militia also employs deadly suicide bombings against foes in close-up urban combat (as we’ve seen in Kobani). Additionally, IS likely hopes to get a hold of at least a few US military prisoners for filmed beheadings. So why hand IS exactly what it wants?
With large urban areas to be cleared just in Iraq—from Fallujah to Mosul—US combat troops would also likely incur casualties in excess of those suffered in 2003-08 against somewhat less fanatical Sunni Arab insurgents and Shi’a militias during the war.
American military difficulties could be further magnified by reduced interest on the part of Iraq’s Shi’a-dominated government in making the political concessions needed to split Sunni Arab tribes and other secular elements away from IS and marshal its own forces more swiftly. After all, why should Baghdad go the extra mile if the US seems willing to take care of Baghdad’s IS problem militarily?
Recently, despite lost ground in and around Ramadi west of Baghdad, Iraqi and Kurdish forces have made gains between Baghdad and Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) territory to the north. Moving up Iraq’s central line of communications, Iraqi forces have driven IS from some important territory. The siege of the vital Baiji refinery complex has been lifted, and gains have been made in the demographically mixed Diyala Governate northeast of Baghdad.
Meanwhile, Iraqi Kurds continue to push IS slowly westward. Baghdad and the KRG reached a temporary oil agreement yesterday that should clear the way for greater cooperation elsewhere, like battling IS. Bitter quarrelling under former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki left Iraqi-KRG relations in shambles.
Struggling to rebound from severe reverses last summer, however, the Iraqi Army is in no position to mount a major offensive deep into IS holdings. However, successful Iraqi and Kurdish attacks demonstrate the vulnerability of IS’s vast perimeter. Strong IS forces cannot be everywhere at once to repel various challenges and adequately support ongoing attacks (such as its effort against Kobani).
In terms of a military threat, IS has been largely contained. It cannot advance northward against Turkey; isolated pro-IS sympathies exist in Jordan, but the highly professional Jordanian Army would be a tough nut to crack; and in Iraq, most all Shi’a and Kurdish areas lie outside IS control and are fighting hard to maintain this status. In Syria, IS could advance against weaker rebel forces like the Free Syrian Army, but it seems obsessed with seizing Kobani despite heavy losses.
Coalition and US Escalation
The anti-IS coalition the White House assembled is contributing relatively little to the overall military effort, despite Secretary of State John Kerry’s glowing rhetoric at today’s coalition conclave in Brussels. The air campaign is mainly an American show. Committing more US assets would make it easier for others already foot-dragging over contributions to continue dithering. Now is not the time to ramp up US military efforts, but rather to pressure allies to increase their own contributions.
The bulk of IS’s reinforcements in the form of foreign fighters flow through NATO ally Turkey. The CIA in September and the UN more recently sharply increased their estimate of the number of foreign fighters reaching the Islamic State. To date, Turkey has been more helpful to IS than the coalition because of its passivity. If it cannot be pressured to vigorously interdict incoming fighters, IS would be able to replace many lost fighters—although with less experienced cadres.
The White House (and other allies) must press Turkey harder. President Obama delayed air support for beleaguered Syrian Kurds for two weeks in deference to Turkish concerns (allowing IS to gain a foothold inside Kobani). Even today’s 60-nation gathering seems short on clear goals, let alone a robust military agenda on contributions.
Admittedly, although the Administration has done too little diplomatic spadework, its leverage overseas probably has been undermined by American politicians, pundits, and many in the media demanding an expanded US effort.
Bottom Line
IS remains a daunting foe, so it will not be defeated easily, soon, or completely. To Americans pressing urgently for quick solutions, this is difficult to accept. But comments like one yesterday by Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Chair of the House Foreign Relations Middle East and North Africa Sub-Committee, suggesting IS could damage everyone’s way of life are typical of exaggerations impeding objective policymaking.
Yet those claiming the air campaign has been ineffective are also naïve. IS has mostly ground to a halt. In some places, like Kobani, IS is hemorrhaging combat casualties. Meanwhile IS’s infrastructure, leadership, training camps, heavy weapons, oil refineries, and lines of communication have been hammered by the ongoing aerial bombardment. This week, assets in IS’s “capital” of Raqqa, Syria were also subjected to a wave of airstrikes.
Many want IS crushed quickly out of fear of IS attacks against the American homeland. Yet, as we saw in Afghanistan in 2001-02 with al-Qaeda, the combatants would not be completely rounded up should substantial US forces be sent in. Many hundreds at the very least would escape to find refuge elsewhere. In that scenario, IS would likely shift toward an international terrorist mode, posing an even greater threat to the United States. Therefore, a more collective effort—forcing IS to truly understand that it faces dozens of foes and not just a few—would be a wiser way forward. It is meanwhile imperative to strip IS of as many of its non-extremist Sunni Arab allies as possible, so they do not have to be dealt with militarily.
Photo: President Obama addresses reporters during a meeting with th anti-IS coalition on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly on Sept. 24, 2014
]]>by Shireen T. Hunter
Nouri al-Maliki is no longer Iraq’s prime minister, but his departure does not mean that Iraq’s problems will be resolved easily or soon. A basic change must first occur in Iraq’s domestic politics, the power struggles within its different ethnic and sectarian components, and the behavior of regional and international actors [...]]]>
by Shireen T. Hunter
Nouri al-Maliki is no longer Iraq’s prime minister, but his departure does not mean that Iraq’s problems will be resolved easily or soon. A basic change must first occur in Iraq’s domestic politics, the power struggles within its different ethnic and sectarian components, and the behavior of regional and international actors towards Iraq.
