Islamist Militants Take Mosul

[zraver]

Not at the cost of Iran being a nuclear power or substantially increasing the size of Iran. In that case those "benefits" disappear real fast.

We are reaching a nuclear agreement with Iran. The best way to keep Iran's nuclear ambitions limited to nuclear power rather than being a nuclear power is rapprochement and a seat at the table. We've done more to stop Iranian nuclear weapons ambitions by talking to them in Geneva than we did with sanctions and did it in about 1/20th the time. People need to get over the idea of the big bad Persian boogyman. We deal with China, Russia and Pakistan we can deal with Iran.

Only in comparison to no strategy at all....

Not so sure I agree, Iran has weathered the sanctions and is now wielding significant influence in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Bahrain. Though there is still an Arab-Persian divide many Arab Shia are far less opposed to Iran than they were.

Except Saudi Arabia controls the oil reserves.

Saudi influence is waning... and good riddence to that evil kingdom.

Dead scumbags and dead innocents, all at the same time. No thanks, no whiskey for me.

More dead innocents and fewer dead scumbags if we do nothing. Partnering with Iran to crush ISIS offers the best path to the most dead scumbags for the fewest dead innocents.

Except propping them up has faithfully served our economic interests for the last 50 years.

BS, 80-2005- 25 years. Half the time you claim and now they are on the high oil prices at the cost of global stability the same as the rest of OPEC. The oil price spike is a big part of the great recession.

No actually, we talked to the Canadians, the South Americans, rural folks up on North Dakota, and the Saudis.

Not the Saudis, by turning to Canada along with Mexico and (surprisingly) Venezuala we reduced reliance on KSA going from a high of 2305K barrels per day to 1444k per day. At one point in 2013 is dipped below 1k barrels per day. The inspiration and funding for the jihadis comes from the Gulf Arabs. It was Arabs not Persians who flew planes into our buildings.

The US has a long history of secret tactical alliances with Iran. We worked with them to save Bosnia in the 90's and in late 01 Iran was working with of SF operators in Southern Afghanistan to take out the Taliban (until Bush's axis of evil speech). We've also worked with them to try and get Iraqi Shia to play along with a united Iraq since a stable Iraq was in both our interests. Sadly Maliki has proven to be to sectarian and the current crisis is in part his fault because of the way he has been marginalizing the Sunnis.

[citanon]

We are reaching a nuclear agreement with Iran. The best way to keep Iran's nuclear ambitions limited to nuclear power rather than being a nuclear power is rapprochement and a seat at the table. We've done more to stop Iranian nuclear weapons ambitions by talking to them in Geneva than we did with sanctions and did it in about 1/20th the time. People need to get over the idea of the big bad Persian boogyman. We deal with China, Russia and Pakistan we can deal with Iran.

Z, the Iranians came to the table because they were forced to by Sanctions and the situation in Syria. Their long term nuclear ambitions remain. Further more, Iran has shown a more alarming combination of internal stability, outward expansionism, actual competence, and lack of internal development incentives than any of the above you listed except perhaps Russia. One Russia is bad enough. We don't need a Jr. Russia in the Middle East.

Not so sure I agree, Iran has weathered the sanctions and is now wielding significant influence in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Bahrain. Though there is still an Arab-Persian divide many Arab Shia are far less opposed to Iran than they were.

That is to say, that they have influence in places of internal weakness. For that they have traded away economic development. Does that make their long term strategy good? Or just good at rolling downhill?

More dead innocents and fewer dead scumbags if we do nothing. Partnering with Iran to crush ISIS offers the best path to the most dead scumbags for the fewest dead innocents.

Here's the thing. We cannot crush ISIS in partnership with Iran, and Iran is not dumb enough to think we can. It has no interest in "saving the innocents". It has no intention of "crushing ISIS". It understands its position in the scheme of things perfectly. Namely:

If we partner with them, the Sunni situation will explode in our faces. Iran will sit back and reap it's new found provinces, and we will do the heavy lifting and innocents the heavy dying.

