Persian Gulf & Middle East Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

[PanAsian]

And that, IMHO, is their entire objective.

A growing Al Queda led Calliphate. Right now it makes up half of Syria and haf of Iraq. They hope to defeat all of Iraq...but will have a tought to impossible time of controlling the South (IMHO).

They also hope to defeat Assad.

At some point, they will form (and are foriming) a defacto country. That will bode badly for the future in terms of extremists and terror camps and breeding grounds.

I expect they will ally themselves with the Taliban, and that the Taliban and affiliates of these people will make a push to completely control Afghanistan as soon as the US pulls out.

Syria is fighting them. I expect Iran will try and co-op them or bring them into its sphere. If Iran is successful in doing this...Iran will then itself be an effectual calliphate from the middle of Syria to the Pakistan border. If Pakistan falls to them...they will then be nuclear armed and even larger. THey are also making in roads into Africa.

Sadly, I believe all of this is possible in current geo-strategic situation in the Mid-East.

ISIS is sponsored by Saudi Arabia, they are Sunni terrorists and the enemies of Shiite Iran which is why they are fighting the Assad government in Syria who is allied with Iran. There is zero chance of co-operation between the two camps.

If the Islamic extremists continue to be pre-occupied with each other then that's great for the rest of us. But if one side is to prevail then I would bet on the Sunni Saudi-led camp having the edge over the Iran-led Shiite camp given that the Saudis have un-embargoed access to all the world's weapons exporters, a much better economic position, and the practical blind-eye they have from most Western governments including the US.

 

[Jeff Head]

ISIS is sponsored by Saudi Arabia, they are Sunni terrorists and the enemies of Shiite Iran which is why they are fighting the Assad government in Syria who is allied with Iran. There is zero chance of co-operation between the two camps.

This was already discussed after my post...and answered. I said Iran might try and co-opt the ISIS. That does not mean join them.

However, from the later reports (also mentioned since that post on this thread) it is apparent that the Iranians are in fact sending Qud battalions into Iraq to fight the ISIS.

 

[Jeff Head]

This should be the time for Erdogan to change sides. Turkey and Iran are in the best position to intervene together and thus prevent the other of winning control over Iraq. Together they can end the trouble in Syria. The losers would be the sponsors of the terrorists in Syria and Iraq, in the first place Saudi Arabia, and of course the Kurds in Northern Iraq. Would Erdogan have the guts to do this? How would the US react to such a reversal of alliances?

I do not think Turkey would have to "switch alliances," at all to do what you propose.

They could easily say they were ensuring that Iraq did not fall into the hands of Al Queda and were helping stop that to protect NATO interests...and at the same time keep Iran from gaining all the prestige and power from stopping it.

This plan might actually be something Obama could go with because it would be the epitomy of his "leading from behind," strategy of letting others take the risk.

 

[kwaigonegin]

And that, IMHO, is their entire objective.

A growing Al Queda led Calliphate. Right now it makes up half of Syria and haf of Iraq. They hope to defeat all of Iraq...but will have a tought to impossible time of controlling the South (IMHO).

They also hope to defeat Assad.

At some point, they will form (and are foriming) a defacto country. That will bode badly for the future in terms of extremists and terror camps and breeding grounds.

I expect they will ally themselves with the Taliban, and that the Taliban and affiliates of these people will make a push to completely control Afghanistan as soon as the US pulls out.

Syria is fighting them. I expect Iran will try and co-op them or bring them into its sphere. If Iran is successful in doing this...Iran will then itself be an effectual calliphate from the middle of Syria to the Pakistan border. If Pakistan falls to them...they will then be nuclear armed and even larger. THey are also making in roads into Africa.

Sadly, I believe all of this is possible in current geo-strategic situation in the Mid-East.

Jeff,

One of the biggest difference in the Islamic world is on the issue of the Caliphate... it is mostly a Sunni believe. The Shia do not subscribe to that type of theology.
The Caliphate is mainly an AQ, ISIS, Taliban (most terrorist orgs) dream. Iran/Hezbollah/Syria (Assad) etc as we all know subscribe to the Shia side of things.

Most Westerners also do not realize that Iranians are also not Arabs.. they are Persians and while most in the Western hemishpere may not care, it is actually a very important distinction to them and must be understood by forces going into that part of the world.

Personally I think that's part of the issue why we made many mistakes in our foreign policy there because the powers to be have not truly understand the dynamics and tribal differences of the deep divide between Sunni/Shia and Arabs and Persians.


It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.

Sun Tzu - Art of War .. Chapter 3.

 

[Jeff Head]

Jeff,

One of the biggest difference in the Islamic world is on the issue of the Caliphate... it is mostly a Sunni believe. The Shia do not subscribe to that type of theology.

The Caliphate is mainly an AQ, ISIS, Taliban (most terrorist orgs) dream. Iran/Hezbollah/Syria (Assad) etc as we all know subscribe to the Shia side of things.

