Iran is Leading Iraq's Tikrit Offensive: What are the 2nd and 3rd Order Effects?

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 03 Mar 2015 12:04:35 -0500

Iraq’s offensive to retake Tikrit has taken the United States by surprise. While the coalition has conducted numerous airstrikes against ISIS in Mosul in preparation for an offensive that has now been indefinitely postponed, no airstrikes have been conducted in support of the operation to retake Tikrit. Instead, Iran appears to be providing leadership and military support to as much as 30,000 Iraqi troops and Shia militias as they fight to capture Tikrit from ISIS. There are numerous reports that the commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Major General Qassem Soleimani is on the ground near Tikrit helping to lead the operation. Instead of airstrikes, large amounts of artillery and rocket fire are being used to support the ground troops. The second and third order effects of this development are numerous. Retaking Tikrit could open additional lines of communication and supply for the eventual offensive to retake Mosul. However, Iranian involvement in Iraq could also prove to be disastrous. The potential for the fight against ISIS to devolve into a sectarian war between Sunnis and Shia could be increasing. Iranian influence in Iraq has been increasing since we pulled out and this could help Iran gain even more power over the Iraqi government. Despite this, an ISIS defeat in Tikrit could be a significant morale boost to the Iraqi Army and a huge embarrassment to ISIS. Iraq, Iran and the US stand to make gains with a victory over ISIS in Tikrit. But who stands to gain more? It could be Iran. This is a very dangerous and unstable time for US interests in Iraq. What exactly will the effects be and will we be ready for them?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/02/iraq-s-attack-against-isis-catches-u-s-by-surprise.html?via=desktop&source=facebook#

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-31699632

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense-news/blog/intercepts/2015/03/02/iraq-iran-is-war-terrorism/24270363/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/01/us-mideast-crisis-iraq-idUSKBN0LX1QL20150301

Invite others to respond

Iraq’s Attack Against ISIS Catches U.S. ‘By Surprise’

The biggest offensive against ISIS so far happened without American help—but with plenty of assistance from Iran.

Response by CPT Zachary Brooks made Mar 3 at 2015 12:07 PM

CPT Zachary Brooks — Tue, 03 Mar 2015 12:07:24 -0500

Anyone taking down ISIS is a good thing, the only issue we have to be worried about is Iran looking for Quid Pro Quo.

Response by SGT Jim Z. made Mar 3 at 2015 12:16 PM

SGT Jim Z. — Tue, 03 Mar 2015 12:16:54 -0500

Although I am glad that former rivals have teamed up to fight ISIS I am a little worried that Iran will eventually turn on Iraq and it become a sectarian conflict between the two countries. This action though shows that the Muslim world is sick and tired of the ISIS movement.

Response by Maj Chris Nelson made Mar 3 at 2015 12:18 PM

Maj Chris Nelson — Tue, 03 Mar 2015 12:18:42 -0500

That entire region is a hot mess. I think that just about everyone here would agree that ISIS is bad. I could probably get people to agree that Iraq is bad, but better then ISIS. I could also probably get people to agree that Iran is bad, but maybe better then ISIS....but regardless, Iraq and Iran even without ISIS should be considered dangerous. It is nice to see that other countries in the neighborhood are unifying against ISIS.... Shows that they have concerns also.... but later down the road? Hard to say who will fight who once a common enemy is gone.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Mar 3 at 2015 1:34 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Tue, 03 Mar 2015 13:34:17 -0500

The enemy of my enemy is still my enemy, and don't you forget it.

I suspect that Iran has every intention of using this and every other opportunity to make good on its promise to destroy Israel and America. As you look at these images of Iran leading the charge against ISIS, don't neglect the simultaneous images of Iran destroying a mock US carrier.

Response by COL Ted Mc made Mar 11 at 2015 1:13 PM

COL Ted Mc — Wed, 11 Mar 2015 13:13:48 -0400

So far the main "winner" in GWII ("Mr. Bush's War" in some circles, "The War On Terror" in others) has been Iran.

Since the Iranians understand the Middle East better than the US government does, that situation isn't likely to change.

If it weren't for the "NOT on MY Watch" syndrome, Iraq would already be three countries, ("Kurdistan", "Sunnistan", and "Shi'iteistan" for want of more easily identifiable names) with the first being firmly in the "Western" camp, the second being loosely in the "Taliban" camp, and the third being firmly in the "Iranian" camp.

It's very difficult to fault a leadership which has been supported for decades by the Iranians and which shares linguistic, cultural, and religious ties with them for aligning themselves with the Iranians - almost as difficult as it is to understand how the US government thought that putting people with linguistic, cultural, and religious ties to Iraq into power in Iraq would NOT result in those people aligning themselves with the Iranians.

It's all very well to be providing "air support", but that doesn't impress the locals nearly as much as seeing boots on the ground delivering concrete aid and assistance after physically kicking "the bad guys" out of town. [If you don't believe me, please name ONE city {I'll even settle for village, hamlet, town, or "inhabited location"} that the USAAF liberated during WWII.]

Maj Chris Nelson Major; you say that "... Iran and Iraq even without ISIS should be considered dangerous" and you may well be correct. You should also remember that, prior to GWII the Iranians and the Iraqis had ZERO chance of acting in concert and that al-Qa'eda, ISIS, and the like had ZERO chance of operating in Iraq.

Am I going to say that GWII was a mistake? Well, no I'm not - what I am going to say is that the result of going to war in order to produce a secular, honest, democratic, progressive, government of a united and peaceful Iraq which was a staunch ally of the United States of America and a bulwark against Iran seems to have fallen just a bit (read as "almost completely") short of the mark.

