Posted on 03/04/2015 11:54:47 AM PST by keat
For the past few days, Iraqi military forces and Shiite militias have been fighting to encircle the Iraqi city of Tikrit in a bid to drive out ISIS forces. But in contrast to other recent offensives, they are supported not by U.S. airstrikes but by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. According to some reports, Qassem Soleimani, the mysterious commander of the Revolutionary Guards’ international operations, is on the ground coordinating the attack.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon is backtracking on its recent surprise announcement of a U.S.-supported Iraqi and Kurdish offensive to retake Mosul this spring. After Iraqi officials expressed irritation at the oddly detailed announcement and the Kurds (among others) expressed doubts about whether the Iraqi military would be ready in time, U.S. defense officials now say the operation could be months away.
The Mosul campaign is still planned, and some optimistic U.S. officials are suggesting that a successful battle in Tikrit could set the stage for it, but the Iraq-Iran cooperation is definitely a sign that Baghdad isn’t particularly interested in conducting its war on Washington’s timetable.
Washington seems a bit unsure of how to feel about that. U.S. officials say the Iraqis did not ask for U.S. support in the Tikrit operation, but military commanders say they were aware of the operation to retake Saddam Hussein’s hometown in advance, even if they didn’t coordinate it. As one official told the Wall Street Journal, “any geography taken from ISIL is a good thing.”
Still, the increasing influence of Iran in Baghdad, and the fact that Iranian-backed Shiite militias are taking the lead in the fight against ISIS while the U.S. continues to debate the readiness of the official Iraqi army, cannot be good for the American push for Iraqi unity.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
How many people really think that Iran will hand any territory they capture back to the inept Iraqi government that couldn’t protect it in the first place?
I think, instead, we will see Iraq become an Iranian client state.
Annexing Iraqi territory would be incompatible with making them a client state. They are both shia dominated countries, and giving them a territorial grievance would be counterproductive.
Yup.
Iraq is already a client Iranian state and the Sunni Arabs have no desire to be under its thumb.
Islamic State is not going to be easily driven out of its Sunni Arab strongholds anytime soon.
I don’t think they will officially annex anything. They won’t need to. Once the Iranian army is there, all they need to do is not leave.
Part of Obama’s Deal with Iran is ,they can have Iraq
Some reports on youtube say Iraqi AF jets were bombing Tikrit targets.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
