Wednesday, March 4, 2015

Don't You See Any Contradiction, Counter-productivity or Backlash in Your Plans Against ISIS in the Near Future?

Briefly: Since August 2014, the USA and its coalition have started a broad military intervention against ISIS in both Iraq and Syria.
When it comes to Iraq, the coalition is training and arming the Kurdish and Iraqi military and security forces (Both puppets of the Iranian Regime), and at the same time, the coalition air forces are bombing ISIS targets in the country. To put its simply, by this tactic, the coalition is fighting ISIS in Iraq exactly in the favor of both current Iraqi government and the Islamic Regime of Iran.

We leave aside Iraq and check the current tactic of the coalition in Syria.
When it comes to Syria, the coalition air forces are bombing ISIS targets in the country. In most cases, if ISIS has retreated in some areas (if any), due to the coalition air strikes, the Syrian military and security forces have seized the power and control on that areas, mainly due to fundamental weaknesses of the Syrian rebels and deep fragmentation within the Syrian rebel groups.

In short, the current tactic of the coalition against ISIS in Syria is also exactly in the favor of Assad's Regime and its big brother the Islamic Regime of Iran. One thing is Chrystal clear up until this point and there is some type of co-existence and informal (or secretly formal) coordination and cooperation between the coalition forces on the one side and the military forces of Iran, Syria and Iraq on the other side. Due to this heavenly-magic co-existence, we have not observed any direct clash or military confrontation between various contradictory actors involved in the battle against ISIS so far.

As briefly explored above, there is a type of sweet honeymoon between various actors in Iraq and Syria or we might say: everything is going well, softly and smoothly in these two countries. Moreover, we should not be genius or have PhD in political science, or International Relations or Military-Strategic studies to understand that the so far implemented tactics of the coalition in both Iraq and Syria is and will be in the favor of political systems in Russia, Iran, Iraq and Syria. Although in reality i totally disagree with this type of move in both Iraq and Syria, i can swallow the event in a very irrational and illogical manner. In this respect, i can delude myself and my intelligence by saying that the Obama administration has decided to give extra advantage to the Iranian Regime, or the administration has decided to appease or show its pure friendship to the Iranian Regime by these types of tactics in a hope to get a nuclear deal with the Mullahs in Tehran. Who knows, maybe some in the current U.S. administration think that a nuclear deal with Tehran can erase the six years chaotic foreign policy of the USA from the entire history of man kind.

This is not unfortunately the end of the story.The peculiarity of story begins, when we hear that the USA has recently signed a deal with Turkey to professionally and systematically organize, train and arm 15,000 Syrian Rebels against Assad's Regime in the geographical territory of  Turkey. In this respect, we face two major different plans, which each one of them has its own special and to some extent opposing characteristics with another one. Implementing these two opposing plans simultaneously and parallel with each other can cause and develop a huge  contradiction, counter-productivity and backlash in various forms and terms; maybe not at the present and at this stage, but it will definitely in the future do.

Let's briefly explore these two incompatible plans one by one.

The first plan is the current tactic of the coalition against ISIS in both Iraq and Syria. As briefly described above, we came to the conclusion that this plan is totally beneficial for the political systems in Russia, Iran, Syria and Iraq. As such, neither Iran, nor Iraq, nor Syria, nor Russia do not have any objection in this matter so far. Simply, because these political systems are enjoying "the Buck Passing Strategy" and using the coalition's resources in their own favors in both Iraq and Syria.

The newly second plan is organizing, training and arming 15,000 Syrian rebels in Turkey. I don't think the coalition would try to create an army of 15,000 majors or generals from these rebels. In other words, sooner or later maybe after three months (more or less) extensive military course, these 15,000 well-trained rebels will be deployed into Syria and will begin to fight against ISIS and more importantly against Assad's Regime. I leave aside the important notion that after the training, some of these 15,000 rebels might join other Islamic Radical groups such as Al.Qaeda or Al-Nusra Front or alike either in Syria or Iraq or other chaotic areas around the world. Instead, i briefly focus on the military confrontation of these well-trained Syrian rebels with the Syrian military forces and its negative consequences in some areas probably beyond the geographical territories of Iraq and Syria.