As far as the other countries "uniting against ISIS" is concerned, don't bet the rent on it. What they are uniting against is the fact that ISIS appears to want to operate on THEIR turf and doesn't appear to be amenable to the traditional "We'll give you tons of money to do whatever you want to do - just as long as you don't do it here." approach of the Saudis.

CPT Jack Durish Captain; Your first comment is bang on. Transient advantage doesn't justify strengthening the opposition - but it does help your re-election chances.

As for the images of the Iranians destroying an American carrier, I'm quite sure that they will attempt to do so IF the American carrier is used in an actual attack on Iran. Absent any actual attack on Iran, the Iranians aren't stupid enough to attack an American carrier [at least not using anything which is traceable to Iran].

However, you have to agree that, IF the US government conducts an actual attack on the independent and sovereign state of Iran WITHOUT being attacked by Iran first, then that is a clear cut act of war and would justify the Iranians defending themselves using any means possible and would make any USN vessel in the area a legitimate target for attack.

On the other hand, the attack on the mockup of the carrier could also just be a rather expensive piece of domestic propaganda that has the additional benefit (as the Iranian leadership sees it) of REALLY annoying people outside of Iran/Iraq (hopefully [as the Iranian leadership sees it] to the point where they will miscalculate their response and do something incredibly dumb which the Iranian leadership can take advantage of).

The Iranians' "pledge" to "destroy Israel" is, as you well know, a "pledge" to eliminate the country of Israel as an independent and sovereign state (which has happened before) and NOT a "pledge" to "kill the Jews".

The Iranians' "pledge" to "destroy the United States" is, as you well know, sheer puffery. Iran does NOT have the capacity to "destroy the United States" - never did, doesn't now, and isn't ever going to. With a total population of around 77,000,000, Iran has only around 20,000,000 [at an absolute maximum] available for "military or occupation" duties and that means that it can only muster enough people to garrison the United States of America if it strips its own country of every male between the ages of 16 and 49.

We'll completely ignore the logistical issues which would be involved in Iran conquering the United States of America because once you start to consider those the very idea becomes so laughable as to preclude and discussion more serious than "If the Roman XLVII Legion was attacking the 12th SS Armored Division, would they all be dead before the Germans ran out of ammunition?".

SGT Jim Z. Sergeant; It's highly doubtful that Iran is going to "turn on" the pro-Iranian leadership of Iraq (especially since that leadership and the leadership of Iran are coreligionists). You might see a bit of "ethnic cleansing" of the Sunni by the Shi'ite while the Shi'ite are attempting to expunge the fanatical Sunni who form ISIS and who are conducting their own "ethnic cleansing" of the Shi'ite - but you have to expect that sort of thing when you are dealing with a religion-based civil war arising after the disintegration of a unitary state (REGARDLESS of why that unitary state disintegrated).

CPT Zachary Brooks Captain; Iran IS going to asking for a quid pro quo - and it's already getting it from the Iraqi leadership.

So far there doesn't appear to be much that the Iranian government wants that the US government can provide that the Iranians can't get someplace else. This makes bargaining slightly difficult.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 11 at 2015 6:11 PM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Mar 2015 18:11:32 -0400

I voted for bad thing because Iran is gaining influence in Iraq, but fighting ISIS is worth it. We don't want Iran gaining more influence in that region, and it seems they are doing just that.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Mar 18 at 2015 12:47 PM

LTC Paul Labrador — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 12:47:29 -0400

Iran was already a major backer of the Shia majority. This will increase Iran's influence among Shia Iraqis. Likely will exacerbate the already hot sectarian divide. IMHO, Iraq as a nation is done and will Balkanize into thre distinict nations based on ethnic divides.....which is what the case was before WW1 and when Brits arbitrarily re-drew the borders in the region....

Response by COL Ted Mc made Apr 4 at 2015 3:38 AM

COL Ted Mc — Sat, 04 Apr 2015 03:38:43 -0400

CPT Private RallyPoint Member Captain; Tikrit has fallen.

The question remaining is "Is this a victory for our side?"

From "Reuters"

Special Report: After Iraqi forces take Tikrit, a wave of looting and lynching

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/03/us-mideast-crisis-iraq-tikrit-special-re-idUSKBN0MU1DP20150403

(Reuters) - On April 1, the city of Tikrit was liberated from the extremist group Islamic State. The Shi'ite-led central government and allied militias, after a month-long battle, had expelled the barbarous Sunni radicals.

Then, some of the liberators took revenge.

Near the charred, bullet-scarred government headquarters, two federal policemen flanked a suspected Islamic State fighter. Urged on by a furious mob, the two officers took out knives and repeatedly stabbed the man in the neck and slit his throat. The killing was witnessed by two Reuters correspondents.

The incident is now under investigation, interior ministry spokesman Brigadier General Saad Maan told Reuters.

Since its recapture two days ago, the Sunni city of Tikrit has been the scene of violence and looting. In addition to the killing of the extremist combatant, Reuters correspondents also saw a convoy of Shi'ite paramilitary fighters – the government's partners in liberating the city – drag a corpse through the streets behind their car.

CPT Operations Officer (S3) at G3, IMCOM HQ | 90A: Multifunctional Logistician | RallyPoint

View the full military profile of CPT (Join to see), Operations Officer (S3) at G3, IMCOM HQ | Joint Base San Antonio, TX | RallyPoint professional military profile.