We know Biden didn’t follow the advice of his Joint Chiefs
*****OFFICIAL Iran vs. America and start of WWIII thread*****
- Thread starter THE_DEVIL
- Start date
You didn’t have to wait very long. I don’t blame him fully and if you interpreted otherwise sweetie you’re mistaken, which isn’t at all unusual on your part.
If I blamed him fully it would imply he is/was in charge and fully capable.
He certainly was not then and is less so today.
Advisors with their own agenda often influence the President- regardless of who is in office.
Correct. They wanted to keep 2,500 or more troops there indefinitely. Which the prior admin had already agreed we wouldn’t do.
I have news for morons in this thread.
ISIS K has already been attacking inside Iran. How do you think they are getting resources?
So so so naive
ISIS K has already been attacking inside Iran. How do you think they are getting resources?
So so so naive
Gee, who could've predicted this?
Does Biden go to Congress now to get some support for his
There was a semi-functional agreement and weapons inspections in place. The greatest dealmaker in the history of dealmakers tore up that deal and replaced it with Iran having nobody watching what they are doing.
It seems the Iranians are betting that since it's an election year....they can push things to the limit. The fear of escalation and the negative effects that might have on the election seems to be shaping US policy IMO. Might be actually increasing that chance.
www.politico.com
In the 100-odd days since Hamas attacked Israel on October 7th, President Joe Biden has sought to help Israel win its war in Gaza and prevent the conflict from turning into a regional war with Iran and its proxies. That is proving harder as Iran’s “axis of resistance” and Israel and America engage in ever more dangerous strikes on each other, including assassinations.
Iranian allies in Iraq and Syria have launched about 140 rocket and drone attacks against American troops since the start of the Gaza war. Perhaps the most severe came on January 20th, with a volley of “multiple ballistic missiles and rockets” fired at the Al Asad base in western Iraq, according to America’s Central Command. Reports say Patriot air-defence batteries intercepted most of them, but some hit the base, concussing or otherwise wounding an unknown number of Americans and Iraqis. Hitherto America has retaliated against local proxies. Mr Biden will now face growing pressure to take stronger action against Iran itself. It is a dilemma: do nothing and America looks weak; retaliate and the president risks a new war in an election year.
www.economist.com
Ay way you slice it...we're in a precarious situation.
Houthis seek more Iranian weapons to step up Red Sea attacks, intel shows
U.S. officials assess the group could also potentially seek to attack Western troops in the region.
Houthis seek more Iranian weapons to step up Red Sea attacks, intel shows
U.S. officials assess the group could also potentially seek to attack Western troops in the region.
www.politico.com
In the 100-odd days since Hamas attacked Israel on October 7th, President Joe Biden has sought to help Israel win its war in Gaza and prevent the conflict from turning into a regional war with Iran and its proxies. That is proving harder as Iran’s “axis of resistance” and Israel and America engage in ever more dangerous strikes on each other, including assassinations.
Iranian allies in Iraq and Syria have launched about 140 rocket and drone attacks against American troops since the start of the Gaza war. Perhaps the most severe came on January 20th, with a volley of “multiple ballistic missiles and rockets” fired at the Al Asad base in western Iraq, according to America’s Central Command. Reports say Patriot air-defence batteries intercepted most of them, but some hit the base, concussing or otherwise wounding an unknown number of Americans and Iraqis. Hitherto America has retaliated against local proxies. Mr Biden will now face growing pressure to take stronger action against Iran itself. It is a dilemma: do nothing and America looks weak; retaliate and the president risks a new war in an election year.
America and Iran step closer to the brink of war
Tit-for-tat strikes and assassinations turn the ratchet
Ay way you slice it...we're in a precarious situation.
What kind of public support do you think the administration can rely on during theirIt seems the Iranians are betting that since it's an election year....they can push things to the limit. The fear of escalation and the negative effects that might have on the election seems to be shaping US policy IMO. Might be actually increasing that chance.
Houthis seek more Iranian weapons to step up Red Sea attacks, intel shows
U.S. officials assess the group could also potentially seek to attack Western troops in the region.
Houthis seek more Iranian weapons to step up Red Sea attacks, intel shows
U.S. officials assess the group could also potentially seek to attack Western troops in the region.
