ISIS/ISIL conflict in Syria/Iraq (No OpEd, No Politics)

Who is afraid of IS defeat?

The outgoing US defence secretary Chuck Hagel who visited Baghdad on Tuesday profusely complimented the Iraqi government for gaining momentum in the fight against the Islamic State. It comes at a time when the American pundits think otherwise.

True, the IS juggernaut has virtually ground to a halt in Iraq since its June offensive. The Iraqi and Kurdish forces – helped in no small measure by the Iranians (and, some say, the Hezbollah) – have made gains, including securing Mosul dam. (By the way, there are reports that Baghdad is preparing to liberate Mosul from the IS.) There is reason to believe that the IS has been put on the defensive, struggling to hold what they gained.

Hagel, naturally, attributed all this to the help from the US-led coalition forces. But the Iraqis also seem to be getting their act together, finally. Baghdad has made it clear that with more training, advice, logistic support, heavy weaponry and air power, it is confident of its ability to turn the tide decisively against the IS.

All this must come as something of an embarrassment for the folks in Washington, especially President Barack Obama. Plainly put, Hagel lost his job for the wrong reasons.

The US’ main problem, actually, has not been an inept defence secretary who was insufficiently war-like, but its allies and their lobbies in the Washington establishment – principally, Turkey, Israel and Saudi Arabia.

All these three Middle Eatsern countries see the IS through the prism of geopolitics and not as a manifestation of international terrorism. That is the crux of the matter. And Obama can do precious little to discipline them.

All three are fixated on the ‘regime change’ in Syria; Israel and Saudi Arabia also see the IS’ seamless potential to hurt Iran’s national security and its regional interests.

Turkey is on the verge of getting the Obama administration to accept its demand for imposing a ‘no-fly zone’ in northern Syria and has made this conditional on giving access to the Incirlik air base for US aircraft to carry out bombing raids in Iraq and Syria. Simply put, overthrowing the Syrian regime is PM Recep Erdogan’s priority — and, not vanquishing the IS.

It is in this context that the Israeli air strikes on the outskirts of Damascus need to be viewed. Conceivably, Israel has tested the Syrian air defence systems around Damascus on behalf of the US (and Turkey).

The point is, Syria has a well-trained air force and the neutralization of the Syrian air defence systems is an absolute pre-requisite for the imposition of the ‘no-fly zone’ in Syria and the induction of Turkish Special Forces into Syria.

Turkey has been repeatedly exposed for aiding and abetting the IS, while Israel has not so far come into the limelight. But that may change since the Syrian pot is once again boiling.

In fact, Israel has been indicted in a report this week by the UN Observer Mission on the Golan Heights for its strong cooperation with extremist groups, including the Syrian al-Qaeda group known as Jabhat al-Nusra.

Ironically, the UN observers have reported to Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon in their report that they’ve been forced to retreat from some of their positions so that they would be limited in their ability to observe the intercourse between the Israeli soldiers and the Syrian extremist groups.

Meanwhile, a top Kremlin aide in Moscow has openly alleged that Israeli intelligence too might have provided training to the IS. The US vice-president Joe Biden has earlier spoken in a controversial speech about the Turkish intelligence’s nefarious role in creating the IS.

It is entirely conceivable that Turkey, israel and Saudi Arabia are acting in tandem. All three countries will be loathe to see the IS degraded to this extent and so fast before the geopolitical objectives have been realized.

Unsurprisingly, their lobbies in the Washington beltway are frantic. At what point the Obama administration may buckle under the pressure of these formidable lobbies is anybody’s guess.

Significantly, the Obama administration is currently laying the groundwork with the Congress for a new authorization on the use of force against the IS, which would not “pre-emptively bind the hands of the commander-in-chief [President Obama]… in responding to scenarios and contingencies that are difficult to foresee” — to quote from Secretary of State John Kerry’s plea to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee not to expressly prohibit the deployment of US troops in Syria.