This is about the 3rd time I have responded to this. But what the hay...the more the merrier...and clearly my intial post was not as clear as it should have been.

But I did I indicate in that post that Iran might try to coopt the ISIS activities...that does not mean they would join them and be friends.

I realize they are at each others throats and I understand the theological reasons within Islam between the Shias and Sunnis for that to be so. Iran is predominantly Shia and has its own visions of Islam's spread. It supports many terror groups in their fight against the west. It is the largest state sponsor of such activities.

Most of Islam is however Sunni and some of the really radical segments of it make up many terrorists groups. That does not mean that the fundamental Shias are our friends...but it does mean that they can be a part of the solution in fighting and stopping the even more radical ISIS in Iraq.

As it is, Iran has now moved into Iraq with two battaions of its Qud forces and are apparently involved with taking on the ISIS in Tikriet.

This is perfectly understandable that Iran would seek to become involved in this. They want to improve their stake and reputation in the entire area. I believe the PM of Iraq has always had a strong affinity to Iran and this is the opportunity to make the most of it.

I would like to see Turkey get involved and come in to help with Mosul. Not to claim territory for Turkey, but to enhance its position in the overall Mid East, and as a needed counterbalance, IMHO, to Iran. As I stated, it would also dovetail with Obama's lead from behind strategy.

Turkey is a NATO ally and is more aligned with the Mid East position that is a counter wieght to Iran. It would not be in Turkey's or the US's or NATO's best interst for Iran to come in and be the only heavy weight stopping the ISIS.

Anyhow, that is how I see it.

 

[kwaigonegin]

This is about the 3rd time I have responded to this. But what the hay...the more the merrier...and clearly my intial post was not as clear as it should have been.

But I did I indicate in that post that Iran might try to coopt the ISIS activities...that does not mean they would join them and be friends.

I realize they are at each others throats and I understand the theological reasons within Islam between the Shias and Sunnis for that to be so. Iran is predominantly Shia and has its own visions of Islam's spread. It supports many terror groups in their fight against the west. It is the largest state sponsor of such activities.

Most of Islam is however Sunni and some of the really radical segments of it make up many terrorists groups. That does not mean that the fundamental Shias are our friends...but it does mean that they can be a part of the solution in fighting and stopping the even more radical ISIS in Iraq.

As it is, Iran has now moved into Iraq with two battaions of its Qud forces and are apparently involved with taking on the ISIS in Tikriet.

This is perfectly understandable that Iran would seek to become involved in this. They want to improve their stake and reputation in the entire area. I believe the PM of Iraq has always had a strong affinity to Iran and this is the opportunity to make the most of it.

I would like to see Turkey get involved and come in to help with Mosul. Not to claim territory for Turkey, but to enhance its position in the overall Mid East, and as a needed counterbalance, IMHO, to Iran. As I stated, it would also dovetail with Obama's lead from behind strategy.

Turkey is a NATO ally and is more aligned with the Mid East position that is a counter wieght to Iran. It would not be in Turkey's or the US's or NATO's best interst for Iran to come in and be the only heavy weight stopping the ISIS.

Anyhow, that is how I see it.

much better.. LOL I agree that there definitely needs to be a counterbalance because of the power vacuum that exist and the instability there however the last thing we want also is for Turkey and Iran to fight some sort of proxy war on Iraqi soil with ISIS, Hezbollah and AQ fighters all jumping into the fray for fun... and you just know that the Kurds will also be involve if that happens.

 

[Jeff Head]

I agree that there definitely needs to be a counterbalance because of the power vacuum that exist and the instability there however the last thing we want also is for Turkey and Iran to fight some sort of proxy war on Iraqi soil with ISIS, Hezbollah and AQ fighters all jumping into the fray for fun... and you just know that the Kurds will also be involve if that happens.

I think Turkey would have to come in and publically state...as would Iran...that they are doing this to "help" Iraq...to keep it stable and save life.

If they were able to do that, and not fight each other, both would end up upping their gravitas in the region.

Overall, Iraq could remain the same...but I think there is no doubt, with their current PM, that they are going to gravitate torwards Iran. Too late to prevent that in any case.

Turkey's help in the intervention would keep that from going completely overboard and help Turkey's interests...and by extension NATOs.

 

[solarz]

Shoot not only that, I can see a stronger Kurdish independent movement into carving Iraq as there own sovereign nation.

Yes, at this point, the partitioning of Iraq seems very likely, and this would actually be the best case scenario. The worst case would be a failed state like Somalia (which is very much like Iraq's current state).

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

Shoot not only that, I can see a stronger Kurdish independent movement into carving Iraq as there own sovereign nation.