In the 100-odd days since Hamas attacked Israel on October 7th, President Joe Biden has sought to help Israel win its war in Gaza and prevent the conflict from turning into a regional war with Iran and its proxies. That is proving harder as Iran’s “axis of resistance” and Israel and America engage in ever more dangerous strikes on each other, including assassinations.
Iranian allies in Iraq and Syria have launched about 140 rocket and drone attacks against American troops since the start of the Gaza war. Perhaps the most severe came on January 20th, with a volley of “multiple ballistic missiles and rockets” fired at the Al Asad base in western Iraq, according to America’s Central Command. Reports say Patriot air-defence batteries intercepted most of them, but some hit the base, concussing or otherwise wounding an unknown number of Americans and Iraqis. Hitherto America has retaliated against local proxies. Mr Biden will now face growing pressure to take stronger action against Iran itself. It is a dilemma: do nothing and America looks weak; retaliate and the president risks a new war in an election year.
America and Iran step closer to the brink of war
Tit-for-tat strikes and assassinations turn the ratchet
Ay way you slice it...we're in a precarious situation.
Neocon appetite for war always dwarfs the public’s.
It's not a binary choice.
Taking effective military action to stop this crap doesn't automatically mean we're in another long term quagmire war.
Sitting back and going tit for tat with half measures might actually get us there. Iran will keep pushing the envelope until they're seriously punched in the face IMO.
I’m not sure when and where the doctrine of ‘proportional strikes’ has ever won a war.
I’m also tired of us pretending our half ass wars aren’t really wars. They are, they’re just losing wars.
A
anon_b29nm7v7dwp6r
Guest
It’s way past time to deal with Iran. US Troops are getting injured…as a Biden supporter this administration needs to finally take a strong stand on this.
The reality is the 2024 election looms over every decision at the moment. If this shit was happening in 2021 I think the reaction would be a little more decision.
They're trying to split the baby on this.
The Iranians are betting on that.
It is only with the benefit of hindsight that we can now see how Europe stumbled, half asleep, into World War I. At the time, no one could predict how a localized regional conflict would spark what was then the most devastating conflict in human history.
Now, slightly more than a century later, it is the U.S. that is sleepwalking towards a full-blown world war, as the risks of a regional war metastasizing into a wider war continue to rise exponentially.
Put another way, more than three months after Hamas invaded Israel, killed approximately 1,200 people and abducted more than 200 hostages, leading to an Israeli ground invasion of Gaza, the world is sitting on the precipice of another world war.
To that end, if we are to avoid such a catastrophic scenario, the United States must not only be clear-eyed about the growing risks but also who our enemies are and their intentions. Above all else, we must be resolute in our determination to prevent the conflict between Israel and Hamas from spreading further than it already has.
After the outbreak of war between Israel and Hamas, President Biden made it clear that he had two priorities: Keep the fighting contained to Gaza, and deter Iran from taking advantage of the chaos, either by attacking Israel directly or unleashing its Hezbollah and Houthi proxies to attack Israeli or American targets.
To accomplish his goals, Biden — admirably — ordered the largest show of force in support of Israel since 1973, sending two aircraft carrier strike groups to the region and issuing a strongly-worded warning to Iran and Hezbollah not to intervene.
Unfortunately, Biden’s efforts failed on both fronts, as the fighting has spread from Gaza to the Red Sea, Yemen, Iraq and Syria, with American troops coming under attack in the latter two countries.
Moreover, Iran is clearly undeterred, feeling little pressure to rein in its proxies.
Hezbollah has conducted near-daily rocket and missile attacks against Israel, and its leader, Hassan Nasrallah, felt emboldened enough to threaten the U.S., saying in a regional war that “[U.S.] interests and soldiers will be the victim,” adding assurances that American “ships and air force will pay a heavy price.”
Another Iranian proxy, the Houthi Rebels in Yemen, have targeted American and allied naval ships, along with merchant cargo ships, effectively shutting the Red Sea, which 10-15 percent of world commerce depends on.
Biden’s failure to deter Iran — the architect of virtually all of the conflict in the region — has now led to direct American involvement and increasingly, the risk of widening the war in the Middle East.
With American planes and ships now conducting hundreds of airstrikes throughout Yemen, any incident could be the spark that sets off a global war, pulling in Iran and potentially its Russian ally.
