17 Nov , 2014
Over the decades, US policy across West Asia has been devoid of vision and foresight. President Obama has recently conceded that his administration does not have a strategy to combat the ISIS. What would be the appropriate military response in a given zone? Who could be called upon as coalition partners? What kind of financial resources under given budgetary and political constraints can be apportioned to troubled areas? All these remain a big question mark. Acting unilaterally without a coalition of partners would steal policy objectives of their legitimacy. Not being able to balance the level of proximity with the enemy’s enemy (the Bashar al Assad regime, or Iran) is a lump in the throat. Glaring examples of the above are clearly visible with regard to its strategic planning, or lack of the same, pertaining to Iraq and Iran.
Iraq was invaded in 2003 by the United States and its allies on the pretext that it was holding weapons of mass destruction, which imperilled the security of its neighbours. That this charge was without any substance was acknowledged by none other than the UN, besides the US itself.
The US and its allies are responsible for the birth of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) now referred to as the ‘Islamic State’.
Iraq’s invasion happened on 19 March 2003. Ten years later, a comprehensive analysis has startled even diehard conservative estimators of the magnitude of human and monetary loss resulting from the invasion. According to findings revealed in a report, the war has killed 190,000 people, including men and women in uniform, contractors and civilians, and has cost the US $2.2 trillion, a figure that far exceeds the initial 2002 estimates by US Office of the Management and Budget of about $60 billion.1
The significant mistakes the US made during early months of occupation – according to another report – were not being able to provide sufficient security for the system to work smoothly and transferring power to Iraqis in a way that it gives them unquestioned legitimacy, thus giving those with the newly acquired power an axe to grind, feather their own nests and promote their own agendas.
This report counselled against disbanding the Iraqi army (a move which has brought in wide criticism of the Bush administration); instead, it proposed that the uppermost leadership be removed – while maintaining the bulk of Iraq’s military. This, in effect, promoted the sectarian divide within the military.
With respect to governing Iraq, the panel cautioned against imposing a post-conflict government dominated by exiled Iraqi opposition leaders. Yet, ignoring the above advice, the Bush administration fashioned a ‘transitional consultative body’, i.e., the Iraqi Governing Council stacked with Iraqi exiles, who were viewed by ordinary Iraqis as largely unrepresentative.
The then US secretary of state Henry Kissinger had no qualms in encouraging Iran’s nascent nuclear programme.
The drafters of the above report had also recommended measures to upgrade the decaying oil sector so that the resulting increased profits could be equitably disbursed among the citizens at large. However, this was not done.2
A Misreading of Iran
As regards Iran, it was the CIA, in conjunction with British intelligence, which masterminded the overthrow of the then Iranian prime minister Mohammed Mossadegh and the consequent regime change which installed Shah Mohammed Reza Pehelvi (popularly titled the Shah of Iran). This reign, over the decades, brought about an intense hatred for the West among common Iranians, eventually leading to the Shah being exiled to Egypt.3
Iran has been designated by the United States as an ‘axis of evil’ and one stubbornly resisting to honour its obligations under the nonproliferation treaty (NPT). Ironically, it was none other than the US that signed with Iran the US-Iran nuclear agreement for civil uses of atomic energy as a part of Eisenhower’s atoms for peace programme. The accord helped Iran procure from the US several kilograms of enriched uranium, which, in fact, became the turning point for Iran’s ambitions to develop nuclear weapons, which the international community is now attempting to stem.4 It was President Gerald R. Ford who authorised the fabrication of US-supplied material into fuel in Iran for use in its own reactors. The then US secretary of state Henry Kissinger had no qualms in encouraging Iran’s nascent nuclear programme.
Could Iran have achieved the level and sophistication of nuclear technology without the initial help and encouragement of the US? Perhaps not. But the important point is the US has consistently and completely ignored what it perceives, even today, as its ‘geostrategic futuristic concerns’ by helping Iran tread the path it did and years later pressurising Iran to reverse course.