It stands to reason that Iran, Iraq and Syria are well aware of the underhand dealings between the US’ regional allies on the one hand and the IS on the other. On Tuesday, Tehran hosted a foreign-minister level meeting of the three countries, which aimed at not only strengthening the fight against the IS but also signal that the Iran-Baghdad-Damascus axis still remains a force to reckon with in regional politics.

Posted in Uncategorized.

Tagged with Islamic State, Syria's conflict.

By M K Bhadrakumar – December 10, 2014

Click to expand...

Miragedriver said:

**Off Topic**

Thunder, I could give you the names of several nations that would love to operate the "obsolete" A-10. Is there a reason why the A-10 has fallen from favor in the USAF? Is it a maintenance issue, or a political one to purchase more F-35?


I will now get back to bottling my Malbec and waiting for some A-10s

Click to expand...

TerraN_EmpirE said:

"Ultra Hog" Incase you had not noticed, that "Heat Sink" has been debunked.

Click to expand...

TerraN_EmpirE said:

A10 is a Specialist, designed to kill tanks and infantry. Which she does very well, after all she's a expert. the problem is that more and more the American Air Force is under budget pressure and more and more under threat not just financial but tactical as sophisticated Air defences are becoming more common.

Click to expand...

TerraN_EmpirE said:

The Brits traded in there Bombers for Tornados and now for Typhoons. The French trading in there Super Étendard, and Mirage 2000 for Rafale.

Click to expand...

TerraN_EmpirE said:

The Army and Air National guard have both pushed for A10's to be under them. which would be a smart move, and for a time the A10 even after "Retirement" would in fact be maintained and flown.

Click to expand...

China offers military help to Iraq to defeat ISIS – report
Published time: December 14, 2014 04:20

Iraqi Foreign Minister Ibrahim Jafari says that his Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi, has made an offer to help Iraq fight Islamic State militants. Beijing has volunteered to assist with airstrikes, though it will not join the US-led coalition against ISIS.

The conversation between the ministers took place during a UN anti-terrorism meeting in New York back in September, the Financial Times reports.

China’s offer is a step away from its official policy of non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries, although it does sell weapons to many other nations.

“[Mr Wang] said, our policy does not allow us to get involved in the international coalition. I welcomed this initiative. I told him…we are ready to deal with the coalition and also co-operate with other countries outside this coalition,” Jafari told the Financial Times.

China’s Defense Ministry declined to comment. However, Hong Lei – a spokesman for the Foreign Ministry – did say that Wang had told Jafari during their meeting that China backed Iraq’s efforts to strengthen its ability to fight terror via intelligence exchange and personnel training. He refused to comment on whether China was supplying air support or missiles to Iraq.

“China has been fighting terrorism and has been providing support and assistance to Iraq, including the Kurdish region, in our own way, and will continue to do so within the best of our capabilities,” Hong told the newspaper.

China is the biggest foreign investor in Iraq’s oil industry, and will lose billions if the Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) manages to take over the country’s oil fields. The China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) has already had to abandon its oilfields in Syria.

The ISIS advance has been mostly halted, and the militants have suffered minor military setbacks as a result of US-led airstrikes. Iraq has made slow progress reclaiming territory in the north and west of the country, and the city of Mosul is still in the hands of the Islamic State.

Jafari added that Baghdad does not want overseas soldiers on its territory due to concerns that it would lead to anti-foreigner sentiment among Iraqis.

Click to expand...

Iran hemmed in by Western presence

A little over a week since formalizing the establishment of a military base east of Suez in Bahrain, London has announced that British troops after returning to Iraq after a five-year interlude. The British Defence Secretary Michael Fallon disclosed the plan in an exclusive weekend interview with the Telegraph newspaper.

The issue is sensitive in the British opinion, and, unsurprisingly, Fallon underplayed the news, saying the deployment will be in “the very low hundreds”, that the UK force will be training Iraqi army and the Kurdish militia to fight the Islamic State [IS] and that a small “force protection” deployment of combat-ready soldiers is also expected to be sent to defend the military training teams.