If we don't partner with them, and don't do anything, they'll watch the situation in Baghdad dengenerate into sectarian war but it will move no further than that towards the Shia areas. The Sunni positions will harden against the Shia and the Shia stub of Iraq will still become an Iranian protectorate. Sunni insurgents work in Baghdad but also shift their attentions south to Saudi Arabia.

Thus, if we don't play this right, or play into their hand, or not doing anything, Iran sits pretty reaping the rewards of chaos. That's the move they've laid out.

BS, 80-2005- 25 years. Half the time you claim and now they are on the high oil prices at the cost of global stability the same as the rest of OPEC. The oil price spike is a big part of the great recession.

Oil has always been cheap for us, and don't kid your self that the great recession is anyone's fault but our own.

Not the Saudis, by turning to Canada along with Mexico and (surprisingly) Venezuala we reduced reliance on KSA going from a high of 2305K barrels per day to 1444k per day. At one point in 2013 is dipped below 1k barrels per day. The inspiration and funding for the jihadis comes from the Gulf Arabs. It was Arabs not Persians who flew planes into our buildings.

There are a lot of Arabs around. They need to be managed. Best they do so by a US dependent client state. At least there's a manager to yell at once things go wrong. Without the Saudi Royals in our back pockets we're still looking at a bunch of rich radicals, except now the only prospect of controlling them would be 100,000 US troops on the ground.

The US has a long history of secret tactical alliances with Iran. We worked with them to save Bosnia in the 90's and in late 01 Iran was working with of SF operators in Southern Afghanistan to take out the Taliban (until Bush's axis of evil speech). We've also worked with them to try and get Iraqi Shia to play along with a united Iraq since a stable Iraq was in both our interests. Sadly Maliki has proven to be to sectarian and the current crisis is in part his fault because of the way he has been marginalizing the Sunnis.

Working with or barely tolerate? They've also got a long history of trying to (and succeeding) in blowing up our guys that were tolerating the presence of their proxies. China worked with the Mongols too some time back. That did not turn out to be wise for the Chinese.

The enemy of my enemy is not really my friend despite the old adage. He's some times just another enemy that needs to be managed in a different way.

[zraver]

Z, the Iranians came to the table because they were forced to by Sanctions and the situation in Syria. Their long term nuclear ambitions remain.

Really, they just announced their heavy water reactor is going to scale back leaving them with only 3lbs of PU vs the 30 we projected...

Further more, Iran has shown a more alarming combination of internal stability, outward expansionism, actual competence, and lack of internal development incentives than any of the above you listed except perhaps Russia. One Russia is bad enough. We don't need a Jr. Russia in the Middle East.

I think we need a regional hegemon to do the heavy lifting if we are not willing to do it and can't trust KSA.

That is to say, that they have influence in places of internal weakness. For that they have traded away economic development. Does that make their long term strategy good? Or just good at rolling downhill?

They are getting what they want. Maybe not everything, but more than us.

Here's the thing. We cannot crush ISIS in partnership with Iran, and Iran is not dumb enough to think we can. It has no interest in "saving the innocents". It has no intention of "crushing ISIS". It understands its position in the scheme of things perfectly. Namely:

If we partner with them, the Sunni situation will explode in our faces. Iran will sit back and reap it's new found provinces, and we will do the heavy lifting and innocents the heavy dying.

Dissagree and think the Sunni situation has already blown up in our face.

If we don't partner with them, and don't do anything, they'll watch the situation in Baghdad dengenerate into sectarian war but it will move no further than that towards the Shia areas. The Sunni positions will harden against the Shia and the Shia stub of Iraq will still become an Iranian protectorate. Sunni insurgents work in Baghdad but also shift their attentions south to Saudi Arabia.

Thus, if we don't play this right, or play into their hand, or not doing anything, Iran sits pretty reaping the rewards of chaos. That's the move they've laid out.

If we partner with them we at least get a seat at the table.

Oil has always been cheap for us, and don't kid your self that the great recession is anyone's fault but our own.

Go look at the price spikes please. Middle of 05 it hit 70 a barrel and then by middle of 07 it hit 140 a barrel. Gee thanks KSA for keeping oil prices low for us....

