Iraq Should Not Be US Responsibility At This Stage

Yesterday, the Obama administration declared that it could not be in charge of Iraq's security anymore.

For once, I agree with Obama that Iraq should not be America’s problem, at least at this juncture.

To be clear though, I care about Iraq, I see ISIS as a global threat, and I believe in troops on the ground in certain situations. Also, even though I believe we should never have gotten into Iraq, I do believe that we got out way too prematurely. But we got out, and since we have left, the geopolitical context has substantially changed.

By that, I mean Iran’s assertiveness and Syria’s civil war.

In Iraq and Syria, Iran and its proxies, are determined to fight ISIS. It’s not that Iran’s mullahs disagree with ISIS view of the world; it’s that old Shia-Sunni rivalry that is at play. That rivalry is so acute, that I am actually convinced that Iran wants to see ISIS decimated more than the US or any Western country. So why not let them do the dirty work for us? We should, and here are further reasons that we, in fact, must do so:

1. Sucking Iran In- by not bringing its firepower to Iraq, the US is inviting Iran to get involved even more seriously to defeat ISIS. That’s a lot of fronts on which Iran will have to be seriously engaged- Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. Consequently, Iran’s hands become tied and less free to project their terror agenda elsewhere.

2. Casualties Are Not Us- it may sound horrible to say this, but I am all for having fanatics on one side fighting fanatics on the other side. Let’s have each side inflicting many casualties to the other.

3. Iran Nuclear Deal- getting out of Iraq reduces one important US dependency on Iran, which should hopefully lessen Iran’s leverage on America in the current dangerous nuclear deal negotiations.

4. Israel’s Security- Former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy declared this week “Hezbollah, day by day, is contributing to the security of the state of Israel”. It may sound counter-intuitive, but it’s actually quite logical. Hezbollah, a proxy or Iran, armed and trained by Iran Revolutionary Guards, has been summoned by Iran to help fight ISIS in Syria. If Iran has to double their effort in Iraq, due to America’s position, then Iran will make more demands out of Hezbollah, first in Syria and probably in Iraq too. This means less Hezbollah’s provocations in the north of Israel. This also means Hezbollah’s well-trained fighters both dying and inflicting casualties on ISIS in a way that neither Israel nor America can. Indeed, if Hezbollah or Iran creates collateral damage or destroys a place of worship, nobody in the Muslim world would condemn. You can, however, imagine the outcry if it were the US or Israel doing so.

Making Sense of Obama’s Middle East Strategy

The Middle East is in big turmoil. Iran is surging. Iraq is a mess. Yemen is bound to be a bigger mess. Syria is a civilian slaughterhouse. ISIS is on the offensive. Sunnis are bombing Shiites. Shiites are killing Sunnis. Israel is genuinely concerned about its existence. The Palestinians are not going to have a state anytime soon.

And, America is retreating!

In fact, while attempting to retreat, America has put itself in various paradoxical situations:

• The US left Iraq but is still responsible for sorting it out

• The US left Yemen but is forced back through a Sunni coalition

• The US abandoned Egypt, triggered a terrorist group “democratic” takeover, maintained its arm shipments to the Muslim Brotherhood government but declared an arm embargo on the subsequent el-Sisi government

• The US has now lifted the embargo on the el-Sisi government

• The US is revisiting its long lasting relationship with Israel, its strongest ally in the region

• The US is trying to negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran while asking for Iran’s help in combating ISIS in Iraq and supporting a Sunni coalition against the same Iran in Yemen

• The US wouldn’t accept Netanyahu’s apology on his shortsighted 2 state comment but doesn’t ask Iran to apologize for its “death to America” comments while negotiating with them

So what’s happening here? Is Obama clueless, anti-Israel, or pro-Arab as many would say?

It does seems as if Obama lacks a strategic compass. This mess is in fact the direct result of his actions and inactions. To be fair though, the Iraq mess could have been avoided if the Bush administration didn’t invade that country on false pretenses. But Obama inherited that situation, and as the executive in charge, we expect him to re-assess each situation and act accordingly. Clearly, leaving Iraq was not the best course of action as it triggered ISIS ascent and accelerated Iran regional assertiveness. But Obama is not clueless, there is more to it than what meets the eye.

Is he anti-Israel? I don’t think so either. There are a lot of facts proving that he is no fan of Netanyahu and probably not the biggest fan of Israel, but to call him an Israel hater would be unfair. He was a proponent for the funding of Iron Dome for instance.

Is he pro-Arab? Again, I don’t think so. He mistreated Egypt. He threatened Assad not to cross the chemical weapon line, but did nothing to defend all these innocent Arab lives after Assad did cross that line. And now, he appears to be turning his back on the Arab Sunni states in favor of Iran.

So what is it? I would venture that the explanation lies in Obama’s radical view of the world, of America’s role in it, and of the Middle East’s strategic importance to the US going forward.

Fundamentally, Obama doesn’t think that the US should be in the Middle East anymore. This is partly due to his liberal views of military disengagement but also due to his belief that the balance of power in the region has shifted in US favor. Indeed, with America’s energy independence at hand, Obama feels that the Middle East now needs the US more than the US needs it. So why continue to spend gigantic amounts of taxpayer money in a region that appears less strategic when he can redirect these budgets towards economic and social issues at home? Within this framework, letting Iran become a nuclear power in 10 to 15 years, or become the regional power, does not pose a strategic threat to the US anymore. Better even, Obama gets an opportunity to be the US President who normalized ties with Iran. What a legacy!

I do not agree with this view of the world and I believe Obama is unleashing a very dangerous situation. True, the US may not need the Middle East in the long run as an energy source, but as long as other parts of the world will, the Middle East will continue to be a region flush with cash that needs to be monitored by America. The combination of wealth and religious fundamentalism has shown to be very lethal and will increasingly threaten the US on its own soil. Moreover, expect Saudi Arabia and many other Sunni gulf states to start a nuclear race. The security guarantees that the US could issue to them so they wouldn’t arm would sound empty as this administration has created for itself a well deserved reputation of abandoning its traditional allies in favor of disengagement in the region and normalization with Iran. That outcome is directly at odds with America’s security as the combination will become wealth + religious fundamentalism + nukes. In the end, Obama can get the US out of the Middle East but he unfortunately won’t be able to get the Middle East out of the US.

Obama’s strategy is dangerous for the US and the world. It makes George W. Bush look like a strategic thinker and Jimmy Carter look like Machiavelli.