Iraq still Faces Major Challenges Despite ISIS Defeat

A member of Iraqi Federal Police waves an Iraqi flag as they celebrate victory of military operations against ISIS in West Mosul, Iraq July 2, 2017. (Reuters)
A member of Iraqi Federal Police waves an Iraqi flag as they celebrate victory of military operations against ISIS in West Mosul, Iraq July 2, 2017. (Reuters)
TT
20

Iraq still Faces Major Challenges Despite ISIS Defeat

A member of Iraqi Federal Police waves an Iraqi flag as they celebrate victory of military operations against ISIS in West Mosul, Iraq July 2, 2017. (Reuters)
A member of Iraqi Federal Police waves an Iraqi flag as they celebrate victory of military operations against ISIS in West Mosul, Iraq July 2, 2017. (Reuters)

Even though Iraqi Prime Minister Haidar al-Abadi announced on Saturday that the war against ISIS was over, the “major victory” will remain fragile as long as the root causes for the extremists' rise are not tackled.

Iraq waged a long and devastating campaign to wipe ISIS from the map after the extremists threatened the country’s very existence by seizing roughly one third of its territory in 2014.

But while Baghdad may be basking in its battlefield success for now, relying on military might will not be enough in the longer term.

"Everything remains to be done to dry out the earth on which ISIS flourished," said Karim Bitar, a regional expert at the Paris-based Institute for International and Strategic Affairs.

"The extremists have been deprived of oxygen and defeated militarily but the womb from which they emerged remains fertile."

Now the fighting is finished, the list of demands facing Iraq's authorities is daunting -- and includes many key challenges that Baghdad has failed to address for years.

"It involves first of all consolidating the power of the central authorities while pursuing inclusive policies that do not marginalize any community," Bitar said.

"Then it is necessary to tackle reconstruction, economic and social problems, stem corruption and ensure the equitable distribution of oil incomes."

For decades, the country has known nothing but war, starting with the war with Iran (1980 – 1988), the invasion of Kuwait (1990 – 1991) and the US invasion (2003 – 2011.) It is now on its knees after the brutal years of ISIS rule in the territory it controlled and the harrowing battle to defeat the extremists.

A donor meeting for the country is set to be held in Kuwait in February and estimates put the reconstruction bill facing Iraq at some $100 billion (85 billion euros).

Iraq expert Mohammad Ould Mohamedou, a professor at Geneva's Graduate Institute, cautioned that even the victory on the battlefield might not be as definitive as its seems.

The extremists have melted into the desert and maintained their capacity to launch brutal attacks across the country -- reverting to their roots as insurgent fighters.

"The question of ISIS is not going to disappear. The military aspect is far from over, and in this type of conflict, hostilities remain for a long time at a level that requires a substantial commitment," Ould Mohamedou said.

Key to preventing a resurgence by the extremists will be dealing with the profound sectarian and social grievances.

"The work of reconstruction, in this case, is as much social as in terms of infrastructure," said Ould Mohamedou.

Bitar said that as long as the Sunni grievances remain, then the possibility of the emergence of a new insurgent movement cannot be ruled out.

“Proxy wars and weak central governments will not be able to close the chapter on violent extremism,” he warned.

As all attention has focused on wiping out ISIS, experts and Iraq's Western backers warn that another major threat may have emerged from within the very fight to defeat the group.

That is the rise and legitimization of the array of militia groups who clubbed together under the banner of the Hashed al-Shaabi, Popular Mobilization Forces, to play a key role in defeating ISIS.

While to some the militia fighters are heroes who came to Iraq's aid in its hour of need, others fear they are an unruly and unaccountable force.

Nominally under the command of Abadi, the PMF are dominated by Iranian-backed groups accused of being proxies for Tehran.

How the central government now goes about dealing with the 60,000 to 140,000 fighters estimated to have joined the PMF, and whether Baghdad can really bring them to heel, is a major issue.

"The biggest security challenge is internal, because many of the myriad of PMF groups are turning into local mafias, setting up illegal checkpoints, toll roads, and the like, to support themselves financially," said Kirk Sowell, an expert who publishes Inside Iraqi Politics.