There are a lot of Arabs around. They need to be managed. Best they do so by a US dependent client state. At least there's a manager to yell at once things go wrong. Without the Saudi Royals in our back pockets we're still looking at a bunch of rich radicals, except now the only prospect of controlling them would be 100,000 US troops on the ground.

Who flew planes into our buildings? It wasn't a bunch of Persians, who made their ability to do so? It wasn't the Iranian embassy/ ambassador. Its funny you talk about Iran's lack of internal development and then want us to partner with KSA which still prosecutes people for WITCHCRAFT... and bans all religions but Islam.

Working with or barely tolerate? They've also got a long history of trying to (and succeeding) in blowing up our guys that were tolerating the presence of their proxies. China worked with the Mongols too some time back. That did not turn out to be wise for the Chinese.

Sunnis backed and funded by saudis have killed far more of our people....

The enemy of my enemy is not really my friend despite the old adage. He's some times just another enemy that needs to be managed in a different way.

But sometimes fate does make strange bed fellows who can become friends- Germany, Japan, Vietnam....

[gf0012-aust]

I believe the Saudis get a good amount of advising. SANG especially.

Their key praetorian elements are usually pakastani....

[S2]

"...I believe the Saudis get a good amount of advising..."

They unquestionably once needed it. Among the least competent foreign officers with whom I associated. I can't fathom why that might have changed. All the great equipment in the world won't compensate for poor tactical/technical skill sets.

[astralis]

citanon,

If we partner with them, the Sunni situation will explode in our faces. Iran will sit back and reap it's new found provinces, and we will do the heavy lifting and innocents the heavy dying.

If we don't partner with them, and don't do anything, they'll watch the situation in Baghdad dengenerate into sectarian war but it will move no further than that towards the Shia areas. The Sunni positions will harden against the Shia and the Shia stub of Iraq will still become an Iranian protectorate. Sunni insurgents work in Baghdad but also shift their attentions south to Saudi Arabia.

Thus, if we don't play this right, or play into their hand, or not doing anything, Iran sits pretty reaping the rewards of chaos. That's the move they've laid out.

i believe there's narrow areas of cooperation with the iranians that don't necessitate a full-on Grand Compromise with them. Iran and the US did some basic intel-sharing during the opening stages of OEF.

[Albany Rifles]

"...I believe the Saudis get a good amount of advising..."

They unquestionably once needed it. Among the least competent foreign officers with whom I associated. I can't fathom why that might have changed. All the great equipment in the world won't compensate for poor tactical/technical skill sets.

Steve, I would share your views if were 15 - 20 years ago.

The reality of the neighborhood they live in has hit home. They have taken defense seriously.

There are enough dead end jobs they can stick the royalty into so the important jobs are filled with competent leaders.

And they definitely have a strong Air Force to back them up.

All of that said, if ISIS makes a move towards Kuwait and/or Saudi then they will cross a tripwire. There is no way the US is going to allow that to happen. We can't...too many economies are tied to Saudi oil.

Keep in mind there are ALWAYS 2 US Army armored brigade combat teams as well as a heavy combat aviation brigade sitting in Kuwait every day.

[tantalus]

All of that said, if ISIS makes a move towards Kuwait and/or Saudi then they will cross a tripwire.

Why would they make a move towards Saudi Arabia?

Another thing I am curious about, does anyone have a take on if the majority of Sunni Iraqis support ISIS?

[Albany Rifles]

Why would they make a move towards Saudi Arabia?

Another thing I am curious about, does anyone have a take on if the majority of Sunni Iraqis support ISIS?

Not saying they would.

Someone asked that question several posts back asking what would happen if they did and I was responding to that post.

[zraver]

Why would they make a move towards Saudi Arabia?

Another thing I am curious about, does anyone have a take on if the majority of Sunni Iraqis support ISIS?

They wont, not right now, they get to much money from KSA and Qatar to rock that boat yet.

[Minskaya]

Seems that Iraqi Security Forces (Shia) killed dozens of Sunni prisoners in Baquba north of Baghdad.

Shia forces accused of sectarian massacre at prison

According to news stringers, forward elements of ISIS arrived at the outskirts of Baghdad this morning.

[Big K]

Turkey officialy declared that El-Nusra is not in the terrorist organisations list anymore....