According to the UN high commissioner for refugees, nearly 1 million Sunni refugees have fled to Lebanon
Iran has all along fielded a formidable power block along with Syria and Hezbollah to protect its geostrategic concerns. To counter this, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Qatar have suitably fire-walled themselves. Egypt has, depending on its regime and exigencies of the situation, either sided with the US or not found favour with it. The Abdel Fattah el Sisi regime, for example, before the current Iraqi crisis, was the bête noire of the US since it was perceived by the US not to have been in perfect consonance of what according to the US constitutes democracy.
However, now when the Israeli-Palestinian crisis has gone from bad to worse, there appears to have been no better interlocutor facilitating negotiations than Egypt and, therefore, it has become the recipient of US accolades.
The Baath Party under the leadership of Saddam Hussain was an effective check for what is seen as Iran’s hegemony in the region. If Tehran and its militias could, at that time, be kept at bay by Baghdad, it was solely due to the political craftsmanship and an inclusive style of governance by him, though on many occasions, it turned ruthlessly cruel. The radical departure in the structure and style of governance from that time till Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki took charge in Iraq was detrimental, to say the least, to its composite character, and from then on, to the present, when prime minister Haider al Abadi has assumed office, augers well. Though incidents like an attack on a Sunni mosque in Diyala province, which took several lives, could put parleys for an inclusive government into jeopardy.5
The US and its allies are responsible for the birth of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) now referred to as the ‘Islamic State’.
The Bush administration relentlessly followed its intentions to curb Iran’s efforts in checkmating US Sunni allies, such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait. In pursuance of the above objective, the US encouraged the flow of militants, arms and funds to Syria, Iraq and Lebanon to contain Iran and Hezbollah. Hence, to all intents and purposes, the ‘Islamic State’ is a creation of the US and its Persian Gulf allies, even if by accident and not design.
The ISIS was primarily formed to take on the Americans after the latter invaded Iraq. This outfit was initially called al-Qaeda in Iraq, but their indiscriminate violence against fellow Muslims alienated them from a reviled al-Qaeda.
Donor’s in Kuwait have taken advantage of the country’s weak financial structure to channel hundreds of millions of dollars to a host of Syrian rebel brigades according to a December 2013 report of the Brookings Institution.6
Further, to undermine Iran and Syria, the Bush administration had no qualms in cooperating with Saudi government-promoted radicals based in Lebanon.7
The fact that the Nouri al Maliki government had permitted its airspace to be used by Iranian aircraft to dispatch military supplies to bolster the Assad regime, besides sending Shia militias to Syria, had also irked the US. US intelligence officials have disclosed to the US Congress that Lebanon will continue to experience sectarian violence among Lebanese and terrorist attacks by Sunni extremists and Hezbollah, which are targeting each other’s interests. Increased frequency and the lethality of violence in Lebanon could erupt into sustained and widespread fighting. The civil war in neighbouring Syria is destabilising Lebanon. According to the UN high commissioner for refugees, nearly 1 million Sunni refugees have fled to Lebanon.8
Al-Qaeda and the ISIS
The ideological incongruities between the al-Qaeda and the ISIS are insignificantly superficial in order to be exploited by elements that want a united Iraq (the US being one such). The ISIS was primarily formed to take on the Americans after the latter invaded Iraq. This outfit was initially called al-Qaeda in Iraq, but their indiscriminate violence against fellow Muslims alienated them from a reviled al-Qaeda.
However, the underlying Salafist-Wahhabi Islam binds them together. Their hatred for Shias is no less than for non-Muslims – both being ‘infidels’.
Interestingly, Kurds, even though with a different ethno-cultural strain, are several notches higher in their esteem.