To be absolutely clear, this is not to say Biden should preemptively attack Iran to deter the regime. However, it is to say that there is a seeming absence of both understanding the risks of an expanded war, as well as a strategy to avoid one.
As we wrote in these pages just weeks ago, “Without a strong, robust show of force against Iran and its terrorist allies, the risks of an all-out war increase significantly.” Those risks will only continue to rise as long as Iran, the head of this snake, feels it has a free hand to sow chaos without even the credible threat of a crushing American response.
In that same vein, if it is true, as Joe Buccino — former U.S. Central Command spokesman — has said, that CENTCOM has submitted potential targets to strike that would “really inflict pain” and “send a message” to Iran, but have been rebuffed by the White House, Biden would surely be neglecting his responsibility to protect America’s national security in favor of avoiding escalation at all costs — a policy destined to fail.
Also worth noting, Biden’s about-face on Israel, at least publicly, surely contributes to Iran’s calculations that the U.S. will not defend the Jewish State for much longer. While Biden initially offered full-throated support for Israel’s military efforts against Hamas, the administration has begun changing its tune, likely in response to pressure on Biden from the left wing of his party.
Indeed, Washington has been openly feuding with Israel in recent weeks, including calling on Jerusalem to allow more aid into Gaza, criticizing how Israel is fighting the war and pushing Israel to accept a Palestinian state when the war ends, a non-starter for Israel with Oct. 7 still seared into the country’s collective memory.
Whether for political reasons — war would surely cause the price of oil to spike in an election year, and Biden’s eroding support from the left over his approach to Israel — or the seemingly limitless desire of Biden to reach a diplomatic accord with Iran, the administration has failed to hold Iran accountable for its proxies, resulting in the dangerous scenario we now face.
In many ways, the position President Biden finds himself in is unnervingly similar to that of President Nixon in 1973. Then, like now, Arab forces had taken Israel by surprise, and concerns of outside intervention led Nixon to put U.S. nuclear forces on high alert, bringing the world disturbingly close to nuclear Armageddon.
Moscow’s realization that the United States was ready to use the full force of the American military to defend our ally Israel, played a critical role in both ending the war and ensuring that despite the threats, nuclear weapons would not be used.
Fifty years later, the Soviet Union has been replaced by an Iranian-led bloc of terrorist groups and rogue states, and with it, their messianic, ideological commitment to destroying Israel and America. If we are to frustrate their plans and avoid being drawn into a war that the U.S. surely does not want, we can not afford to appear afraid to confront our enemies.
Ultimately, the fear of a direct clash with the United States is the only thing that will force Iran to stand down, and thus lower the risks of the current war between Israel and Hamas spiraling into a wider war that engulfs the entire globe.
Douglas E. Schoen is a political consultant who served as an adviser to President Clinton and to the 2020 presidential campaign of Michael Bloomberg. His new book is “The End of Democracy? Russia and China on the Rise and America in Retreat.” Saul Mangel is a senior strategist at Schoen Cooperman Research.
thehill.com
Now, slightly more than a century later, it is the U.S. that is sleepwalking towards a full-blown world war, as the risks of a regional war metastasizing into a wider war continue to rise exponentially.
Put another way, more than three months after Hamas invaded Israel, killed approximately 1,200 people and abducted more than 200 hostages, leading to an Israeli ground invasion of Gaza, the world is sitting on the precipice of another world war.
To that end, if we are to avoid such a catastrophic scenario, the United States must not only be clear-eyed about the growing risks but also who our enemies are and their intentions. Above all else, we must be resolute in our determination to prevent the conflict between Israel and Hamas from spreading further than it already has.
After the outbreak of war between Israel and Hamas, President Biden made it clear that he had two priorities: Keep the fighting contained to Gaza, and deter Iran from taking advantage of the chaos, either by attacking Israel directly or unleashing its Hezbollah and Houthi proxies to attack Israeli or American targets.
To accomplish his goals, Biden — admirably — ordered the largest show of force in support of Israel since 1973, sending two aircraft carrier strike groups to the region and issuing a strongly-worded warning to Iran and Hezbollah not to intervene.
Unfortunately, Biden’s efforts failed on both fronts, as the fighting has spread from Gaza to the Red Sea, Yemen, Iraq and Syria, with American troops coming under attack in the latter two countries.
Moreover, Iran is clearly undeterred, feeling little pressure to rein in its proxies.