A reasonable and general consensus regarding Iraq’s future must also be reached. It is not at all clear that the challenge posed by the Islamic State (formerly known as ISIS) to Iraqi Shias and Kurds, plus the embarrassment its behavior has caused for Iraq’s Sunnis, will be sufficient to force these groups to come together, to limit their maximalist objectives, to agree on sensible power-sharing arrangements, and to begin working toward the development of a civic Iraqi sense of citizenship and nationalism. Nevertheless, both Maliki’s departure and the sobering effect of the Islamic State’s victories offers some hope that all players will come to see the errors of their past behavior.
Accepting Reality
First, Maliki’s departure should make it easier for those Sunni politicians who had come to view him as unacceptable to behave in a more logical manner, and to assume an active and constructive role in the formation and management of the post-Maliki government. However, while the Sunnis are entitled to serious positions within the new government and not merely ceremonial posts, it is important for them to realize that they cannot claim their old dominant status and, in failing to achieve that position, continue to claim marginalization and persecution. If they continue on this path, even with the best will in the world the new prime minister could not satisfy them.
The Shias, meanwhile, need to realize that, while being the majority, they do not represent all of Iraq. Moreover, they need the experience and expertise of other Iraqis to solve the country’s problems. In particular, they should distinguish between the hardcore Ba’athists and ordinary Sunnis and not punish the latter for the sins of the former.
The Shias should also realize that they are a minority in the Arab world as a whole. Therefore, to succeed in Iraq, they need to stop the infightings and excessive power struggles within their ranks. Otherwise, they will run the risk of once again being relegated to the margins of Iraqi society and politics. A united Shia front, with reasonable political positions and a clear agenda that also provides benefits for non-Shias would go a long way to encourage others to join them in new political arrangements.
The Kurds, especially Masoud Barzani, should realize that, while Erbil has developed and, until recently, had been more stable than other parts of Iraq, the Kurdish entity in Iraq is still divided and does not have the wherewithal of an independent state. Consequently, the Kurds need to adopt a cooperative attitude toward other groups in Iraq. They should not be swayed by the urgings of countries that have no genuine interest in the Kurds’ well-being and future and are, for these countries’ own ends, encouraging them to seek independence. In this regard, too, Maliki’s departure should help, since his relations with the Kurds had become nearly as bad as his dealings with the Sunnis.
Second, Maliki’s departure should make it easier for some of Iraq’s neighbors, notably Saudi Arabia, to change their attitudes towards Iraq and to stop their efforts to reintroduce Sunni domination of Iraqi politics. Saudi Arabia has had a decisive role in arming and funding Sunni militants in Iraq from virtually the moment of Saddam Hussein’s fall. Moreover, the ideology of groups like the Islamic State, although now called Salafi and Jihadi, has its wellspring in Saudi Wahhabism. The edicts of Saudi clerics entice Sunnis to kill Shias by declaring them Kafir (unbelievers.) Given the tight connection between the Saudi royals and Wahhabi clerics, it is difficult to believe that such edicts could be issued without the government’s acquiescence.
As a sign of a more rational approach toward Iraq, instead of shunning it, the Saudis and other Arabs should welcome it into their ranks. This would also help them achieve their goal of limiting Iran’s influence in the country. Meanwhile, they have to realize that Iran has historic, ethnic, linguistic, and religious ties with both the Shias and the Kurds in Iraq, and that efforts to eliminate its influence there, or worse, to encourage an anti-Iran policy on behalf of the Iraqi government, would be counterproductive.
Turkey, too, should realize that weakening Iraq’s central government would not bring Iraqi Kurdistan, Kirkuk, and hence their energy resources under Turkish domination. In general, Turkey should abandon its dreams of a latter-day Ottoman Empire and realize its own ethnic and sectarian vulnerabilities.
Even more important than the attitudes and polices of regional players are the policies of key international players, especially the United States. To begin with, official speculation about Iraq’s disintegration should cease, along with policies such as arming regional forces, like those of the Kurds, which tend to encourage centrifugal tendencies. Second, outsiders should acknowledge Iraq’s ethnic and sectarian realities, and, unlike the early days after Saddam was deposed in 2003, international actors should not play on the country’s sectarian differences.
Iranian-Arab Truce
Outsiders should also delink Iraq’s domestic politics from policies towards Iran. Certainly, there should be no effort again to turn Iraq into a base for containing or, worse, for attacking Iran. Of course, Iran should not meddle in Iraqi affairs, but its legitimate concerns should not be ignored. If the latter approach is adopted, Iran, together with Arab states and Turkey, could become part of a regional arrangement that could contribute to Iraq’s future stability. The Saudi attitude, which finds any Iranian involvement anywhere in the Middle East and South Asia unacceptable and illegitimate, has proven destructive, not just in Iraq but also elsewhere, notably in Afghanistan. Instead, Iran and the Arab states must accept that they all have constituencies in the Middle East and South Asia, and that by dint of geography, religion, and culture, they are bound to interact. It would serve both their interests if this interaction were carried out through mutual accommodation, to begin with, and eventually perhaps even cooperation.
For their part, key international actors should encourage Arab-Iranian reconciliation or at least refrain from exacerbating their differences in the hope that perhaps Arab-Iranian and Sunni-Shia animosity will bring peace on the Israel-Palestine front. If that were going to happen, it would already have happened in the last decade. That conflict has its own dynamics, and no amount of change in other parts of the Middle East will resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict without addressing the core issue of Palestinian grievances.