[Doktor]

Turkey officialy declared that El-Nusra is not in the terrorist organisations list anymore....

That would put Turkey in peace/truce with AQ and ISIL?

[Minskaya]

The government of India says it has been unable to contact 40 nationals in Mosul since it was overrun by ISIS militants and fears they may have been kidnapped. The Iraqi Red Crescent says it will try to evacuate 46 Indian nurses from the Tikrit Teaching Hospital north of Baghdad as soon as it is safe to do so.

Prayers for the well-being and safety of all.

[Bridgeburner_]

That was the Syria strategy I believe...

The West was not acting in Syria? Hah, good one.

The fund supposed mythical "secular" rebels shtick which did all of zero lifting against Assad, instead Salafist and Wahabbi forces were indirectly receiving Western aid and directly receiving the aid via KSA and assorted Gulf States, in addition to training in Jordan. Funny how fuelling the flames of destabilization in areas like Libya and Syria could lead to blowback in Iraq. Despite this, Syria stands

I'd hate to imagine how terrible this ISIS situation would be currently if Assad had rolled over and died like so many in the West wanted him to

On a hilarious related note

Tony Blair: 'We didn't cause Iraq crisis'
COMMENTS (1173)
Jump media playerMedia player helpOut of media player. Press enter to return or tab to continue.
Tony Blair: "Don't believe washing our hands of it and walking away will solve the problem"
Continue reading the main story
Struggle for Iraq

Failing state?
Maps illustrate conflict
Mortal blow to Baghdad
Who are ISIS?
The 2003 invasion of Iraq is not to blame for the violent insurgency now gripping the country, former UK prime minister Tony Blair has said.

He told the BBC there would still be a "major problem" in Iraq even without the toppling of Saddam Hussein in 2003.

He insisted the current crisis was an issue that "affects us all" and urged more western intervention in the area.

Critics have rejected the comments as "bizarre" with one accusing Mr Blair of "washing his hands of responsibility".

Iraqi Shiite tribal fighters raise their weapons in Baghdad's Sadr City,
Shias in Iraq have been urged to take up arms against the Sunni militants
Mr Blair said the idea that Iraq today would be stable if Saddam had been left in place was "simply not credible".

"Even if you'd left Saddam in place in 2003, then when 2011 happened - and you had the Arab revolutions going through Tunisia and Libya and Yemen and Bahrain and Egypt and Syria - you would have still had a major problem in Iraq," he said.

"Indeed, you can see what happens when you leave the dictator in place, as has happened with Assad now. The problems don't go away."

Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote

Where the extremists are fighting, they have to be countered hard, with force”

Tony Blair
He also called for some form of intervention in neighbouring Syria, warning that inaction would result in a threat to UK soil.

Mr Blair was prime minister when UK and US forces controversially invaded Iraq in 2003 - on the basis that it had weapons of mass destruction - with the last of Britain's troops withdrawing in 2011.

Now, uprisings by the al-Qaeda breakaway group the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) have led to a surge of violence and sectarian killings in recent days.

The Sunni insurgents have advanced north of Baghdad.

And as Iraqi government forces attempt to hold them back, a US aircraft carrier has been deployed to the Gulf in response to the escalating violence.

'Unending violence'
Mr Blair said the idea that Iraq would be stable if the UK and US had not intervened "just isn't true" and that the current crisis involved the wider region as a whole.

In an essay on his website, he said the violence in Iraq was the "predictable and malign effect" of inaction in Syria.

But Michael Stephens, from the Royal United Services Institute, insisted the Iraq War had a part to play in the recent upsurge in violence.

"I think Mr Blair is washing his hands of responsibility," he said. "But at the same time, I do agree with him that we can't just ignore this.

"We do have some kind of role to play in terms of trying to make sure that both Iraq and Syria do not fragment and just move on into sort of unending violence."

Sir Christopher Meyer, Britain's ambassador to the US from 1997 to 2003, said the handling of the campaign against Saddam Hussein was "perhaps the most significant reason" for the current sectarian violence.

