Iran: Upping the ante in Iraq against ISIS

Reportedly, Iran has deployed its Fajr-5 artillery rockets, Fateh-110 missiles, and their launchers in Tikrit to fight against ISIS. This move is part of Iran’s escalation in Middle East chaos. Question remains, Is there any actual threat to Iran from ISIS or this decision is based only on geopolitical needs of Iran for which she needs the US help i.e. Nuclear talks, relaxation in oil export sanctions, etc. It seems that this Iranian decision is being derived by Tehran’s political reasons.

It is notice worthy fact that in Iraq and Syria, only Iranian militias and troops keep fighting against ISIS while the US keep supplying weapons to ISIS as Iraqi troops continue to surrender without fighting giving up their weapon stockpiles to ISIS? i.e. as it took place in Falujia and Ramadi.

Though the Americans are showing great concern over Iran’s intervention in Iraq no step has been taken so far to prevent Iran from escalating the situation in Iraq. It seems that certain forces are actually encouraging Tehran to escalate the crisis and be part of it.

In this regard NY Times story titled ‘’Iran Sent Arms to Iraq to Fight ISIS, U.S. Says’’, published on 16th March, contains Gen Martin E Dempsey ‘s statement of Marach 3rd which he gave while appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee. “This is the most overt conduct of Iranian support, in the form of artillery and other things.”, he alluded to the deployment of the rockets and missiles.

Tehran is very confident so far about its geo-strategy in the region it is evident that Iran would never able to sustain a prolonged high intensity conflict in Iraq, Syria and possibly in Yemen. This move by Tehran would only intensify and complicate the chaos in Middle East further. It could easily lead to an outright sectarian war.

So, is Iran falling into trap set for it in Iraq? How Iran will be able to terminate the war that she is going to intensify and amplify? What would be the sectarian implications of growing interference of Iran in Iraq?

By looking at the US strategy to “fight” ISIS it is evident that after arming various armed gangs in Middle East including ISIS, now Iran has been lured in this chaos.

Apart from these concerns, there is a strong possibility of spill over of this war inside Iran. It is known fact that CIA has used organizations like Jindullah against Iran from Pakistan in the past!

Fundamental Strategic Imperative for Muslim Word

By Shahzad Masood Roomi

This cold blooded execution of Palestinian youth by young IS executioner is yet another stern reminder about many aspects of fight against IS and nature of this threat.

So far, the US led coalition is only targeting the physical infrastructure (even execution of that remains debatable) but all important ideological aspect is being ignored in this strategy. Even Iraqi national army is addressing the problem as a mere political issue whereas in reality, this phenomenon of Khawariji trends in the Middle East has a history of more than 1300 years.

Now in 21st century, this phenomenon has become even more complex due to inclusion of propaganda component where internet is playing a crucial role. A role that was not even imagined when this wounder invention was made in late 20th century. Now, terrorists are deploying this medium as tool for their strategic communication tool to instill fear and despondency among masses around the world.

Another disturbing aspect of this particular video is showing of 10 years old executioner. This shows the indoctrination strategy of IS which is not unprecedented, TTP in Pakistan and Boko Haram in Africa also use similar tactics using young boys with fragile minds and limited conscience about value of human life. This is an aspect which must will have to be addressed by religious leaders of Muslim worlds. Conventional armies and weapons cannot these aspects of modern Khawarijism.

Now when this has been confirmed that the executed captive of IS was indeed not a Israeli spy but a Palestinian youth who joined IS in zeal. It is time for the Muslim intellectuals and scholars to instigate the debate on the 'reconstruction of strategic thought' inline with the requirements of modern times to end the confusion in young minds around the Islamic World about tactics of so-called Islamic groups like IS, TTP and Boko Harm and their relevance (or irrelevance) to Jihad, Qital and Khilafat. Prevention of intellectual hijacking of Islam is a critical imperative in modern geopolitics if we want to save other Mohamed Said Ismail Musalams from becoming victim of ISIS religious propaganda.

(Shahzad.leo@gmail.com)

Poll : Should Pakistan Send its Troops to Saudi Arabia to Fight Against ISIS?

Some media reports suggest that, during the ongoing visit of Pakistani Prime Minster Nawaz Sharif, Saudi Arabia would ask for more Pakistani troops to fight against the threats posed by ISIS to the Kindom. Pakistan Army is already stretched thin across the international border with India, Line of Control (LoC) and in FATA. What do you think about such demand? Should Pakistan send its troops to Saudi Arabia to fight against ISIS if asked by Saudi Government? Please contribute your answer in this poll.

IRAQ: Battle for Mosul Begins in Tikrit

After 9 months of non-stop violence and anarchy in the country, finally, Iraqi government has decided to launch first major offensive against ISIS to recapture Tikrit city in Salauhddin Province of the country, located North to capital Baghdad. Tikrit was overrun by the ISIS last year. The city holds importance for being hometown of previous Baathist leader of the country, Saddam Hussian. According to Iraqi and Iranian media, Qassem Soleimani - commander of the Quds Force covert operations unit in Iran's Revolutionary Guard - was in Salahuddin province to help coordinate the operation.

Some 30,000 troops backed by air power and artillery fire power are going to initiate operation from various directions. This operation is critically important for any future operations to capture ISIS stronghold Mosul located further North to Tikrit. The US forces think the major US/Iraq offensive to retake Mosul can begin in April or May but that time table depends upon the outcome of Tikrit operation by Iraqi forces who have already captured a nearby oil refinery town of Baiji. The road leading to Mosul passes through Tikrit.