Hezbollah has conducted near-daily rocket and missile attacks against Israel, and its leader, Hassan Nasrallah, felt emboldened enough to threaten the U.S., saying in a regional war that “[U.S.] interests and soldiers will be the victim,” adding assurances that American “ships and air force will pay a heavy price.”
Another Iranian proxy, the Houthi Rebels in Yemen, have targeted American and allied naval ships, along with merchant cargo ships, effectively shutting the Red Sea, which 10-15 percent of world commerce depends on.
Biden’s failure to deter Iran — the architect of virtually all of the conflict in the region — has now led to direct American involvement and increasingly, the risk of widening the war in the Middle East.
With American planes and ships now conducting hundreds of airstrikes throughout Yemen, any incident could be the spark that sets off a global war, pulling in Iran and potentially its Russian ally.
To be absolutely clear, this is not to say Biden should preemptively attack Iran to deter the regime. However, it is to say that there is a seeming absence of both understanding the risks of an expanded war, as well as a strategy to avoid one.
As we wrote in these pages just weeks ago, “Without a strong, robust show of force against Iran and its terrorist allies, the risks of an all-out war increase significantly.” Those risks will only continue to rise as long as Iran, the head of this snake, feels it has a free hand to sow chaos without even the credible threat of a crushing American response.
In that same vein, if it is true, as Joe Buccino — former U.S. Central Command spokesman — has said, that CENTCOM has submitted potential targets to strike that would “really inflict pain” and “send a message” to Iran, but have been rebuffed by the White House, Biden would surely be neglecting his responsibility to protect America’s national security in favor of avoiding escalation at all costs — a policy destined to fail.
Also worth noting, Biden’s about-face on Israel, at least publicly, surely contributes to Iran’s calculations that the U.S. will not defend the Jewish State for much longer. While Biden initially offered full-throated support for Israel’s military efforts against Hamas, the administration has begun changing its tune, likely in response to pressure on Biden from the left wing of his party.
Indeed, Washington has been openly feuding with Israel in recent weeks, including calling on Jerusalem to allow more aid into Gaza, criticizing how Israel is fighting the war and pushing Israel to accept a Palestinian state when the war ends, a non-starter for Israel with Oct. 7 still seared into the country’s collective memory.
Whether for political reasons — war would surely cause the price of oil to spike in an election year, and Biden’s eroding support from the left over his approach to Israel — or the seemingly limitless desire of Biden to reach a diplomatic accord with Iran, the administration has failed to hold Iran accountable for its proxies, resulting in the dangerous scenario we now face.
In many ways, the position President Biden finds himself in is unnervingly similar to that of President Nixon in 1973. Then, like now, Arab forces had taken Israel by surprise, and concerns of outside intervention led Nixon to put U.S. nuclear forces on high alert, bringing the world disturbingly close to nuclear Armageddon.
Moscow’s realization that the United States was ready to use the full force of the American military to defend our ally Israel, played a critical role in both ending the war and ensuring that despite the threats, nuclear weapons would not be used.
Fifty years later, the Soviet Union has been replaced by an Iranian-led bloc of terrorist groups and rogue states, and with it, their messianic, ideological commitment to destroying Israel and America. If we are to frustrate their plans and avoid being drawn into a war that the U.S. surely does not want, we can not afford to appear afraid to confront our enemies.
Ultimately, the fear of a direct clash with the United States is the only thing that will force Iran to stand down, and thus lower the risks of the current war between Israel and Hamas spiraling into a wider war that engulfs the entire globe.
Douglas E. Schoen is a political consultant who served as an adviser to President Clinton and to the 2020 presidential campaign of Michael Bloomberg. His new book is “The End of Democracy? Russia and China on the Rise and America in Retreat.” Saul Mangel is a senior strategist at Schoen Cooperman Research.
Biden’s failure to deter Iran risks World War III in the Middle East
If we are to frustrate their plans and avoid being drawn into a war that the U.S. surely does not want, we can not afford to appear afraid to confront our enemies.
thehill.com
“To be clear, this is not to argue for the start of a new war between the U.S. and Iran or its proxies, but rather to point out that without a strong, robust show of force against Iran and its terrorist allies, the risks of an all-out war increase significantly.”
I reject this neocon mindset where acts of war are acceptable ‘diplomacy by other means’.