The rampaging blitzkrieg of the ISIS has united its Syrian-dominated areas with those in Iraq. American intelligence officials are convinced that the ISIS could never be defeated without an attack on its Syrian bases. The ISIS posted a video depicting the grotesque decapitation of the US freelance journalist James Foley, for whose release a ransom of $132 million was made. This episode has startled even the US defence secretary Chuck Hagel, who has said:
These trained foot soldiers will be used in terror/fidayeen attacks not only in India but also in Syria, Iraq or any part of the ISIS-proposed Caliphate.
‘They’re beyond just a terrorist group. They marry ideology, a sophistication of strategic and tactical military prowess. They are tremendously well-funded. This is beyond anything we have seen.’9
Another US journalist Peter Theo Curtis, being held captive by Jabhat al Nusra, was more lucky. According to Al Jazeera, this gentleman owes his life to Qatari mediation. It had all along been feared that he would meet the same fate as Foley.
The fact that Qatar played a crucial role in the release of Curtis has reinforced the US strategic rationale of its proximity to Sunni nations. President Obama has ordered surveillance flights over Syria in order to gain intelligence over the activities of the ISIS. Cities such as Raqqa are ideal an ‘attack launch pad’ for ISIS strongholds, and they will attract greater reconnaissance. However, the US initiative as regards aerial attacks in Iraq were a trifle late since this delay permitted the mass forced conversions and massacre of the Yazidis, Christians and Shias in ISIScaptured zones.
ISIS scounts and recruits in India
An utterly disturbing news broadcast by a TV channel has revealed that the National Investigation Agency has prepared a dossier which reinforces the much-feared apprehension that the ISIS has already recruited some 300 young men from the states of Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Karnataka. The recruits are being indoctrinated and trained by the Tehreeke- Taliban Pakistan under the oversight and supervision of Ansar ul Tawhid. This group promotes global jihad and is the main source of inspiration for the ISIS. These trained foot soldiers will be used in terror/fidayeen attacks not only in India but also in Syria, Iraq or any part of the ISIS-proposed Caliphate. The newly inducted recruits are routinely whisked away from India via Singapore. India, therefore, runs the risk of multiple devastating terror strikes unless it meticulously intensifies its intelligence.10
A worrying characteristic of the Islamic State leaders is mass indoctrination and extensive use of the social media. The outfit has networked so extensively that many nations across Asia, Europe, Africa and North America, notably the United States and Canada have contributed to its cadres. How this outfit has scouted for women and children (many of whom are being used as suicide bombers) is a cause for significant concern internationally. Oil revenue from conquered zones is an important source of funding, other sources being extortion, ransom, loot, etc.
Syria’s Border with Turkey
Damascus and Ankara, which share a long, porous border, have for most part had a troubled relationship owing to a variety of factors, such as territorial claims and counterclaims. Both countries claim the territory covering Hatay Province annexed by Turkey in 1939. Water resources, particularly the dispute relating to the south-eastern Anatolla project, have also been an irritant. Military skirmishes, including shooting down of each other’s aircraft, have taken place from time to time. Ever since the civil war in Syria, refugees in large numbers have taken sanctuary in the border areas. Turkey has dispatched arms and fighters to rebel groups, such as Jabhat al Nusra, who have put up a stiff resistance against the Bashar al Assad regime. Many extremists who have infiltrated from other countries to fight in Syrian rebel strongholds could never have got access there without Turkey being complicit in the mission. However, currently taking stock of atrocities being committed by the Islamic State, Turkey has decided to scrupulously prevent the entry of anti-Syrian rebels – this has been done in conjunction with countries such as France, which have also cracked down on people going to Syria to aid the rebels there.
Many extremists who have infiltrated from other countries to fight in Syrian rebel strongholds could never have got access there without Turkey being complicit in the mission.
