Iraq update 06/16/2014

Desperate times: Kerry says US ready to turn to Iran, drone strikes, to fight ISIS

US Secretary of State John Kerry says that Washington is ready to use radical measures to halt the ISIS offensive in Iraq – including enlisting Iran’s help and launching air strikes.

RT,

16 June, 2014

"We're open to discussions if there is something constructive that can be contributed by Iran, if Iran is prepared to do something that is going to respect the integrity and sovereignty of Iraq," the diplomat told Yahoo News on Monday when questioned about joining forces with Iran, which enjoys religious ties with the embattled government in Baghdad.

But Kerry warned that the US should “see what Iran might or might not be willing to do before we start making any pronouncements."

Later, the State Department and the Pentagon clarified that any joint action would be political and not military. 
"There is absolutely no intention and no plan to coordinate military activity between the United States and Iran...there are no plans to have consultations with Iran about military activities in Iraq,” said Pentagon spokesman Rear Admiral John Kirby.

The Al-Qaeda offshoot ISIS (or ISIL) – the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant – has pushed from its strongholds on the Syrian border and taken the major urban centers of Mosul and Tikrit over the past week. Its militias are currently stationed on the outskirts of Baghdad, where the government is staging a counter-offensive. Over the weekend, it claimed to have executed 1,700 loyalist officers. 
“This is a challenge to the stability of the region. It is obviously an existential challenge to Iraq itself. This is a terrorist group,” Kerry said of ISIS, a Sunni organization which has exploited the sectarian tensions partially incited by the hardline Shia policies of the current government.

The diplomat heavily criticized Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, but said the US will not be “issuing instructions or orders” for him to resign or share power. He did, however, call on the “Iraqi people to form a government that represents all of the interests of Iraq — not one sectarian group over another."

Nonetheless, Kerry reiterated previous statements saying that the US would consider using air strikes – whether manned or unmanned – to prevent Baghdad from being taken by extremists. 
"They're not the whole answer, but they may well be one of the options that are important," said Kerry. "I wouldn't rule out anything that would be constructive."

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry (Reuters/Gary Cameron)

The diplomat said that President Barack Obama is conducting "a very thorough vetting of every option that is available."

Obama previously said the US would avoid a direct military intervention in the country it invaded in 2003 and left only three years ago.

Kerry echoed concerns by other US politicians that the growing might of ISIS – which plundered US$425 million from a government vault in Mosul last week and enjoys generous funding from Wahhabis in the Arabian peninsula – is endangering American national security.

ISIS “clearly are focused not just there, but they’re focused on trying to do harm to Europe, to America and other people, and that’s why we believe it is so important for us to be engaged."

Kerry said the organization counted fighters from the US, Australia, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, and the Netherlands in its ranks – and that those could later return to their home countries to stage terrorist acts.

Iran + US = a far-fetched plan?

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani (AFP Photo/Atta Kenare)


While the idea that Washington and Tehran may work alongside each other is a testament to the thawing of relations between recent adversaries, it currently seems unlikely that the initiative will bear fruit.

The two countries share a genuine strategic interest in keeping the Maliki government afloat (though their motives for doing so are fundamentally different) and Western media outlets have reported that the Islamic Republic has already dispatched elite Revolutionary Guards troops to buffer the Iraqi government, citing Iraqi and American officials.

But Iran has denied any military involvement in its neighbor’s conflict, as the head of the country’s Supreme National Security Council, Ali Shamkhani, publicly rebuffed the US offer, calling it “unrealistic.”

The two countries are also locked in tense late-stage negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program and potential sanctions relief. On Monday, the State Department released a statement saying that while it will discuss Iraq with Iranian officials at upcoming talks in Vienna, it is reluctant to link the two issues together.

A very jaundiced view of Putin and Lavrov's consistent view of American foreign policy and admission that they were right.

Russia on Iraq: ‘We told you so’

Washington Post,

12 June, 2014

As the situation in Iraq begins to looks more and more like a complete state meltdown, Russia has stepped in with a familiar refrain: "We told you so."

"We are greatly alarmed by what is happening in Iraq. We warned long ago that the affair that the Americans and the Britons stirred up there wouldn't end well," Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Wednesday,according to Voice of Russia. He also described the Iraq war as a "total failure" and said Russia was sorry that its forecasts had come true.

It's hard to deny that Russia was vocal in saying that the Iraq war was a bad idea. In March 2003, just as the invasion began, Russian President Vladimir Putin publicly criticized it. It was the "most serious crisis the world has faced since the Cold War," he told the Duma, adding that the fighting would be "fierce" and "drawn out."

At that point, it was a somewhat surprising move (remember, we were then less than three years into the Putin era, now in its 15th year). These days, we're pretty used to Russian criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, and the finger wagging that comes afterward: Russia loves to remind the United States that it warned against its international follies.

For example, when the U.S. diplomatic mission in the Libyan city of Benghazi was attacked in 2012, claiming the life of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, the immediate reaction across Russia was neatly summed up by the New York Times' Ellen Barry as "We told you so." And even after the Boston Marathon was bombed by two Chechens last year, killing three people and injuring dozens, Russia again responded pretty much with "We told you so," the New Republic's Julia Ioffe noted at the time. "Putin has repeatedly said there is no such thing as our terrorists and somebody else’s,” Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said. “One must not differentiate between them, deal with some and condemn others."

There's an obvious logic here. Russia's repeated use of "We told you so" also allows it to say: "You didn't listen to us then, so you should listen to us now." Putin has brought up his warnings against intervention in Libya and Iraq as a way to defend his positions on Syria.

Even so, it's tempting to look at Russia's positions on various conflicts and wonder whether there was something to it. With the events of the past few days, a lot of people probably feel that Putin may well have been right about Iraq (as John Nagl, an Iraq war veteran writes for The Post today, "This is not the end state my friends fought for and died for"). Meanwhile, the chaotic state of Libya today certainly makes you question the path taken there, and as the Syrian war drags on past its third anniversary with no end in sight, perhaps Russia's calls for more dialogue with Bashar al-Assad weren't so terrible after all.

There are clearly some other factors at play, of course. Critics might also point out that in Iraq, Libya and Syria, Putin has been unusually vocal in his support of strongman leaders — like supports like, you could say. And, of course, economic issues and a dislike of American hegemony no doubt play a role in Putin's criticisms. Plus, Russia's more recent actions in Crimea make criticisms of U.S. intervention look hypocritical.

But it's also worth remembering that Russia's tone on U.S. involvement in Afghanistan has been more measured. Putin was an early supporter of George W. Bush's war on terror, though Russia's involvement in the Afghanistan war was limited to help with supplies and Putin did later express some criticism. Despite that, just last year, Putin said he hoped the United States would keep its military bases in the country after 2014. Writing in the Moscow Times, Michael Bohm argued that this rare acceptance of U.S. military reach was a sign that Russia was concerned about the security situation in the country to its south and wants the United States to deal with it.

So perhaps Putin's foreign policy is all based on a jaded realism. But sometimes, in hindsight, jaded realism looks better than the alternative.

Rami @RamiAlLolah · 8h

First #video of tanks in action in the hands of tribe fighters #Kirkuk #Mosul. #Iraq #ISIS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlKCZbce4UU …