That's nothing new. Kurdistan once existed as a independent nation it's boarders containing parts of modern Iraq, Iran, Syria, Turkey and Armenia. They were absorbed into the Ottoman empire until it's fall in world war one. with the redrawing of the boarders post World war one Kurdistan was carved up like a turkey dinner. now since about the Gulf war the Kurds have more or less operated as a indepent region. after OIF, the Kurds under American Administration were given even more freedom of Autonomy but they operated as Symbiont with the state of Iraq. the Kurds governed and maintained security of there areas, the state left them alone in exchange the Kurds who happen to have a very effective military force given them by the US, Operated on behalf of Iraqi state by Sharing oil wealth, Taxes and maintained order to prevent violence between the groups. Now the Kurds in Iraq have been supporting the Syrian Kurds to a degree but the two groups are ruled by different nationalist parties.
Kurds in Turkey have had a rougher time as they have wanted a independent Kurdistan more then the others but Turkey is not willing to allow that because the lion's share of traditional Kurdistan sits in Turkey. If any power would put it's foot down and fight a independent Kurd state it's Turkey.

Iran also has parts of Kurdistan particularly along it's boarder with Iraq. they would also fight hard to prevent a Kurdish state.
In Syria the Kurds are already fighting for there lives.
Armenia would likely lose the least only part of there border territory's

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

And from Miles behind a Squeaky little voice announces.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Obama: U.S. will not send troops into combat in Iraq
Jun. 13, 2014 - 02:56PM |

By Andrew Tilghman
Staff writer Military Times

Sunni militants capture 2 towns north of Baghdad

How did 800 ISIS fighters rout 2 Iraqi divisions?

Iraq War vets angry, distraught as insurgents gain ground.

President Obama said Friday he is considering military action in Iraq, but will not deploy U.S. troops there.

“We will not be sending U.S. troops back into combat in Iraq,” Obama declared in a statement from the White House lawn.

However, as Islamic militants continued to advance south toward Baghdad and threaten the American-backed government there, Obama said Iraq “needs additional support to break the momentum of the extremist groups.”

“I have asked my national security team to prepare a range of other options that could help support Iraqi security forces,” he said.

A Pentagon official said later Friday that those options will include “kinetic strikes” on the forces loyal to the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham, or ISIS, which were moving southward Friday and continuing a stunning three-day campaign that seized major cities, including Mosul, and large portions of the Sunni-dominated north and west.

The ISIS force inside Iraq is not large, estimated at potentially fewer than 1,000 fighters. But their recent military success is driven by the widespread desertion of thousands of Iraqi soldiers who were trained by the U.S. military and given billions of dollars worth of sophisticated American equipment.

Obama said those widespread desertions reflect the fact that the underlying crisis roiling Iraq is fundamentally a political problem between the Shiite-led government and its Sunni minority.

“This is not solely or even primarily a military challenge,” Obama said. “The United States has dumped a lot of money into these Iraqi security forces. And we devoted a lot training to the Iraq security forces. The fact that they are not willing to stand and fight and defend their posts against admittedly hardened terrorists but not terrorists who are overwhelming in numbers, indicates that there is a problem with morale, there is a problem in terms of commitment, and ultimately that is rooted in political problems that have plagued the country for a very long time.”

Obama said the ISIS advances this week pose a risk not only to the Iraqi government, but also, potentially, to the U.S.

“Given the nature of these terrorists, it could pose a threat eventually to American interests as well,” he said.

If the Iraqi government wants U.S. assistance, Obama said, its leaders will have to take significant steps toward resolving the political crisis between the Sunnis and Shiites. That likely would include vows to give Sunnis more high-level jobs and sending a larger share of the country’s oil revenue to local governments in predominantly Sunni regions.

“We’re not going to allow ourselves to be dragged back into a situation where we are there and keeping a lid on things,” Obama said.

“We can’t do it for them. In the absence of this type of political effort, short-term military action, including any assistance we might prove won’t succeed. This should be a wake-up call. Iraqi leaders have to demonstrate willingness to make hard decisions and compromises on behalf of the Iraqi people to bring the country together,” Obama said.

“The United States will do our part, but understanding that it is up to the Iraqis as a sovereign nation to solve their problems.”

The White House is currently in contact with the Iraqi government, and Obama said he might have a clear plan for military assistance “by the end of the weekend.”

As of Friday morning, the Navy’s Carrier Strike Group 2 and the aircraft carrier George H.W. Bush remained in the Arabian Sea. The carrier deployed in February, accompanied by the cruiser Philippine Sea, the destroyers Truxtun and Roosevelt and Carrier Air Wing 8.

The Navy has no immediate plans to move the Bush carrier strike group to the Persian Gulf, Navy spokeswoman Lt. Cmdr. Sarah Flaherty told Military Times on Friday.

Some experts doubt direct U.S. military action would solve the underlying political crisis.

“I don’t think the West has a military role to play here,” said Charlie Cooper, who studies Islamic extremism for the Quilliam Foundation in London. “The situation we ought to hope is one in which [Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al] Maliki lends a hand to the Sunni tribes for political inclusion.”