His statement, scrubbed of duplicitous language, is:
Without waging war against Iran we risk all-out war with Iran.
Neocons have craved war with Iran since 1979 when their puppet state imploded.
We don’t have to oblige them.
Hasn’t United States reelected the sitting president every single time they were engaged in a war?
With Biden not looking great in the polls, I would actually be worried that this would encourage him to become a wartime president.
I think after the 2001-2021 continuous war the US public wants a break.
Unfortunately the world situation might not give us that break.
Again, what do you want him to do about US military being attacked? Just take it? If he does nothing - you'll bitch. If he fights back - you'll bitch. Because you have an agenda.
I asked this a few weeks ago and didn't see any replies - not to you specifically - but what happens if we just say, "Eff all of you over here.", and completely pull out of all ME issues? If we just let them go at it and figure it out themselves. That entire region hasn't figured their crap out my whole life. We know the fighting and bloodshed will continue.
More investment finds a more peaceful home in the U.S.?
Increased travel cost on goods from China and India to Europe, and vice versa.
Cost of Middle East supplied energy could rise, making alternatives more favorable on the market, and inducing investment elsewhere..
No Americans awarded Purple Hearts every year in the sandbox.
Billions of U.S. tax dollars not turned into smoke, dust and burning enmity abroad.
I'm interested in the downsides others see, because I wonder if I'd view them as negatives or not.
I think that's attractive but short sighted. The region is still too critical to global trade as we've seen in the Red Sea and there's still a lot of oil the world needs. Thinking that if the whole region goes up in flames with Iran ending up as top dog won't have a very negative impact on the U.S and the world is short sighted and naive IMO.
Sooner or later we'd have to deal with it....better to nip it in the bud if we can. I'm not really confident because I don't see Iran stopping. I think they definitely have the approval of Russia and probably the at least tacit approval of the Chinese.
All they can do is sell the oil, and they can't sell it for more than it is worth.
Worst case, the oil doesn't get sold to anyone. Somewhere Greta smiles, and we're that much closer to saving the planet, as every other method of energy production gets a profit and investment boost.
We toppled their elected government 70 years ago because we didn't want them to price their oil.
Let's knock that shit off, it's immoral.
"Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win."
-Sun Tzu
I'm not asking for it. I despise Iran and literally don't care if we ended them. Biden. Trump. I don't care. That ONE country has been a pain in the ass my entire lifetime and continues to try to get Americans killed. Yeah, I know I don't sound much like a liberal democrat on this one.
The liberal democrat in you should learn about how we overthrew their elected government and the fact that intervention has beget intervention after intervention, with the loss of hundreds of American lives in the subsequent decades.
Because they dared to want to price their own oil.
We should try not meddling in their country for a while, and in time the locals will solve their own problems with the mullahs.
All our attacks do is unite them under their theocracy and delay its end.
Hadn't all the prisoners already been released though. The ones that took Kabul.
When Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed al-Sudani arrived in New York City in September for the UN General Assembly, a delicate truce was in balance between the two foreign powers that loom over Baghdad. Iraqi paramilitaries, backed by Iran, had frozen their attacks on US troops in the country. Iraq’s new leader arrived in New York City amid the lull. He was feted on a circuit of swanky receptions with western businessmen and diplomats on the sidelines of the General Assembly, as he pitched Iraq’s oil-rich but corruption-riddled economy as an investment destination.
Four months later, the Iraqi leader is condemning Iran and the US for launching deadly strikes in his countryand his investment pitch to the global elite at Davos Switzerland is overshadowed by his call for the US military and its coalition partners to leave Iraq. Since the Hamas-led attacks on October 7 and the war in Gaza, Iranian-backed militias have launched at least 70 attacks on US forces in Iraq.
In early January, the US hit back with its most powerful response yet, launching a drone strike in Baghdad that killed Mushtaq Taleb al-Saidi, also known as Abu Taqwa, a senior commander in the Popular Mobilization Units, an umbrella organisation of Iraqi state-funded and Iran-aligned, Shia militias.
Baghdad hit out at the strike as “a violation of Iraq’s sovereignty”. But no sooner was Iraq chastiszing the US for the strike, when Iran launched a barrage of ballistic missiles into the Iraqi city of Erbil, killing four people, including a prominent Kurdish real estate developer and his one-year-old daughter.