International actors that care about promoting stability both in Iraq and in the region more generally must finally call Saudi Arabia to account for its multi-dimensional support for Salafi/Wahhabi movements. The activities of these groups, more than any other agents of terrorism, have imposed substantial costs on international actors, especially the United States, in terms of lives and money. There is no reason that Saudi Arabia should be immune from scrutiny and blame for the part played either by its government or by its citizens in encouraging extremist ideas and groups.
In sum, although Maliki’s clear lack of “people skills” and other managerial flaws impeded his relations with domestic, regional, and international forces, Iraq’s problems were not caused by Maliki alone, and will not be automatically resolved with his departure. Iraq’s crisis is rooted in internal, regional, and international causes including outsiders’ manipulation of Iraq’s fault lines. If there is no new and realistic regional and international understanding regarding Iraq’s future, Maliki might prove to have been just a fall-guy, and Iraq will continue to move from one crisis to another. The notion that Iraqis must solve their problems solely by themselves, when just about everybody is interfering in their country, is only a “cop out” by all concerned.
Photo: Iraqi Shia fighters, one holding the national flag, stand in army uniforms on a truck during a parade on June 21, 2014 in the capital, Baghdad. Credit: Ahmad al-Rubaye/AFP/Getty Images
]]>by Wayne White
An old military dictum still applies: no determined enemy can be stopped by air power alone. Much will depend on whether the Kurdish Peshmerga militia proves willing to make a stand against the forces of the Islamic State (formerly known as the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant). [...]]]>
by Wayne White
An old military dictum still applies: no determined enemy can be stopped by air power alone. Much will depend on whether the Kurdish Peshmerga militia proves willing to make a stand against the forces of the Islamic State (formerly known as the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant). Meanwhile, Washington has little choice but to remain cautious about committing itself to more than tightly focused airstrikes linked to narrow contingencies. Ironically, more extensive US air support might be made available if the Kurds show they are ready to make a strong stand.
The track record of Peshmerga fighting capabilities so far in this crisis is worrisome. After the Iraqi Army abandoned large areas all around the boundaries of the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) over a month ago, Peshmerga units were quick to move in to fill the void, in part because most of these territories were mixed demographically, in dispute with Baghdad, and coveted by the KRG. When, however, challenged by Islamic State forces as of last weekend, the Kurds showed little desire to face off with the Sunni Arab extremist group in order to defend them.
Kurdish leaders argue that they lack sufficient weapons with which to face Islamic State forces. However, the Peshmerga probably outnumber the forces facing them, and most Islamic State fighters are no better equipped than the Kurds. The rugged terrain of much of Iraqi Kurdistan also provides defensive advantages. Finally, the Peshmerga do possess weapons such as heavy machine guns, rocket propelled grenades (RPG’s), light mortars, and formidable light anti-aircraft guns for use against opposing ground forces. Dug in properly using towns and mountainous terrain features as obstacles, with this array of weaponry the Peshmerga could inflict very heavy casualties on the Islamic State.
Such losses could give the Islamic State some real pause as its forces have yet to suffer high casualty rates in Iraq. Its ugly reputation has generally sufficed until now to frighten potential opponents into abandoning the field. This is what the Islamic State is counting on again to defeat the Kurds.
Furthermore, it would be very dangerous if the KRG is deluding itself into thinking US air strikes can stop the Islamic State. Without robust Kurdish resistance, ISIS would be capable of overrunning much of Iraqi Kurdistan, driving millions of Kurds and other refugees sheltered by them into Turkey and Iran. Aside from the obvious humanitarian disaster this would represent, billions of dollars of Kurdish real estate and infrastructure investment over the past 11 years for the creation of a prosperous new Kurdish region would fall to the Islamic State and be demolished or heavily looted.
If the Kurdish leaders and the Peshmerga do, however, muster sufficient willpower to stand their ground and confront the Islamic State, Washington might well reconsider its tightly limited aerial support role. With Kurds fiercely defending along identifiable lines, more US airpower could be usefully employed to take out the Islamic State’s heavy weaponry in a way that would level the military playing field for the Peshmerga.
Most of the heavy weapons the Islamic State is capable of putting into the fight would stand out rather starkly for American military pilots on the rolling terrain of northern Iraq. This would present the US with a real opportunity to take out large quantities of the US equipment the Islamic State captured in the wake of the Iraqi Army’s retreat some weeks ago.
The next few days will be defining: Washington will find out whether it has a partner in northern Iraq with which it can work in putting the brakes on the Islamic State’ advance on that front. So far I suspect the White House has wisely kept some cards well hidden. Nonetheless, it would be difficult to believe that if the Kurds stand their ground, give the Islamic State a bloody nose, but need help here and there to hold on, Washington would not be willing to increase the tempo of its air strikes in support of the Peshmerga.
Such a scenario also could be a lesson for Baghdad. Firm US backing for a determined KRG government and Peshmerga might provide a political boost for those Iraqi leaders pressing for what President Obama again called for last night: an inclusive Iraqi government that would provide Washington — and other governments — with a reliable partner in the struggle against the Islamic State throughout all of Iraq. Such a government inevitably would merit more additional US and international support than has been the case with the dysfunctional mess prevailing in Baghdad in recent months.
Photo: President Barack Obama meets with his national security advisors in the Situation Room of the White House, Aug. 7, 2014. Credit: Official White House photo by Pete Souza
]]>by Wayne White
Forces of the Islamic State, formerly known as ISIS, have lunged toward two strategic dams earlier this month, one in the north and the other west of Baghdad. The northern offensive drove Kurdish forces from areas they had protected, showing how vulnerable Iraqi Kurds could be in the face [...]]]>
by Wayne White
Forces of the Islamic State, formerly known as ISIS, have lunged toward two strategic dams earlier this month, one in the north and the other west of Baghdad. The northern offensive drove Kurdish forces from areas they had protected, showing how vulnerable Iraqi Kurds could be in the face of more sweeping attacks. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s battle for political survival has delayed a more coherent, unified Iraqi response to the military threat posed by the Islamic State. Certain gains from this Sunni extremist group while Baghdad remains adrift politically would increase the potential for greater foreign military involvement.