Fallon resorted to some quibbling with words since Britain’s Iraq war wounds are not yet healed. Yet, the Daily Mail reported that a force up to 100 British Paras is being sent “to join the battle” against the IS and that the generals in White Hall are pretty much pleased that Britain is back in business in Mesopotamia.

What can be said beyond doubt is that the establishment of the British base in Bahrain and the deployment in Iraq emanate out of close coordination between London and Washington. An FT analysis pondered that Britain is steeping in so that the US can pay more attention to its ‘pivot’ strategy in Asia.

For sure, we could be witnessing the proverbial tip of the iceberg. The point is, Germany also announced on Thursday that it is sending about a hundred military personnel to Iraq and that “other [western] nations will participate, including Italy, the Netherlands and some Scandinavian nations.”

Again, the Pentagon announced on Friday a plausible timeline for a Syria plan within which 5000 rebels will be trained and equipped to fight the IS in Iraq and Syria.

One big question will be, Is it a “mission creep” that would eventually morph into a deployment under the flag of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO]? But a second big question is, which is not unrelated and is more in focus will be, How the Western deployments mesh with Iran’s role in Iraq and Syria?

The US is doing some tight-rope walking. Secretary of Defence Chuck Hagel most certainly took his Israeli counterpart Moshe Ya’alon into confidence in a phone call on Friday. The readout said the fight against the IS and a range of related issued figured and both sides stressed the “strength of the US-Israeli security relationship.”

Indeed, Iran, too, is riding many horses simultaneously and which one is going to surge time only will show. For one thing, the Iranian role in fighting the IS has become quite significant. In fact, the right-wing pro-Israeli ‘regional experts’ in the US think tank circuit, here, and the Gulf Arab commentators, here, have begun sounding alarm bells by voicing wild apprehensions that Iran is ‘dominating’ Iraq and the Obama administration is to be blamed for that.

Of course, Tehran is openly acknowledging its role in Iraq and is in turn being assertive about it of late.

All indictions are that Tehran realizes that a strong Western commitment to fight the IS is in Iran’s interest. Iran and the US are consulting each other on the IS threat. On the other hand, Iran still lacks the trust and confidence as regards the US’ intentions behind its renewed intervention in Iraq.

In political terms, pending an accord on the nuclear issue, Iran cannot afford to be explicit about cooperating and coordinating with the US in the fight against the IS.

Traditionally, Iran’s approach in such delicate situations will be to engage even more actively on the plane of ‘public diplomacy’. It hosted a major Track II conference last week in Tehran with delegates from 40 countries to discuss the IS threat.

Apart from the sustained contacts with the western countries, which is a regular feature of Iranian diplomacy, the nuclear negotiations as such have provided a convenient forum, sequestered from public view, for exchange of views with the US on regional issues such as Iraq.

The American and Iranian diplomats will be spending a lot of time together again next week. Last Tuesday, Tehran hosted a foreign-minister level meeting with Iraq and Syria. The Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu is expected to visit Tehran on coming Wednesday.

Interestingly, Tehran has taken in its stride the establishment of the British base in Bahrain — although, Iran and Imperial Britain had a difficult history of confrontation. Suffice it to say, it cannot be lost on Tehran that while the naval base could enhance Britain’s capability to undertake operations against the IS, London has made it clear that the UK will use its increased regional presence to cooperate with Iran’s Gulf Arab neighbors on security, which cannot but factor in their profound disquiet over the surge in Iran’s regional influence.

A penetrating interview by the RT with Iran’s interior minister Abdolreza Rahmani Fazli (who visited Moscow last week) brings out that Tehran faces acute contradictions in the regional environment even as its is poised to integrate with the West very shortly. Fazli was in denial mood, predictably, with the quick-witted RT interviewer pursuing him relentlessly.

Posted in Diplomacy.

Tagged with Iraq, Islamic State, Syria's civil war, US-Iran normalization.

By M K Bhadrakumar – December 14, 2014

Click to expand...