Map
"We are reaping what we sowed in 2003. This is not hindsight. We knew in the run-up to war that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein would seriously destabilise Iraq after 24 years of his iron rule," he said in the Mail on Sunday.

Syria is three years into a civil war in which tens of thousands of people have died and millions more have been displaced.

In August last year, a chemical attack near the capital Damascus killed hundreds of people.

In the same month, UK MPs rejected the idea of air strikes against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government to deter the use of chemical weapons.

Members of Iraqi security forces and tribal fighters take part in an intensive security deployment on the outskirts of Diyala province June 13, 2014.
Thousands of Shias are reported to have volunteered to help halt the advance of ISIS
"You do not need to engage as we did in Iraq or Afghanistan, but you need to recognise that we have interests in this," Mr Blair told the BBC.

'Bizarre views'
Clare Short, a former Labour minister who resigned over the Iraq War, said Mr Blair was "absolutely, consistently wrong, wrong, wrong".

"He has become a complete American neo-con, who thinks military action, bombing, attacking will solve the problems and it's actually making more and more tension, anger, division and bitterness in the Middle East," she told Sky News.

Iraqi Shiite tribal fighters raise their weapons in Baghdad's Sadr City,
Shias in Iraq have been urged to take up arms against the Sunni militants
Security analyst Professor Eric Grove said he found Mr Blair's position to be "bizarre".

Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote

What will [be] the impact on the streets of London and Bradford and others?”

Iraqi ambassador in Washington Lukman Faily on the prospect of international inaction
"So saying this is a result of our non-intervention, if Mr Blair really thinks that going into Syria and basically fighting everyone was going to lead to a better situation, I think his views are somewhat bizarre actually. I can see very little logic in this."

But former Middle East minister Alistair Burt said there was a "great danger" of trying to understand the situation by going back to "one root cause" and "blaming what was done in the past".

The Iraqi ambassador in Washington, Lukman Faily, meanwhile, said that, without international help, the effects of the crisis would be felt in the UK.

"What will [be] the impact on the streets of London and Bradford and others?" he said in an interview for BBC Radio 4's The World This Weekend.

He added: "These jihadists are coming from all over the world, so do you want these jihadists to go back to their country, in Bradford and elsewhere, to learn [sic] what they have practised in Iraq?"

The Iraq War has been the subject of several inquiries, including the Chilcot inquiry - which began in 2009 and whose report has not yet been published - into the UK's participation in military action against Saddam Hussein and its aftermath.

What has gone unsaid is basically transposing what the Iraqi ambassador said about Iraq and replacing it with Libya or Syria, (in fact, the culprit of the recent attack on a Jewish museum in Brussels was linked to ISIS).

CNN touches on the domestic threat to Western nations from Syria in vivid detail here -http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/16/world/meast/iraq-sria-foreign-legion-jihad-threat-to-west/

Sadly I won't see the day when this slimeball Blair is dragged in front of the Hague for destroying the lives of millions of Iraqis. What's really the icing on the cake is the fact that he is urging for action against Assad, who is and has been a veritable anti-Wahhabi/Salafist bastion from the beginning.

The political message is loud&clear.Besides,more can arrive if need arises.

After the Katyn inflicted by the ISIL,the name Sunni will disappear from Iraq.Shia death squads of earlier days will be fondly remembered,as nice guys.
My pity is reserved,as usually,for the poor chaps caught in the middle of the maelstrom.They are screwed no matter what.

Who in the West will do a 180 on Syria and Assad? If a solution for ISIS "issue" exists, it needs to be tackled from all angles - Iranian, Syrian and Kurdish. Either one can continue to follow and support the asinine policy of

-In Syria indirectly strengthening ISIS by opposing Assad and find themselves on the same side as ISIS
-Across a fictional line established by dead European colonialists, Messrs Sykes/Picot, manage to be on the opposite side of these supposed "too extreme for Al-Qaeda" bunch

Or actually put aside the childish, destructive policy of encouraging regime-change in the Middle East and concentrate on the alleged main point of the West being involved in the region in the first place - to combat the rise of Islamic extremism. (Something to grow extremely skeptical about considering how much of blind eye has been shown to the activities of Saudi Arabia/Gulf States over the last decade)