Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Uncle Joe

(58,349 posts)
Tue Aug 12, 2014, 06:45 PM Aug 2014

I believe there can be and most likely will be a split within the Islamic State.



http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/12/senior-iranian-official-iraq-haider-al-abadi-prime-minister

Senior Iranian official congratulates new Iraqi PM Haider al-Abadi

A senior Iranian official with close links to the country's president and supreme leader has offered his congratulations to Iraq's prime minister-designate, suggesting Tehran has abandoned former ally Nouri al-Maliki amid the current Sunni militant insurgency.

(snip)

The US secretary of state, John Kerry, said earlier on Tuesday that Washington was ready to "fully support a new and inclusive Iraqi government". While attending the annual Ausmin talks in Australia, Kerry urged Abadi to form a functional cabinet "as swiftly as possible" and said the US was ready to offer more military and economic help.

(snip)

Hossein Rassam, a London-based Iranian analyst, said Shamkhani's statement reflect Tehran's hand in al-Abadi's appointment: "His appointment could not have materialised without Iran's cooperation. This is the result of a series of negotiations and bargaining for the past number of days, it's not something that has been decided overnight."

(snip)

"It shows Iran's priority is to contain Isis rather than wasting time to haggle over the amount of its influence on the Iraqi government," Alizadeh said.



So, apparently Iran is supporting a more pragmatic, inclusive government for Iraq.

The Islamic State was greatly aided by former elements of Saddam Hussein's Army including high ranking officers, many of which were purged by the Maliki government.



http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/06/iraq-mosul-takeover-factions-isis-baath-party.html#

A prominent member of the Arab Socialist Baath Party, whose rule was overturned in Iraq upon the US occupation of Baghdad in 2003, told Al-Monitor, “Fourteen factions have joined efforts to enter Ninevah.”

The party member, who was an officer in the army of the late leader Saddam Hussein, said on condition of anonymity, “The Baath Party was compelled to be involved in this battle since the successive Iraqi governments have shut all doors in its face.”

The armed organizations that occupied Ninevah removed all the road blocks to prove to citizens that they are better than the Iraqi government, knowing that the latter had excessively used road blocks during its control over the province. Eyewitnesses in Ninevah recounted how ISIS tried to make the residents feel secure to gain their support for the imminent battles to be fought with the Iraqi army.

(snip)

The source, whose relative was a minister in Saddam's government, said, “The arrogance of [Prime Minister Nouri al-] Maliki and his circle has prevented the reconciliation with the Baath [Party],” adding, “As long as [Baath members] are marginalized with no decent livelihood, they will remain an easy catch for ISIS and even worse organizations.”



Those elements of Saddam's former army are largely secular, but Maliki's abusive policies forced them into an alliance with the extreme Islamic fundamentalists.

Now they're being offered a carrot and a stick, with Abadi's more inclusive government representing the former and combined Kurdish, Iraqi Shia, U.S. aerial, and to a lesser degree, Iranian, Turkish, Russian and Syrian military elements in play against them.

I believe with such a scenario taking place, secular and pragmatic member elements; Baathists and former members of Hussein's Army will start breaking off from the extremist groups as they see the writing on the wall.

I also believe the ultimate result will be a unified, inclusive, more decentralized Iraq with three autonomous regions; Kurdish, Shia and Sunni with a smaller possibility of Iraq breaking up into three separate nations.

In conclusion, I believe at this time, President Obama's strategy of air support; both humanitarian and military strikes to be the best course of action.








9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 

Maedhros

(10,007 posts)
1. I am greatly in favor of the Middle East sorting out their problems on their own.
Tue Aug 12, 2014, 06:50 PM
Aug 2014

The driving force behind the majority of the problems in the Middle East today can be traced back to the arbitrary state boundaries established by colonizing empires.

Uncle Joe

(58,349 posts)
2. The vast majority of "boundaries" all over the world have been determined by military force
Tue Aug 12, 2014, 07:00 PM
Aug 2014

that doesn't make it right, but that's reality.