Baghdad slammed Tehran’s allegation that the house struck in Erbil was an Israeli Mossad “spy center”. At Davos, Sudani called the strike "a clear act of aggression”. Iraq has recalled its ambassador to Tehran and says it will file a complaint at the UN Security Council.
The dual rebukes of Iran and the US underscore the tightrope Baghdad is walking as the war in Gaza seeps out beyond the besieged Mediterranean enclave’s borders. Across the region, Tehran and Washington are flexing their muscles, vying to outflank each other in a deadly proxy war. The shadowy conflict has taken on different flavours that reflect local and geopolitical realities.
In Lebanon, the US is trying to de-escalate fighting between Israel and Hezbollah, with both sides wary of being dragged into a wider conflict. Meanwhile, Iran-backed Houthi fighters in Yemen have made themselves targets of US air strikes as a response to their attacks on commercial shipping.
But the conflict is perhaps at its most intense, and complex, in Iraq. “The Iraqi government is weak, divided and fundamentally can’t control conflict on its borders from foreign powers,” Renad Mansour, director of the Iraq Initiative at the Chatham House think-tank, told Middle East Eye.
“It emerged as the playground of choice, where the US and Iran can fight it out. The risk of escalation here is lower for both. And they can show force and compete for influence.”
“Instead of attacking Israel, what we are seeing in Iraq are more attacks on US forces,” Andrew Tabler, a former Middle East director at the White House’s National Security Council, told MEE. The pressure building in Baghdad to expel US troops has been underlined by Sudani’s public calls for an exit since the assassination of Abu Taqwa. If he follows through, experts say it would present a strategic victory for Iran.
Roughly 2,500 US troops are in Iraq to advise and train local forces as part of a coalition to defeat the Islamic State militant group. They are mainly based in Baghdad and northern Iraq’s autonomous Kurdish region. The latter is especially important for providing logistical support to 900 US troops in northeastern Syria.
The US’s legal justification for being in Syria is also based on its agreement with Baghdad. “Erbil is crucial for supporting Syria,” Tabler said, referring to the capital of Iraq’s autonomous Kurdistan region. “The US needs to have the ability to move troops and supplies on the overland route between the Iraqi frontier and Syria.”
Speaking in Davos on Thursday, Sudani said that “ISIS is no longer a threat to the Iraqi people,” and that "the end of the international coalition mission is a necessity for the security and stability of Iraq”.
The Biden administration and Baghdad were already negotiating the future of the US-led coalition in Iraq before the war in Gaza erupted, a former senior US official told MEE, but the war changed Washington’s approach to the talks. “It doesn’t look good to be discussing a drawdown when the Iranians are attacking US soldiers with missiles and drones. So there is a sense from the administration that we need to pause these talks.”
While the US continues to conduct small-scale raids against IS cells in the region, Washington views its military footprint in northeast Syria as a key counterweight to Iran and Russia, which back the Bashar al-Assad government in Syria. “The US mission in northeast Syria depends on Iraq,” Joel Rayburn, a former US special envoy for Syria, told MEE.
Four months later, the Iraqi leader is condemning Iran and the US for launching deadly strikes in his countryand his investment pitch to the global elite at Davos Switzerland is overshadowed by his call for the US military and its coalition partners to leave Iraq. Since the Hamas-led attacks on October 7 and the war in Gaza, Iranian-backed militias have launched at least 70 attacks on US forces in Iraq.
In early January, the US hit back with its most powerful response yet, launching a drone strike in Baghdad that killed Mushtaq Taleb al-Saidi, also known as Abu Taqwa, a senior commander in the Popular Mobilization Units, an umbrella organisation of Iraqi state-funded and Iran-aligned, Shia militias.
Baghdad hit out at the strike as “a violation of Iraq’s sovereignty”. But no sooner was Iraq chastiszing the US for the strike, when Iran launched a barrage of ballistic missiles into the Iraqi city of Erbil, killing four people, including a prominent Kurdish real estate developer and his one-year-old daughter.
Baghdad slammed Tehran’s allegation that the house struck in Erbil was an Israeli Mossad “spy center”. At Davos, Sudani called the strike "a clear act of aggression”. Iraq has recalled its ambassador to Tehran and says it will file a complaint at the UN Security Council.
