Iran and the US should cooperate in Iraq

[nairiporter.livejournal.com]

The crisis in Iraq caused by the Islamic State is now effectively drawing Iran and the US together, two sworn enemies. And this is a chance for them to work together and bring their relations into a more constructive territory. Otherwise Iraq will fall apart.

Right now, Iraq is standing in front of two crises. The political crisis around the scramble for the prime minister's chair, plus the existential crisis coming from the advance of the Islamic State (former ISIS, former ISIL). The two crises are interconnected, and both the US and Iran have their share of responsibility for having caused them. America is responsible, because the US invasion and the political chaos that followed, has undermined all political structures in Iraq. The result was a severe deterioration of security and stability. At this point, almost no one contests the fact that the war in Iraq was a dire mistake (not to mention that it was based on a lie).

But constantly looking back to the past and accusing each other is hardly a constructive approach to seeking an efficient solution for the future. The ayatollahs in Iran also share responsibility, because they used the political vacuum after Saddam's fall, to their advantage. Prime minister Al Maliki maintained friendly relations with Tehran. During his rule, he in fact followed the example of the ayatollahs, centralising all power in the hands of the Shia and marginalising the Sunni. That was a mistake with disastrous consequences. Many young Sunni were radicalised because of it. The lacking security structures in the country and the flood of US weapons among the populace have done the rest. The advance of the terrorist militias of Islamic State is a direct result of these policies.

It all began in 2003 with the so called Coalition of the Willing. But now the situation could be put under control only through forming a Coalition of the Unwilling. Cooperation between America and Iran will definitely not be a voluntary decision. But neither of the two can single-handedly tackle the problem with the Islamic State. The US does have the necessary military power, and Iran has the necessary political influence. In other words, each side has to solve that part of the crisis that it had caused. The US should stabilise security in Northern Iraq, and Iran should use its political influence to pacify the region by making concessions to the Sunni.

Without the shared efforts of Iran and the US, Iraq's Balkanisation is imminent. Such a development would have fatal consequences and could plunge the entire region, including Iran itself, into long years of chaos. And the international community will blame America for it. So, cooperation between the two sworn enemies is the only viable option.

Comments

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

It was a bad idea to GO IN, in the first place. What was your opinion about that, or were you too preoccupied shooting at things at the time?

May I only complain when your government refuses to sort stuff out which it has caused in the first place? Or at least HELP others clean your mess? Actually, I don't think I need your permission at all.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Well no shit, but fact of the matter is that Al-Maliki (and Obama) inherited an Iraq that was peaceful and reasonably stable (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2014/06/19/what-kind-of-iraq-did-obama-inherit/) and he blew it. While he may have had good reasons to worry about a Sunni coup, his response was to isolate and alienate the very people who were keeping the war in Syria from spilling across the border.

You us wanted out? fine we're out.

Furthermore why aren't you pointing any fingers at Russia or the EU for backing a psycho like Assad and allowing the Syrian Civil War to get so out of hand?

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

You're still not getting it. Iraq not having a war =/= Iraq being peaceful. The old grudges were still there. The infrastructure was non-existent. That was the calm before another storm. And no military presence, even if you had stayed there indefinitely with a million troops, would have removed those conditions for a new conflict.

While you won't see me defending Putin for anything (and nice tu quoque red herring, btw), why am I not seeing you pointing fingers at anybody for essentially backing up jihadists in Syria, having created the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, and turning a blind eye to the tyrannical regimes in Saudi Arabia and now Egypt? If we're to play this tit for tat game, it could really go on indefinitely, but what's the purpose of it, other than distraction?


The bottom line is this, and it's fairly simple. All US actions and all statements by people like yourself are reinforcing the notion that the US only cares about their short-term interests and nothing beyond that, all consequences of their inadequate actions or inactions be damned. And that's ultimately to the detriment of the entire world.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Anyone who looked at how Maliki was handling things in 2008 should have predicted what would have happened if his tinpot toy soldiers ran into a force capable of fighting. People did say that at the time. What nobody predicted was that Syria would become ground zero of a protracted civil war where Assad's regime started winning and that the West would repeat the Hekmanyatar-Taliban mistake.

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

Easy to say now in hindsight. You certainly didn't predict it at the time ;)

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

There was a good deal of critique over invading Iraq suggesting it would spread into Syria, Iran and cause regional chaos in 2003.

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

There sure was, but not from our particular friend here :)

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

"Reasonably stable" as in less car bombings and sectarian killings than usual. It was a sectarian civil war on simmer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_in_Iraq) that turned into a proxy war on boil. And it was spilling over into Syria too.