The Islamic State has tried for weeks to get its hands on the Haditha Dam complex near Fallujah, Iraq’s second largest reservoir. To their credit, Iraqi troops have so far fought well in fending off the militants; Baghdad was able to reinforce its Haditha garrison at one point with 2,000 more troops. Nonetheless, the garrison is mostly isolated deep within Islamic State-held territory.
On Aug. 1, the Islamic State launched its heaviest attack to date toward Haditha. The assault almost broke through government lines. However, late in the fighting, Sunni Arab tribes from the area massed against the Islamic State to prevent the dam from falling to the group. These tribes depend on the dam, and they were not prepared to let go of such an important asset.
It is, however, doubtful that the Islamic State would simply destroy the dam (or one near Mosul that it may have seized). Blowing up the dams to spite downstream Shia would flood large Sunni Arab areas under Islamic State-control — hardly desirable as the group tries to win more Sunnis over to its side. The Islamic State may wish instead to manipulate dam power flows to benefit areas under its control, deny power to Shia areas, and, yes, occasionally alter water flows to damage government held areas downstream.
Challenging the Kurds
Seemingly in parallel, the Islamic State lunged for the Mosul Dam (Iraq’s largest) in the north on Aug. 3, which Iraq’s Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) occupied when it took control of extensive areas around the KRG’s perimeter to head off the militant threat. In addition, Islamic State fighters took Sinjar on Aug. 2, two smaller towns, and an oilfield. These locales were in Kurdish hands too, although isolated along the Syrian border far west of the KRG and hard to defend. Both sides claim to have the dam, but local residents told the AP on Aug. 7 that the Islamic State now holds it. The group also struck the other end of the KRG perimeter near the Iranian border, but was repulsed.
The Islamic State realizes KRG forces are spread thinly trying to cover a perimeter hundreds of miles long, so it can mass its forces at selected points to overwhelm local defenses. And the Islamic State’s re-conquest of mixed areas taken over by the Kurds in June could play well among Sunni Arabs concerned by KRG ambitions.
Excessive praise for the Peshmerga capabilities tends to be misplaced. The Peshmerga (literally, “those who face death”) mainly consists of militia-style light infantry against which the Islamic State can use heavy weapons seized from fleeing Iraqi forces when Mosul fell. In fact, the Peshmerga have an iffy track record against heavily equipped or fanatical opponents.
In 1991, after crushing much of a Shia rebellion in the south, Saddam Hussein’s well-equipped forces easily pushed aside Peshmerga units, driving over 2 million Kurds into Turkey and Iran. Then, in 2002, prior to the US invasion of Iraq, the Peshmerga twice tried to dislodge a small pocket of Ansar al-Islam (extremist Kurds and some al-Qaeda fighters who had eluded US forces in Afghanistan). In both instances, large Peshmerga assault forces were stopped cold by small numbers of less well-armed fanatics. Lastly, the Kurds faced little of the Sunni Arab insurgency’s wrath during 2003-08, so Kurdish Peshmerga saw little recent combat from which it could have drawn much needed military experience.
The KRG did seize large quantities of heavy weapons including tanks, other armored vehicles, and artillery from Saddam’s demobilized army after the US invasion in 2003. Little was done to incorporate them into Peshmerga units. Worse still, one of the two dominant Kurdish factions, the Popular Union of Kurdistan (PUK), sold a large quantity of this equipment to the Iranians.
The Secretary General of the KRG ministry overseeing the Peshmerga, Jabbar Yawar, declared on Aug. 6 that the Peshmerga would switch from defense to offense; Islamic State positions were attacked that day. The KRG is now receiving some limited air support from Baghdad and fighters from the Syrian Kurdish community, which has had considerable success in fending off the Islamic State. Nonetheless, KRG forces remain dangerously overstretched, and it lost more towns to the Islamic State in predominantly Christian areas under Kurdish protection on Aug. 7.
Yazidi Humanitarian Crisis
Iraq’s latest humanitarian crisis is associated with the fall of Sinjar, where Iraq’s small Yazidi community lives. Yazidis are members of an obscure sect often incorrectly labeled “Devil worshippers.” The Islamic State sees them as infidels, and there have been reports of executions.
Most Yazidis from Sinjar have taken refuge in mountains around the town, but the Islamic State has been trying to secure the heights to seize them. In an Aug. 5 Iraqi parliamentary session, a Yazidi deputy made an impassioned plea to save her people from genocide. Fortunately, some of the Yazidis from Sinjar were reportedly rescued over the past 24 hours.
Political Uncertainty in Baghdad
Maliki has remained adamant that he will not step down as a prime ministerial candidate despite opposition from key ally Iran, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Sunni Arabs, Kurds, and even some former Shia supporters. Despite his reduced chances of prevailing, Maliki clearly does not care that his stand has postponed fielding a fresh new crisis government to marshal Iraqi forces against the Islamic State.
Last week, US officials began meeting in Erbil with Sunni Arab officials and leaders from Islamic State-occupied areas to help fashion a Sunni Arab alliance against the group. US officials admitted, however, that the American strategy would not make much headway as long as Maliki remains prime minister.
Constitutionally, Maliki is on solid ground. As the head of the parliamentary list that garnered the most votes in elections earlier this year, he should be given first crack at forming a government.