"In this sense, ISIS is more relevant to the rest of the world, but for Iraqis, a local armed gang which needs money is far more dangerous."



Ceasefire Ends Iran-Israel War, Stakeholders Weigh Costs and Benefits

US President Donald Trump (Reuters)
US President Donald Trump (Reuters)
TT
20

Ceasefire Ends Iran-Israel War, Stakeholders Weigh Costs and Benefits

US President Donald Trump (Reuters)
US President Donald Trump (Reuters)

In a stunning development, US President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire that effectively ended the conflict between Iran and Israel.

The announcement came shortly after a carefully calibrated Iranian retaliation targeted a US military base in Qatar, an attack that caused no casualties or material damage.

Trump expressed gratitude to Iran for pre-warning Washington about the strike, framing the gesture as a face-saving move.

The question now gripping regional and international capitals is: What have the United States, Iran, and Israel each gained if the ceasefire holds?

United States

The United States has once again asserted itself as the dominant and decisive power in the Middle East. It delivered a crippling blow to Iran’s nuclear facilities without escalating into full-scale war, thereby undermining the very justification for Israel’s initial strike on Tehran.

Recent events have underscored that Israel cannot engage Iran militarily without close coordination with Washington, nor can it exit such a conflict without a pivotal American role.

The confrontation has also highlighted the unparalleled strength of the US military machine, unmatched by any other power, large or small.

Iran, for its part, clearly showed reluctance to escalate the conflict in a way that could trigger direct, open confrontation with the United States.

Trump himself demonstrated tactical skill by combining military pressure with diplomatic overtures, swiftly moving to invite Iran back to the negotiating table.

Meanwhile, the limited role of Europe and the modest involvement of Russia became apparent, unless aligned with US efforts. China appeared “distant but pragmatic,” despite its broad interests in Iran and a vested concern in keeping the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz open.

Iran

Iran demonstrated that the devastating initial strike it suffered from Israel did not undermine its military or political resolve despite the severity of the attack.

The Tehran regime confirmed that, although Israeli fighter jets controlled Iranian airspace briefly, its missile arsenal remained capable of unleashing scenes of destruction across Israeli cities unseen since the founding of the Jewish state. Iran’s missile forces, it showed, could sustain a costly war of attrition against Israel.

Tehran also succeeded in preventing calls for regime overthrow from becoming a shared objective in a US-Israeli war against it.

Yet, Iran appeared to lack a major ally comparable to the United States or even a lesser power, despite its “strategic” ties with Russia and China.

The confrontation revealed Tehran’s inability to fully leverage its proxy forces in Gaza and Lebanon following the fallout of the “Al-Aqsa flood” escalation.

The exchange of strikes further highlighted Israel’s clear technological superiority and the success of Israeli intelligence in penetrating deep inside Iran itself, raising alarming concerns in Tehran.

Israel

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu can claim credit for persuading the Trump administration to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, particularly those beyond the reach of the Israeli military.

Israeli forces succeeded in gaining control over distant Iranian airspace within days, a feat Russia has not achieved after three years of war in Ukraine.

Israeli intelligence breakthroughs inside Iran played a crucial role in the conflict, culminating in Israel’s public release of videos it labeled “Mossad-Tehran branch” and drone bases.

Netanyahu can argue that he made a difficult decision to attack Iran and convinced the Israeli public that the fight was existential. He can also remind critics that he expelled Iran from Syria and curtailed Hezbollah’s ability to wage war on Israel.

He may also point to new regional power balances he has imposed - part of his broader ambition to reshape the Middle East - with Israel maintaining the region’s most powerful military force.

However, Netanyahu’s policies risk renewed clashes with many, especially as tensions over Gaza and the “two-state solution” resurface.

Observers say the gains made by the parties at the end of the Iran-Israel conflict remain fragile and could shift depending on how events unfold.

Any calm could enable Israeli opposition forces to reopen debates on Netanyahu’s “wars” and their costs. It might also prompt the Iranian public to question their leadership’s responsibility for the military setbacks and Iran’s regional and global standing.

For now, the spotlight remains firmly on the primary player: Trump.