The ISIS guerrillas constitute an emerging operational problem for Iran, one that has arisen because of the Arab Spring and the Syrian civil war. It’s part of the regional jockeying predicted in this series from 2009 (see here for an update in 2011). The jockeying will intensify, and the alignment of Iraq is actually quite an important factor in the mix, one that can either slow Iran down significantly, or greatly accelerate the establishment of conditions friendly for her long-term goals.
Iran’s motivation to involve herself in the fight against ISIS is strong. So is her motivation to make a de facto ally of Iraq. Although the U.S. has provided Baghdad with some arms to combat ISIS, it would take a much greater level of commitment and involvement on our part to overcome the geopolitical forces that drive Baghdad and Tehran together in this instance.
The coming together is cause for alarm in Saudi Arabia and Jordan, and for speculation at the very least in Turkey, Russia, and the Gulf nations. Al-Maliki’s affinity for Iran (he’s a Shia and a long-time friend of Iran) doesn’t mean that he wants to sit in Tehran’s pocket. He will inevitably want to retain some level of independence – and there may be someone who wants badly enough to help him do that. It’s a window of opportunity for, say, Russia, China, or even India, from their various strategic perspectives. It’s not beyond the realm of possibility for France or Germany to get back into a bit of power-brokering, along this regional axis.
It’s an opportunity for the United States as well, but it’s clear we’re not going to take it. The best thing we could possibly do is strengthen a loose coalition of regional pragmatists in defeating the threat posed by ISIS – and thereby sideline Iran. Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon all have viable factions that would do their own work, and produce outcomes that were an improvement for their people and that we could live with, if we gave them active help and showed ourselves reliable. No American boots on the ground would be necessary. The whole point would be for the Iraqis to win their battle, and the Syrians theirs, and so forth.
To have that opportunity, what the local peoples need that only America can provide is protection from the interventions of Iran and Russia. Some active shouldering of the two predators would be required. But the best such protection is success for the alternative client model: the model of a nation doing its own security work with U.S. backing.
That’s what is missing in this situation. And as long as it is, the arms trade between Iran and Iraq will do nothing but grow, and the State Department will vow every few months that it’s “looking into” this unacceptable development, which – all but irrelevantly – violates the UN sanctions on Iran.
Check Out Liberty Unyielding, /J.E, Dyer.