The deadline for giving the go-ahead to someone is only days away. So, Iraq’s new president, Fouad Massoum, might as well ask Maliki to try and form a government (even if Maliki fails). Although time consuming, this move appears to be the only way to force Maliki to step aside. That might happen in a parliamentary session today.
Fragile Military Situation
Although it has so far been largely checked farther south, now that the Islamic State has shown interest in hitting Iraq’s Kurds in the north, it will probably make additional gains up there. And until there is a new government in Baghdad, Iraq will remain unable to mobilize its full potential to check or drive the Islamic State back.
Should the Islamic State concentrate its scattered forces for a major, focused offensive, it could jeopardize all Kurdish holdings outside the KRG (including Kirkuk), or even thrust into the KRG to throw Kurdish forces off balance. It might overwhelm isolated Iraqi government garrisons in Haditha, the refinery complex in Taiji, or Samarra with its highly sensitive Shia mosque/shrine. Similarly, the failure of most of the surrounded Yazidis to avoid capture followed by a massive Islamic State-atrocity against them would generate a huge wave of international outrage. Even additional territory in the vicinity of Baghdad could fall to an especially robust assault by the Islamic State.
The worst-case scenarios noted above would place Turkey, Iran and the US in particular under more intense pressure to take direct military action against the Islamic State. For example, would Tehran allow Samarra to fall to the group after Iranian senior officers have been sent to help organize its defense?
]]>by Mark N. Katz
The radical jihadist group, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIL or ISIS), has seized much of Iraq’s Sunni Arab heartland and reached the outskirts of Baghdad. The armed forces of Iraq’s US-backed, Shia majority elected dictatorship have not only failed to prevent this, but are also [...]]]>
by Mark N. Katz
The radical jihadist group, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIL or ISIS), has seized much of Iraq’s Sunni Arab heartland and reached the outskirts of Baghdad. The armed forces of Iraq’s US-backed, Shia majority elected dictatorship have not only failed to prevent this, but are also fleeing as ISIS advances.
There is a real possibility that the government of Nouri al-Maliki will fall, and that ISIS will be able to reassert Sunni Arab minority rule over Iraq, which existed under Saddam Hussein and well before him. An ISIS in charge of Iraq will also be able to aid its beleaguered compatriots in Syria fighting the Assad regime, as well as help Sunni jihadists in other neighboring countries such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and perhaps even Iran (where there is indeed a large Sunni population believed to be highly disaffected from Tehran’s Shia rulers).
What is currently happening in Iraq does not serve the interests of America, its Western and Arab allies, or anyone except the jihadists. The Obama administration, however, is not going to re-intervene in Iraq now after only recently ending the long, costly, and inconclusive US-led intervention there, as well as winding down a similar one in Afghanistan. Congress and the American public are unlikely to support intervention anyway, as the widespread US domestic opposition to Obama’s 2013 request for congressional approval for a much more limited strike on Syria demonstrated.
Can anything, then, be done to stop ISIS from seizing more of Iraq, including Baghdad? Or, under the current circumstances, is that simply inevitable?
Nothing is inevitable. The rise of ISIS so far has less to do with its strength than with the weakness of its main adversary, the Maliki government. Right now, ISIS’s “control” is quite tenuous. Indeed, ISIS might be just as surprised as everyone else that the collapse of the Maliki government has created a vacuum allowing it to move in. Still, ISIS’ newfound gains also mean that its forces are likely stretched thin — and thus vulnerable — at present.
There are accordingly policy options for halting the spread of ISIS and even rolling it back that exist between US intervention on the one hand and doing nothing on the other. One of the most important of these arises from the fact that ISIS is not only opposed by the U.S., but also by neighboring states and important groups inside Iraq. Indeed, the rise of ISIS threatens these local and regional actors far more than it does the U.S., thus giving Washington opportunities to support those who are strongly motivated to resist this jihadist militia. These include:
The Kurds: While the Maliki government’s forces have fled from ISIS, the Kurdish Regional Authority has made clear that it intends to resist and has already seized control of the divided northern city of Kirkuk.
Shia Arabs: The Maliki government’s impotence notwithstanding, the Iraqi Arab Shia majority has a very strong incentive to oppose ISIS’ efforts to re-impose a Sunni minority regime upon them.
Anti-Jihadist Sunni Arabs: While Sunni Arabs initially resisted the American-led military intervention and supported ISIS’ predecessor, al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), many Sunni Arab tribesmen later allied with the U.S. against AQI since it was increasingly attacking them. These Sunni tribes, whom Maliki alienated when America withdrew, have not forgotten how al-Qaeda treated them — and ISIS has not forgotten how these tribes fought with the Americans.
Iran: Despite the many differences between Washington and Tehran, one common interest (that is seldom recognized publicly) is that both fear the rise of radical Sunni jihadist movements, including ISIS.
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan: Despite their fears of Iran and their support for the opposition to Tehran’s ally, the Assad regime, these Sunni Arab monarchies in particular have strong reason to fear that the rise of jihadist forces in Iraq will threaten them sooner or later (indeed, this will probably happen sooner rather than later).
There are, then, plenty of local and regional actors that are strongly motivated to resist the rise of ISIS that the US and others can either actively or (in Iran’s case) passively support. The problem, of course, is that these actors often distrust each other and act at cross-purposes. An American diplomatic initiative, though, could help minimize these differences.
Essentially, what everyone needs to understand is that Iraq is simply too fractious to be successfully ruled by a strong central government. Instead, it can either exist as a federation, in which each of its three main communities has autonomy within the area of the country where it is the majority, or co-exist as three de facto, or even de jure, independent states. And, even if the borders between these three regions cannot be completely agreed upon, the areas of disagreement can be minimized and arrangements made to accommodate contested mixed areas in particular.