Turkey has stepped up its detentions of suspected foreign fighters and their deportation. Syria’s support to Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), a party which has functioned counter to Turkey’s national interests, has also irked Ankara. The PKK has been declared a terrorist organisation by Turkey, the US and the European Union. Many of the Turkish Kurds are fighting in Iraq against the Islamic State. In a lighter vein, one Iraqi Kurd has said he thanks the Islamic State for consolidating the Turks and, in turn, reaffirming their stand for a sovereign state. Following the Arab Spring, Turkey has suspended diplomatic contact with Syria. As a strong ally of the United States, Turkey should ensure that its policy initiatives never go against US interests – the US does not have a fail-safe policy to ensure this. During the Cold War years, the shared concern was the threat from the USSR.
The US has already covertly assisted the Assad regime by providing the intelligence details about the exact location of jihadi areas bordering Iraq and Syria through the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), i.e., the German intelligence service which has facilitated Syrian air and artillery attacks on rebel targets.
The Western-backed Free Syrian Army is very weak and marginalised as against the motivated jihadi groups like Jabhat al Nusra, Ahrar al Sham and the Islamic Front. It was a grave misconception for the US to assume that strengthening ‘moderate’ anti-Assad groups would help Western interests. In the civil war in Syria, the line dividing the socalled moderates from the hard-core jihadists is virtually non-existent. The Islamic State to the extent it counters Assad in Syria is perceived to be helpful to the US and Turkey. However, the same Islamic State is harmful to US interests in Iraq. The US seems to have realised this mistake rather late. It is this realisation which is prompting it to target the Islamic State strongholds in Syria.
Initially, Mr. Nechivan Barzan, the prime minister of Kurdistan Autonomous Region, had minced no words in stating, ‘Kurdish Peshmerga forces will not help the Iraqi army to retake the city of Mosul from militant jihadis.’ He also called on Iraqi Sunni Arabs to assert their autonomy.
Over 70 per cent of the $12 billion trade between Iraq and Turkey is through the Kurdish region. There are some 1,500 Turkish companies engaged in bilateral trade.
Kurds Offer Deterrent
However, the Kurds did eventually offer bitter resistance to the ISIS and were able to retrieve large parts of territory where the Iraqi army had earlier offered a meek surrender. So much so that they retook complete control of Iraq’s largest hydroelectric project –Mosul Dam, after ousting the ISIS fighters. This dam supplies water and electricity to northern Iraq, and there had been fears that ISIS militants could bombard it to flood areas downstream. Ground forces, supported by US air strikes, prevented this from happening. Hoshyar Zebari, a Kurd and till recently Iraq’s foreign minister, has said the Peshmerga troops had encountered fierce resistance in the battle for the dam. Had this feat not been achieved, a flooddestroyed Iraq would have rendered the ISIS march to Baghdad much easier.10 Of course, much of Iraq would also have been starved of power supplies.
Interestingly enough, the West Asian dynamics will undergo dramatic changes with an independent Kurdistan formed. Take the contiguous nations: Turkey in the north will definitely not like a mass exodus of Iraqi Kurds to team up with its own Kurds and multiply the prevailing chaos on its borders and thereby plausibly imperil its membership of the European Union. Fortunately, thus far, this does not appear to be happening.
Over 70 per cent of the $12 billion trade between Iraq and Turkey is through the Kurdish region. There are some 1,500 Turkish companies engaged in bilateral trade. In theory, Ankara supports the Kurdistan government. Israel would be rendered more secure since the Kurdish region would provide it a buffer.
The US could not have done better than to have taken on board the Russian suggestion that there are ways and means of pressurising Syria to abandon its chemical weapons. It was not easy.
How elements in Syria impact Iraq
The view that the ISIS could never have spread its tentacles as far as the interiors of Iraq if its bases in Syria had been contained in good time has some merit. But there is hardly any merit in the widely prevailing US view that had the US imposed a no-fly zone over Syria in 2011, the moderate anti-Assad elements would by themselves have been so strong as not to have yielded any space to Sunni extremists, such as the ISIS. Other groups, such as the Jabhat al Nusra, were hardly a match to the ISIS besides being rivals of sorts. A no-fly zone in 2011 would not have been either a sound military response or a sound diplomatic one. Says a military expert Anthony Cordsman, ‘For a no fly zone to succeed it has to be at least serious enough that Assad can not fly fighters or helicopters without losing them, or, without losing the bases from which they operate.’ But at that time, there was no certainty relating to the above. The fear, on the other hand, was the likely losses to the US.