The dual rebukes of Iran and the US underscore the tightrope Baghdad is walking as the war in Gaza seeps out beyond the besieged Mediterranean enclave’s borders. Across the region, Tehran and Washington are flexing their muscles, vying to outflank each other in a deadly proxy war. The shadowy conflict has taken on different flavours that reflect local and geopolitical realities.
In Lebanon, the US is trying to de-escalate fighting between Israel and Hezbollah, with both sides wary of being dragged into a wider conflict. Meanwhile, Iran-backed Houthi fighters in Yemen have made themselves targets of US air strikes as a response to their attacks on commercial shipping.
But the conflict is perhaps at its most intense, and complex, in Iraq. “The Iraqi government is weak, divided and fundamentally can’t control conflict on its borders from foreign powers,” Renad Mansour, director of the Iraq Initiative at the Chatham House think-tank, told Middle East Eye.
“It emerged as the playground of choice, where the US and Iran can fight it out. The risk of escalation here is lower for both. And they can show force and compete for influence.”
Syria, through Iraq
For Iran and its Iraqi allies who dominate Baghdad’s government, the war in Gaza has presented an opportunity to drive home their goal of expelling the US from Iraq. A former senior US official and an Iraqi official told MEE that there has been increased coordination between Iranian-backed paramilitaries in Iraq and Lebanese Hezbollah with that aim. According to media reports, a top Hezbollah official, Mohammad Hussein al-Kawtharani, arrived in Baghdad earlier this month to oversee the operations.“Instead of attacking Israel, what we are seeing in Iraq are more attacks on US forces,” Andrew Tabler, a former Middle East director at the White House’s National Security Council, told MEE. The pressure building in Baghdad to expel US troops has been underlined by Sudani’s public calls for an exit since the assassination of Abu Taqwa. If he follows through, experts say it would present a strategic victory for Iran.
Roughly 2,500 US troops are in Iraq to advise and train local forces as part of a coalition to defeat the Islamic State militant group. They are mainly based in Baghdad and northern Iraq’s autonomous Kurdish region. The latter is especially important for providing logistical support to 900 US troops in northeastern Syria.
The US’s legal justification for being in Syria is also based on its agreement with Baghdad. “Erbil is crucial for supporting Syria,” Tabler said, referring to the capital of Iraq’s autonomous Kurdistan region. “The US needs to have the ability to move troops and supplies on the overland route between the Iraqi frontier and Syria.”
Speaking in Davos on Thursday, Sudani said that “ISIS is no longer a threat to the Iraqi people,” and that "the end of the international coalition mission is a necessity for the security and stability of Iraq”.
The Biden administration and Baghdad were already negotiating the future of the US-led coalition in Iraq before the war in Gaza erupted, a former senior US official told MEE, but the war changed Washington’s approach to the talks. “It doesn’t look good to be discussing a drawdown when the Iranians are attacking US soldiers with missiles and drones. So there is a sense from the administration that we need to pause these talks.”
While the US continues to conduct small-scale raids against IS cells in the region, Washington views its military footprint in northeast Syria as a key counterweight to Iran and Russia, which back the Bashar al-Assad government in Syria. “The US mission in northeast Syria depends on Iraq,” Joel Rayburn, a former US special envoy for Syria, told MEE.
I've mostly avoided the Israel, Ukraine, et al threads. If I ignore the chaos, it won't come to fruition, right?
In all seriousness, it's the first time in my life I'm outside the SCIF unable to read through reliable Intel reports and vet them against MSM. It's a weird place to be...for me.
In all seriousness, it's the first time in my life I'm outside the SCIF unable to read through reliable Intel reports and vet them against MSM. It's a weird place to be...for me.
'Same foxhole'
The US military presence in Iraq has ebbed and flowed since the invasion 20 years ago. In 2011, the US pulled all of its forces from Iraq, only for them to return in 2014 at the invitation of Baghdad to fight IS. But in that period, Shia paramilitaries backed by Iran emerged as the most powerful armed groups in Iraq. Trained and funded by Iran, the Popular Mobilisation Units also fought IS.Some groups, like Kata'ib Hezbollah, have been at the forefront of attacks on the US in Iraq. The group’s founder, Abu Mahdi al-Mohandes, was killed in the same US strike that assassinated the Iranian commander, Qassem Soleimani.