Those who object to cooperation with Iran on the basis that they are anti-American should be reminded that despite their differences, the US and Iran were able to cooperate to some extent against the Taliban in the early stages of the US-led intervention in Afghanistan, and that Iran gave more support to the US-backed Maliki government than any of Washington’s Sunni Arab allies. We have already proved, in other words, that we can cooperate pragmatically when our interests are at stake.
Those who object to cooperation with Saudi Arabia on the basis that it supported al-Qaeda elements in the past should be reminded that after al-Qaeda began launching attacks inside the kingdom in 2003, Riyadh well understood that Sunni jihadists will attack it when the opportunity arises.
Finally, those who object to cooperation with the Kurds on the basis that Turkey, among others, will object should be reminded that Turkey and the Kurdish Regional Authority in Northern Iraq have established a remarkable degree of economic cooperation, that Turkey has its own internal Sunni jihadist problem, and that a strong Kurdish government in Northern Iraq helps protect Turkey from ISIS or similar groups, which would probably attack Turkey from Iraq if they could.
ISIS will not prevail because it has suddenly grown much stronger. ISIS can prevail, though, if those who could work with one another to stop it fail to do so.
Photo: A screenshot from a video purportedly showing an execution of a man by ISIS.
This article was first published by LobeLog. Follow LobeLog on Twitter and like us on Facebook
]]>by Wayne White
The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS) has stunned Baghdad by overrunning most of Iraq’s second largest city in the north, Mosul. Yet, the Sunni Arab extremist group – in its zeal for a quick victory — may have overplayed its hand, sharply increasing the possibility of other [...]]]>
by Wayne White
The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS) has stunned Baghdad by overrunning most of Iraq’s second largest city in the north, Mosul. Yet, the Sunni Arab extremist group – in its zeal for a quick victory — may have overplayed its hand, sharply increasing the possibility of other parties entering the fray against it.
Reacting to the ongoing successes of Sunni Arab jihadists in Iraq, many wonder how the situation could have gotten this bad. By contrast, for several years now, I’ve been asking: “Why has it taken so long for Sunni Arabs to go on the warpath again?” Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, ruthlessly serving his narrow sectarian agenda, has made clear that Iraq’s Sunni Arab community has little stake in his Shi’a dominated Iraq. His policies have made Sunni Arab push-back (in essence a revival of the post-2003 war insurgency) inevitable. Although a way out of this crisis is unclear, Maliki is not part of the solution.
The rising ISIL threat
Since ISIL wrested Fallujah and parts of Ramadi from Iraqi government control in early January, Maliki’s security forces have failed to eliminate or even contain the militants. With its expansive attacks into other areas of Iraq’s Sunni Arab heartland, ISIL is now in a position to menace the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) enclave to the east, as well as locales farther south along Iraq’s central lines of communication, such as Samarra, Tikrit, and the key oil refining center of Baiji.
This dangerous challenge mounted by ISIL and some allied Sunni Arab tribal elements is not surprising. ISIL’s fortunes have waned in Syria in the face of Assad regime counterattacks and intense clashes with more moderate Syrian rebels. That’s why ISIL is pursuing potentially more fruitful opportunities across the border in a broad sweep of the predominantly Sunni Arab Iraqi territory adjoining Syria. The Sunni Arab minority there has grown steadily more embittered over its treatment by Maliki & his governments. Indeed, for over two years now, violent Sunni Arab resistance in Iraq (much of it having little to do with ISIL) has rebounded alarmingly, with nearly 9,000 Iraqis killed, mostly in violence ascribed to attacks by such militants, in 2013.
Maliki the enabler
Maliki and his hardline Shi’a cohorts prepared the ground for ISIL and other Sunni Arab jihadists. Even with Iraq on the brink of civil war and with sectarian cleansing tearing greater Baghdad apart in 2006-07, Maliki vigorously opposed the US deal with most Sunni Arab insurgents that took them out of the fight against the Coalition and turned them into allies against al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). This was the so-called “Sunni Arab Awakening”.
Worse still, in late 2008, Maliki actually tried to destroy an Awakening unit working with US forces west of Baghdad by sending Iraqi troops to attack them. US troops blocked the attack by placing themselves between their new Sunni Arab allies and Iraqi troops. On another occasion, Maliki arrested relatives of an Awakening leader in an attempt to force the latter’s surrender. Eventually, Maliki did agree, albeit reluctantly and only partially, to pay Awakening cadres and incorporate a limited number of them into the Iraqi security forces.
Maliki would later fall short of even those limited commitments, reneging on commitments to Awakening personnel and using special Iraqi security units operating under his own personal orders to arrest or assassinate Awakening leaders. Quite a few of those Sunni Arab prisoners subsequently disappeared into extrajudicial prisons run by Maliki and his cronies (just one of the abuses of power in which Maliki has engaged in recent years).
Maliki’s refusal to capitalize on Sunni Arab assistance brokered by the US was a missed opportunity of vast importance. Back in 2007-08, most Sunni Arabs were profoundly war weary after several years of bruising combat with US forces. As a result, a community previously determined to resist US forces and a government dominated by Iraqi Shi’a and Kurds, reluctantly accepted new realities. In exchange for ending their resistance and helping to battle AQI, Sunni Arabs expected a fair share of Iraq’s political pie, more government employment, and an appropriate slice of the country’s revenues. This, however, was not to be.