The Pentagon believed a no-fly zone over Syria would be more dangerous for US pilots than the one launched against Libya. Said Dick Cheney, ‘Syria has a fairly sophisticated anti-air capability, sophisticated ground to air missiles.’ Besides, there was also no real provocation from Syria, unlike the one from Qaddafi. Bashar al Assad was not bombing his cities with jets from the air.
Diplomatically, the US was isolated, there being no Arab League resolution, or even one from the UN Security Council, endorsing such a move. Furthermore, Russia and China were against Western intervention.11
The US could not have done better than to have taken on board the Russian suggestion that there are ways and means of pressurising Syria to abandon its chemical weapons. It was not easy. After all, Syria’s chemical attack on the rebel stronghold of eastern Ghoula had taken a toll of 1,500 lives. However, as per the latest information, the US officials have confirmed that the Syrian government’s chemical weapons cache has been successfully destroyed. But a new threat has emerged; it is suspected that the Islamic State has taken control of small chemical stockpiles. 12
If this information is credible, the implications could be catastrophic. There are reports that the ISIS has stolen radioactive isotopes from Mosul University. While a chemical agent can’t be made from them, they could be used to make a dirty bomb.13
There are reports that the ISIS has stolen radioactive isotopes from Mosul University.
Syria has already got unsettled by the ISIS (since the latter was proactive in Syria long before it entered Iraq). The latest Islamic State attack on an airbase in Raqqa province, which witnessed the mass executions of 250 Syrian soldiers trying to flee before being caught, presents a frightening scenario and should trigger an immediate US-coalition air strike, preferably with Syrian help.
Any action which the US and its coalition partners take in Syria must, at least, have its tacit support. Damascus has warned Washington against any unilateral action in Syria. As for Jordan, it is an unorthodox modern Islamic State and has never been a threat either to Israel or the West, and unfortunately, if the ISIS spreads its tentacles in Jordan, it will strike a devastating blow to Israel. Saudi Arabia and Qatar are major sponsors of the ISIS and would like the imminent fall of the present Shiadominated Baghdad regime unless the US can persuade these nations to alter their strategic calculations factoring in Iraq’s political changes. In fact, this is exactly what the US should do.
Iran is in a position to clear up the mess in Iraq, but the riders it will put on the US for such help will be too pricey for the US, even though US secretary of state John Kerry has not ruled out help from Iran. How far would Tel Aviv like Iran’s interference in Iraq is a moot point to ponder.
As has been the experience from nations which have witnessed the Arab Spring, no US-dictated ‘democratic framework’ will fit the bill in any of the troubled areas the US has much to answer for the present crisis…
Conclusion
From Israeli viewpoint, the Kurds are regarded as moderate secular Muslims who have, over the centuries, been victims of Arab chauvinism. Tel Aviv firmly believes that an independent Kurdistan will not be an obstacle for Jewish self-determination. Interestingly, the Kurds, who have had trade relations with Israel since 1960, have just commenced oil exports. Israeli president Shimon Peres has told President Obama, ‘The Kurds have de facto created their own state, which is democratic, one of the signs of democracy is granting of equality to women.’
Since Israel is surrounded by unfriendly neighbours, a Greater Kurdistan offers a strategic buffer to Tel Aviv, and Kurds being a more benign version of Sunnis, an independent Kurd nation augers well for Israel.