Interestingly, the US air power would not assist the Iraqi forces during the operation in Tikrit. It is unclear right now if the Iraqi forces alone would be able to get Tikrit back. It must be noticed that all previous operations to get the town back have failed resulting in large number of death casualties of Iraqi troops. In this backdrop, the absence of US air power is not only perplexing but dangerous for fresh offensive as well. The second caveat to the success of this operation remains inclusion of Shia private militia. Since the last year, ISIS massacred large number of Shia fighters in the same area of Salauhddin province and now the Shia fighters are looking to avenge that bloodshed. This may create serious problem for operational integrity of the offensive.     

Obama’s anti-ISIS policy: Through Geopolitical Lens!

Shahzad Masood Roomi

President Obama has recently announced a new strategy to fight the ISIS in Iraq and Syria. US House of Representative has approved the policy as well. Before analyzing this strategy, let's quickly skim through the main vertexes of "new" American strategy to "degrade" and "defeat" ISIS.

1. Significant expansion of the aerial bombing campaign in Iraq
2. Training and equipping of the Iraqi army and the Kurdish Peshmerga.
3. Bombing in Syria
4. Supporting, arming and training moderate rebels against Syrian government of Bashr al Asad.
5. Getting a coalition of European and regional allies on board in the fight against IS.
6. No boots on ground.

Would this policy yield anything positive for regional peace? Very unlikely! The fundamental flaw with Obama's entire anti-ISIS strategy stems from the failure of previous attempts to eradicate terror groups through air power campaigns and policy of using non-state actors as has been rightly identified by analyst Tim Fernholz in following words:

"The legal justification the Obama administration relies upon for its war powers is the same one that justifies air strikes against extremist groups in Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan—failed or failing states where US counter-terror policy relies on dubious local allies and drone strikes to manage extremist groups. That may well be the future in Iraq and Syria".

Supporting non-state actors and bombing unconfirmed "terrorist targets" will never bring peace in any restive state. The failure of CIA's ever expanding drone wars provide an irrefutable testimony of this assertion. But a careful analysis of the US/West's anti-ISIS strategy leaves very little doubt that bringing peace in Syria is not among the real objectives of this wired "peace" strategy.

Apart from raising questions on overall strategy, one must be intrigued to investigate the criteria Washington is using to profile the Syrian rebels as "moderates" and "hardcore". We have been listening about moderate Muslim, moderate rebels and even moderate Islam. But no one in Washington or in the entire western media and intellectual circle shed any light on the definition of these "moderate rebels". As there is no clear definition or criteria exists to profile any group's tendency to do violence and terrorism it becomes an impossible task to identify such groups unless they have been identified already; an a possibility which hitherto cannot be confirmed.

How to distinguish between hardcore and Moderate rebels? Major policy flaw in Obama Strategy

Plans to arm and train such non-state actors in Syria leaves very little doubt in assertion that Obama's anti-ISIS plan is actually a recipe of complete security disaster which eventually would become a device to alter the map of Middle East once again after 100 years of World War I.

These concerns over Obama's policy and persistent fervor of White House to pursue this policy despite the above mentioned concerns demand to investigate this crisis and its response strategy through the lens of geopolitical developments taking place in the region as global powers compete to protect their strategic interests in the region.

China and Russia opposed American plans of removing Bashr Al Asad regime through a military intervention. US/NATO had to postpone their plans after Russia announced to send her naval fleet in the region. Ironically, ISIS has provided the US with a narrative which would not only enable Washington to prevent any diplomatic pressure from Russia and Iran against the planned invasion in Syria but would also create a conducive environment for regime change operation in Syria as well. This regime change operation is critical in the grand scheme of things and is part of new strategic US plan for the region. After 9/11, the US planned to launch a massive regime change campaign in seven Middle East states including Syria. This revelation was first made public by the former NATO commander General Wesley Clark in 2007. This assertion is further supported by the fact that now many experts within the US intellectual circles believe that it was Obama administration which made ISIS such a dangerous threat not only for the region but also the US interests as well. Albeit, their definition of the US interests in the region mainly revolves only around the lives of the US citizens.

Former NATO Commander - General Wesley Clark 

There is a third and more ominous view point as well in this regard. Many experts believe that the US policy is leading the entire region towards a new and more intensified conflict. This argument has its own merit and seems to be based on more realistic assessment. Syrian regime is an old Soviet/ Russian ally and this is why the US wants to through it out as revealed by General Clark as well. Russians on their part, would certainly respond to any such attempt by the US and for Iran and China it would be impossible to remain isolated in this entire conflict. In her initial response to Obama’s new Syrian strategy, Russia has warned that US air strikes against militants in Syria would be a "gross violation" of international law. Russia has asked the US to seek mandate of UN Security Council for any such attack something the US will never consider considering possible Russian veto to any such coalition. Iran, another Russian ally in the region, has already termed this anti-ISIS coalition as failure without its inclusion in it. This involves Saudi Arabia and other Sunni gulf states in this conflict as well.

In this geopolitical backdrop, the most fundamental question which still remains unanswered in the entire US Syrian policy is how today’s moderate rebel would not become a threat to regional stability and Syrian integrity tomorrow even if this policy pays off and root out ISIS successfully, regardless from the future of Bash Al Asad regime? Obama has not answered it neither those in Gulf States who thinks that ISIS would be eliminated and peace would be restored in the region. Ground reality, on the other hand is starkly obvious. Obama’s new policy may end one monster but it certainly would create another! This is exactly what transpired in Iraq after Saddam.