Securing a freer hand to deal with Iraq’s Sunni Arabs more harshly appears to have been one reason Maliki and his Iraqi allies backed away from the immunity agreement needed to allow a limited US military presence to remain behind after the American withdrawal. Both the Bush and Obama administrations tried and failed to secure this. Then, within 48 hours of the departure of the last US troops in mid-December 2011, Maliki had an arrest warrant issued against Iraq’s most senior Sunni Arab official, Deputy Prime Minister Tariq al-Hashemi, charging him with alleged involvement in “terrorism.”
Sunni Arab advantages
Following ISIL’s startling triumph in Mosul, many are asking why US training of Iraq’s security forces was not more effective. Yet, Maliki’s government cut short the hands-on, in-country work on the part of US advisors intended to complete that training — a major factor in the disappointing performance of government forces in Mosul. Another reason for the panic among Iraqi police and soldiers is rather sobering: in early fighting against ISIL and other jihadists by the Syrian Army, even elite, experienced Syrian units buckled in the face of such fanatical combatants.
Maliki also woefully underestimated Iraq’s Sunni Arabs (the same mistake made by the Bush administration in 2003 when it cast aside the Sunni Arab establishment and initially downplayed the insurgency). The challenge facing Iraqi government forces now is extremely dangerous: in heavy fighting during 2003-06, even US forces could not crush the post-invasion Sunni Arab insurgency.
The Sunni Arab minority had held sway over Iraq, politically and militarily, not only since independence in 1932 until Saddam Hussein’s fall, but far earlier during Iraq’s time as a province of the Sunni Ottoman Empire. So until Saddam was ousted, Sunni Arabs comprised most of the Iraqi officer corps and the army’s most elite formations. More broadly, as a ruling class, enhanced Sunni Arab access to wealth and education enabled them to dominate key professional fields and governance. Although out of power now, this community still represents a potent force, especially with its back to the wall in the face of grievances and exclusion.
Maliki needs to go
After years of spurning Sunni Arab cooperation, hounding Sunni Arabs out of governance, and turning Sunni Arabs into 2nd class citizens, Maliki is part of the problem, not the solution. Various pundits are urging that he make an “Awakening” like deal with Sunni Arab tribes, but his longstanding hostility toward the Sunni Arab community has left him badly discredited.
In the April 30 Iraqi parliamentary elections, Maliki made a strong showing, so a 3rd term as prime minister seems certain. Yet he was over 70 seats short of a majority, and has not yet succeeded in pulling together a coalition government.
In the current crisis, the largely Shi’a parties Maliki has partnered with in the past may rally around him instinctively. There is also, ironically, a misperception among many within Iraq’s majority Shi’a community that Maliki is the only reliable bulwark against Sunni Arab violence (despite his leading role in feeding it). By contrast, in recent years more savvy Kurdish leaders became increasingly concerned over Maliki’s polarizing policies — including problems with the Kurds over oil exports and territory.
Enter Iran?
The burning question now is: what can be done to take back ISIL’s gains. In response to ISIL’s seizure of Fallujah, the Obama administration provided drones, Hellfire air-to-ground missiles, stepped up delivery of combat aircraft, and additional intelligence. Clearly, that was not nearly enough. What is needed most at this point, with the Iraq Army sagging, are additional and more reliable “boots on the ground.” This, however, appears unlikely to happen in terms of the US or its most capable allies.
There is another possibility: Iranian intervention. Maliki’s government and the two dominant Kurdish militias in the KRG have close ties to Iran. While the US and other Western states have been concerned about Iranian influence in Iraq, ISIL’s gains have now alarmed Tehran. Just today, Iranian officials reflected this deep concern and called for the international community to address the crisis. The foreign ministry also indicated Iran’s willingness to assist Iraq in confronting “terrorism.”
In 1996, one Kurdish militia requested and received robust Iranian Revolutionary Guard intervention to help repel its leading rival. If ISIL and affiliated Sunni Arab combatants move against the KRG, or continue their advance south toward Baghdad advance, the KRG, Maliki, or both might feel compelled to request the commitment of Iranian ground forces.
This article was first published by LobeLog.
Photo: An undated image posted on a militant website in January shows fighters from the extremist Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIL, marching in Raqqa, Syria.
by Wayne White
The reverberations of the desperate war inside Syria have increasingly radiated outward. In addition to the massive Syrian refugee exodus, Lebanon and Iraq in particular have been impacted adversely by heightened instability and violence. Yet actions associated with both have only increased their vulnerability. By contrast, the Turks [...]]]>
by Wayne White
The reverberations of the desperate war inside Syria have increasingly radiated outward. In addition to the massive Syrian refugee exodus, Lebanon and Iraq in particular have been impacted adversely by heightened instability and violence. Yet actions associated with both have only increased their vulnerability. By contrast, the Turks and Iraq’s northern Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) have boldly ramped up their mutual cooperation, in part to form a common front to counter an unwelcome rival Kurdish alliance taking shape inside Syria.
Despite rising violence in Lebanon, so far Iraq has been the most heavily affected overall of Syria’s neighbors. In addition to the almost daily backdrop of horrific bombings and attacks by gunmen on Shi’a and government-related targets (like those of Dec. 16 killing 65), there has been a surge in execution-style killings and beheadings, with bodies dumped in various locales (characteristic of the dark days of the 2006-2008 sectarian violence). Recently, Iranian workers on a gas pipeline in north central Iraq were also the objects of a massacre. Al-Qaeda associated elements have been the prime culprits, but Shi’a militias have become more active as well.
With more than 8,000 Iraqis already dead this year from extremist violence, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari warned earlier this month of more danger from a jihadist “Islamic emirate” that could take hold in much of Syria. Yet, the Baghdad government’s own marginalization and persecution of Iraq’s Sunni Arab community under Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has been the leading cause for the powerful revival of Sunni Arab extremism in Iraq and its close linkage to the parallel phenomenon in Syria.