As has been the experience from nations which have witnessed the Arab Spring, no US-dictated ‘democratic framework’ will fit the bill in any of the troubled areas the US has much to answer for the present crisis in Lebanon, where Palestinian groups such as Jund al Sham and Fateh al Islam are a threat to state security. It has been found that members of these outfits are functioning in sync with Jabhat al Nusra and the ISIS, in effect destroying the composite character of Lebanon, which is home to Shias, Sunnis Alawites and Druz besides a host of orthodox Christians. US strategic interests lie in consolidating the secular forces; the same palliative would work wonders for Syria.14
Currently, opinion in Saudi Arabia is divided on the merits of a US led Nato intervention in Syria and Iraq to counter the ISIS. King Abdullah Ibn Abdilaziz of Saudi Arabia has warned that jihadists could target the US and Europe if leaders across the globe do not react to growing terrorist threats, the implication being a recommendation for military intervention. Saudis countering their king’s views are fearful because of the revolt against Abdullah al Aziz by the Wahhabist Ikhwan (not the one from the Muslim Brotherhood).15
…Iran cooperated with the US in Afghanistan by arming and supporting the Northern Alliance. This partnership was crucial in the defeat of Taliban by the US and its allies.
The Saudi Arabian king’s statement is a positive development. If Qatar can also be persuaded to fall in line, a powerful initiative to curtail the flow of arms and funds could be put in place. At the same time, Tehran’s security has to be ensured, but definitely never at the cost of Israel or even Palestine. In the broad matrix of divergent vested interests, the US has to play a balancing role with a farsighted view. It is indeed a tall order, but there are no easy options.
Will the US and Iraq bury the Hatchet?
The Obama administration has for the first time, a few days back, indicated that it is willing to enter into discussions with Iran over the present crisis in Iraq but has stressed that any contact between the two adversaries would be informal. An earlier suggestion by the US secretary of state John Kerry that military collaboration was a possibility was subsequently rejected. It was made clear that any contact between the two countries would be limited to informal discussions that would take place on the margins of the nuclear talks in Vienna. However, Iran’s president Hassan Rouhani has not ruled out working with the US against the ISIS.
It may be recalled that in 2011, Iran cooperated with the US in Afghanistan by arming and supporting the Northern Alliance. This partnership was crucial in the defeat of Taliban by the US and its allies.
Britain has already intensified its security and initiated measures to prevent people from travelling to Iraq and Syria to fight alongside the ISIS. British Islamic clerics have condemned the ISIS barbarism. These measures, though praiseworthy, are slightly delayed.16
Notes and References
1. Brown University, Watson Institute for International Studies. ‘Costs of War Project.’ 14 March 2013.
2. R. Bronson, E. P. Djerejian, A. S. Weiss and F. J. Wisner. ‘Guiding Principles for Post US Conflict in Iraq.’ Report of an independent working group.
3. New York Times, 20 August 1953.
4. New York Times, 5 March 1957.
5. New York Times, 24 August 2014.
6. Daily Beast, 14 June 2014.
7. Tony Cartalucci. Global Research. 18 June 2014.
8. Christopher M. Blanchard, specialist in Middle East affairs. Congressional Research Service.
9. BBC News (Middle East), 22 August 2014.
10. Times Now, 29 August 2014.
11. (a) Mark Thompson. Time Magazine, 13 June 2013 (b) Informed Comment, 29 October 2011
12. Fox News, 22 August 2014.
13. Karen Leigh. World Crunch, 25 August 2014.
14. Casey L. Addis. ‘Lebanon: Background and US Relations.’ Congressional Research Service, 19 January 2011.
15. Alastair Crooke. ‘You Can’t Understand ISIS If You Don’t Know the History of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia.’ Huffington Post, 28 August 2014.
16. BBC News, 5 September 2014.
The views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily represent the opinions or policies of the Indian Defence Review.
Postgraduate in business management from XLRI Jamshedpur, is widely travelled and immensely interested in and concerned about contemporary geostrategic developments. He has been a China watcher and has researched extensively on Asia-Pacific affairs. He has also written on developments in Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Maldives.
No comments:
Post a Comment