Today, the PMUs boast more than 150,000 fighters. They maintain vast patronage networks and many are incorporated into Iraq’s official state security apparatus, with the Iraqi government paying their salaries. They have been accused of kidnappings, assassinations and suppressing peaceful protests.
The inability of successive Iraqi governments to rein in the sweeping powers of the PMUs has sown discord between Baghdad and Washington. Not only have US forces come under attack from the paramilitary groups, but Washington funds Iraq’s security system. In 2022, Iraq received $250m in military aid from the US.
Despite sporadic outbursts of fighting between the paramilitaries and Iraq’s security services, “the cost of going against the militias for the Iraqi government is far higher than the cost of keeping them,” Abbas Kadhim, head of the Iraq Initiative at the Atlantic Council, told MEE. “For Washington, it's an urgency because they are under attack, but it’s not a crisis for the Iraqi state. The militias are fighting in the same foxhole as the Iraqi government.”
Pay raise for Iranian militias
Sudani is supported by the Coordination Framework, a coalition of Tehran-backed Shia political parties that are tied to many of Iraq’s paramilitaries. While Sudani negotiated a six-month truce that saw attacks on US forces in Iraq stop, the PMUs have gained more influence under his rule, experts say.“Iran-backed militias have a more visible presence on Baghdad’s streets during Sudani's tenure,” setting up new checkpoints, Michael Knights, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, wrote, adding that they have also deepened their business activities.
This year, Sudani’s government passed a three-year budget that allocated $700m more dollars to the PMUs, which will allow them to add almost 100,000 new fighters to their ranks, according to analysts. But current and former US and Iraqi officials say Baghdad wants to maintain good relations with Washington.
Sudani has framed his call for quick exit of US-led coalition troops as necessary to preserve “constructive bilateral relations” with the US, which he told Reuters could include training and advising Iraqi security forces. His comments are a reflection of the unique ties Baghdad maintains to both Washington and Tehran.
The dollar trap
Iran and Iraq share a thousand-mile border. The two Shia-majority countries have an estimated ten million border crossings annually, with many Iranian pilgrims visiting shrines in Karbala and Najaf. Iraq is the second most important destination for Iranian exports and is dependent on Iran for about 35 to 40 percent of its power needs.Iran has never shied away from flexing its economic weight over its neighbor. But Iraq’s finances are also intricately tied to the US.
The second largest producer in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, Iraq depends on its oil revenue to fund its government - including to pay the salaries of Iranian-backed paramilitaries. The proceeds from Iraq’s oil sales are deposited in the US Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
A recent US crackdown on money laundering in Iraq has helped fuel a currency crisis in Iraq, showcasing the immense sway Washington has over Iraq’s finances because of its dependence on the dollar. The US has also backed Sudani’s appeal for international investments in Iraq.
When Baghdad threatened to expel US-led coalition forces from Iraq after the 2020 assassination of Soleimani, the Trump administration threatened to cut Iraq’s access to its dollar reserves and stop issuing sanctions waivers for Iraq to buy Iranian energy, former US officials familiar with the talks told MEE.
The same officials say that cudgel is an option the Biden administration retains if demands for a US exit grow, but some question whether the administration would use it, after trying to reset relations with Baghdad after the tumultuous Trump years. “The US can’t be expelled from Iraq if it doesn’t want to be,”Rayburn, the former US special envoy for Syria, told MEE.
“If the US doesn’t have a military presence in Iraq, then the US need not do other things on behalf of the Iraqi government. Like facilitating dollar supply from the Federal Reserve, protecting against lawsuits, and issuing sanctions waivers,” he said.
While Iranian-backed militias want to expel the US from Iraq, experts say even the most hardline groups like Kata'ib Hezbollah benefit from Iraq’s economic links to the West. “Even the most anti-American leaders in Iraq realize they need some kind of relationship with the US,” Mansour told MEE. “Iraq is a lifeline for Iran. Its access to US dollars and financial markets is key.”
Kadhim, at the Atlantic Council, believes the focus among policymakers in Washington to merely protect US troop presence in Iraq is shortsighted. “Of course, Iran’s ideal goal is to get the US out of Iraq completely, but their practical goal is to make the US presence a liability,” which he says, the Iranians have already achieved.
“Basically, you have a small number of US troops in Iraq sequestered to their barracks. They can’t even go to town,” he said. “In the long run, someone is going to ask why are we here.”