Meanwhile, hardline Grand Ayatollah Kazim al-Haeri (who has inspired Shi’a militias in Iraq for years) issued a fatwa on Dec. 15 pronouncing “fighting in Syria legitimate” and declaring those who die there “martyrs.” This fatwa probably will send many more Iraqi Shi’a into Syria to join over a thousand already believed to be fighting for the regime. But it also could intensify seething sectarian tensions within Iraq.
Other notable developments affecting Iraq, however, involve its northern Kurdish Regional Government (KRG). KRG President Masoud Barzani made his first visit to Turkey in any capacity since 1992 in mid-November. The obvious aim was to support Turkish President Erdogan’s peace efforts focused on the extremist Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) as well as to help Ergodan secure more Kurdish favor in Turkey’s March 2014 municipal elections.
Such high-profile assistance from Iraq’s Kurds would seem odd but for two other pressing matters. First, both Turkey and the KRG were alarmed by the declaration before Barzani’s visit by Kurdish militias in northeastern Syria of an interim administration for an autonomous Kurdish region there. Although repressed in the pre-civil war era, these militias are believed to have made their move with the approval of the Syrian government, and to have received aid from Assad’s allies, Iran and the Maliki government (relationships both Erdogan and Barzani oppose). Moreover, the Iraqi Kurds and the Turks fear the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD), with links to the radical PKK, is behind the recent unity move.
For Damascus, any such agreement probably represents a cynical wartime concession of iffy standing simply to harness the bulk of Syria’s 2 million Kurds against anti-regime Sunni Arab rebels. Support from the regime probably also made possible the only UN airlift of winter relief supplies for any area outside government control into this predominantly Kurdish region. The only other airlifts to rebel areas associated with the Syrian regime have involved bombs.
Syrian Kurdish militias have been battling various rebels for over a year. On Dec. 13, cadres of the al-Qaeda linked Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) reportedly seized 120 Syrian Kurdish hostages near the Turkish border north of Aleppo, the latest of a number of such kidnappings. There has also been heavy skirmishing between the ISIL and extremist al-Nusra Front rebels and Syrian Kurdish militias along the edges of the Kurdish-controlled zone.
The second key driver in Barzani’s and Erdogan’s warming ties is oil. For years, Maliki’s government has been at odds with Barzani’s KRG over the KRG’s efforts to award its own contracts for large-scale oil and gas exports. KRG patience may have run out. In late November, Turkey and the KRG apparently came close to finalizing a comprehensive oil and gas deal — the latest move in Ankara’s cooperation with the KRG that has angered Baghdad.
Turkish Energy Minister Taner Yildiz assured Iraqi officials on Dec. 1 that “any exports must be with the approval of the Iraqi government.” But with Iraq still balking over fears of greater KRG autonomy, the Turks and the KRG are keeping the pressure up; on Dec. 13, test flows of limited amounts of KRG crude were sent through a new pipeline already completed to carry Iraqi Kurdish exports Turkey sorely needs to diversify its energy dependence and secure oil and gas at a likely discount.
Lebanon has been paying ever more dearly for the ongoing sectarian violence just across its lengthy Syrian border and Hezbollah’s military intervention in Syria. Indeed, given Lebanon’s own complex sectarian mosaic, overspill was inevitable, with an ongoing litany of clashes, killings, threats, and squaring off otherwise among Sunni, Alawite and Shi’a communities radiating out from the border.
Tensions and sectarian violence, however, also have been rising in core areas of Lebanon. In the northern city of Tripoli, with a majority Sunni Arab community, a Lebanese soldier died and 7 others were wounded in a Dec. 5 clash with extremists sympathetic to the Syrian rebels. More than 100 have died in Tripoli so far this year in gun battles and a bombing pitting Sunni militants against the army, the police, Tripoli’s minority Alawite community, or Lebanese Shi’a elements. As a result, Lebanon’s caretaker Prime Minister, Najib Mikati, recently turned security there over to the army for 6 months.
Probably most damaging for Lebanon has been Hezbollah’s intervention in Syria, sending thousands of seasoned fighters to reinforce those of the Assad regime. Hundreds of its combatants have been killed in action, and heavily Shi’a-populated areas of Beirut in particular (home to many Hezbollah fighters) have not simply remained a quiet “home front” away from Hezbollah’s war across the border.
Bombings like the one against the Iranian Embassy in Beirut and nearby buildings on Nov. 19, which killed two dozen, have hammered Shi’a neighborhoods. On Dec. 4, a Hezbollah commander back from the Syrian front, Hassan al-Liqqis, was gunned down in front of his residence. Hezbollah blamed the Israelis, but it is more likely he was another victim of rising home-grown violence. Today, Hezbollah claims it thwarted an attempted car bombing believed to have been aimed at one of its bases in the largely Hezbollah-controlled Bekaa Valley 20 miles east of Beirut.
Many assumed through the 1st year of the Syrian conflict that refugees would comprise the main burden faced by Syria’s neighbors, but the savagery and destruction wrought by the Syrian regime especially magnified even that challenge far beyond early worse-case scenarios. The virtual explosion of the rebel al-Qaeda factor, Hezbollah’s robust intervention, and the anti-rebel stance taken — or forced upon — most of Syria’s Kurds was not foreseen. All this further complicates ongoing efforts to find some path out of the Hellish Syrian maelstrom, be they Western efforts to oust Assad & Co. or the recently revived international efforts to bring the parties together for talks in Geneva. All things considered, the prospects for an effective way forward out of this crisis remain grim.
]]>