In the case of Iraq, there is an opportunity for an overall agreement to its current boundaries and if the Sunni, Shia and Kurds are happy with the results, so am I.

The critical aspect is for any future government to be inclusive of all its peoples.

The only other option I see is for the U.S. to totally remove itself from the situation in which case the region will experience major war which I believe would dwarf what is taking place now.

 

Maedhros

(10,007 posts)
7. The status quo in the Middle East is maintained by U.S. fiat in the U.N.,
Tue Aug 12, 2014, 07:12 PM
Aug 2014

U.S. support of brutal dictatorships and U.S. military intervention. Unfortunately, the status quo benefits only the oppressive regimes in charge and not the ordinary citizen, thus the U.S. is (rightly or wrongly) blamed for the resulting inequity. Al Qaeda et al. is the natural result.

Remove the U.S. from the equation and yes, there will be large scale conflict. It's inevitable. Afterward, however, there is the opportunity for stability in the region if outside powers can resist using the Middle East as the battleground for their proxy wars.

Uncle Joe

(58,349 posts)
8. Haider al-Abadi's government holds the promise of not being a brutal dictatorship,
Tue Aug 12, 2014, 07:20 PM
Aug 2014

Iran doesn't want it, nor do the Sunnis, Kurds, many Shias and rational elements in the U.S.

There is no upside to it, I believe Maliki thought he could travel down the path of Saddam Hussein, only it being a Shia version.

He hadn't traveled so far down that brutal road but that was his direction.

If there was a large scale conflict in the Middle East, the repercussions would be world wide, not just contained to that region.

Whether one likes it or not, (I don't) too much of human society is dependent on oil and the economic upheaval could/would aggravate conflict in other regions.

sabbat hunter

(6,828 posts)
3. Iran
Tue Aug 12, 2014, 07:01 PM
Aug 2014

right now needs a more inclusive, well rounded government in Iraq, because ISIS is a threat to them as well. ISIS is made up of Sunni Muslims, and Iran (and most of Iraq) is Shia. But if ISIS is defeated, I would expect that backing by Iran of an inclusive government to change.

Uncle Joe

(58,349 posts)
5. I suspect this lesson shows Iran what happens if Iraq doesn't become more inclusive.
Tue Aug 12, 2014, 07:05 PM
Aug 2014

I don't believe they will forget it.

Zen Democrat

(5,901 posts)
4. Iran is looking at ISIS and saying "Holy Crap." We know that ISIS is funded by Saudis.
Tue Aug 12, 2014, 07:01 PM
Aug 2014

We know Saudis were behind the 9/11 attacks.

So when will this country realize that our enemies are Saudis?

Uncle Joe

(58,349 posts)
6. I believe Saudi funding will dry up as a result of Obama's current policies,
Tue Aug 12, 2014, 07:08 PM
Aug 2014

if Saudi Arabia doesn't dry up funding, they greatly risk that realization in your last sentence coming true.

Uncle Joe

(58,349 posts)
9. "Maliki signals he’ll step aside peacefully, easing tensions in Baghdad"
Tue Aug 12, 2014, 11:40 PM
Aug 2014

On a thread by bemildred.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014868817

BAGHDAD — Tensions eased in Iraq’s capital Tuesday as Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki gave his first signals that he’s preparing to step down from his post as Prime Minister-designate Haider al Abadi began forming a new government.

In a statement, Maliki urged the nation’s military “to stay away from the political crisis,” indicating that he won’t use the armed forces to hold on to his office.

It was a significant reversal in tone for Maliki, who on Monday held a press conference in which he and political allies accused Abadi of a power grab and said they would fight his appointment.

At the same time, Maliki lost one of his most important allies when top officials in the Iranian government publicly embraced Abadi’s nomination.

Read more: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2014/08/12/3796852/iraqs-maliki-tells-army-to-keep.html#storylink=rss



Now it's up to Haider al Abadi to reach out to disaffected Sunnis and Baathists creating a more inclusive government for this to work.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I believe there can be an...