In such an event or one might say hypothetical event, what would be the reaction of Russia, Iran, Syria and Iraq, when these political systems observe that Assad's Regime is on the verge of collapse? How would Russia react? Wouldn't Russia, in retaliation, try to destabilize more Ukraine or some of the Balkan states, or playing with its golden energy card with the EU, or ignoring the nuclear negotiation within 5+1 in the favor of Tehran, or arming the Iranian  Regime with high-tech offensive-defensive military equipment?

So would be the case of Iran. In such an event, would the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Quds force, Badr Organization, Mahdi Militia, Hezbollah and other Shiite groups backed by Iran let the coalition forces implement their own plans in Syria and Iraq without any problem, without any military confrontation? How would the USA and the coalition react in such an event? On the one hand, the USA and coalition forces are smashing ISIS in the favor of Iran and Syria, and on the other hand, they are fighting against the Syrian Regime and consequently Iran and its affiliates in the region? Wouldn't this plan speed up the nuclear activity of the Iranian Regime?

So is the case of Syria. So far, the Syrian military forces have not shot a single bullet toward the coalition military jets. What would be the reaction of Damascus, when Bashar Assad observe that his political system is on the verge of collapse, due to massive pressure of 15,000 well-trained Syrian Rebels? Would Assad's forces let the coalition military jets fly over the Syrian airspace without any military confrontation? Would Hezbollah fighters remain passive and do nothing neither in Syria, nor in Iraq, nor in Lebanon or else where and watch the military confrontation between the coalition and the Syrian forces in the sky? In such an event, wouldn't Russia arm the Assad's Regime with more high-tech offensive-defensive military equipment? And many other questions, which are beyond the scope of this short note.

In sum: As briefly explained above, the second plan of the coalition amid organizing, training and arming 15,000 Syrian rebels will undoubtedly end up into a direct military confrontation between the coalition in the one hand and the Iranian and Syrian Regimes in the other hand somewhere in the future. Depends on the scope of conflict, geopolitical and strategic importance of both Iraq and Syria for Iran and Russia, there is very low probability that this military confrontation will be limited just in the geographical territories of Iraq and Syria.

Based on all explained above, we face some serious questions as follows.
1- Do the USA and the coalition have any idea about the consequences, counter-productivity and backlash of their plans?

2- Don't the USA and coalition observe a huge incompatibility between their current and future plans? Don't they see that these two incompatible plans overlap and crash with each other somewhere in the future?

3- Are the USA and the coalition ready to pay such a high price (as briefly explored above) by implementing such a plan?

4- If the USA and coalition have decided to enter a direct military confrontation with Iran and Syria somewhere in the future, why are they helping and supporting these three political systems in Iran, Iraq and Syria now by performing their current plan against ISIS?

5- Couldn't the USA and the coalition really develop a better plan without less negative consequences and more positive achievements in this matter?

And many other questions.


In sum, as i review the both plans, i can conclude that:
After more than a year, still the USA and the coalition have absolutely no proper, coherent, reliable and effective tactic and strategy with regards to ISIS and chaotic civil wars in both Iraq and Syria.

This issue is really shocking me. It makes me speechless. In short, as far as i know, we have Seven Wonders around the world. I think the type of tactic and strategy that have been used against ISIS so far (currently and future plan) should be named "The Eighth Wonder" in our historical book.



Note: I don't want to exaggerate or challenge anyone in the coalition's administrations. But, there might be a better plan with less cost and less negative consequences; much more better than the current and future plans in this particular case. In the final part of this short note, i should remind the reader with some important point.   

The international politics in conflictual area is like different pieces of a disordered puzzle, which one or some pieces of this puzzle has/have been removed from its previous place or is going to be removed from its current place by the force of one or sometimes some actors in opposing directions. In order to solve such a conflict, we should look at that conflictual piece from a broad perspective; we should consider other pieces of puzzles and other actors that to some extent are related to that particular conflictual piece of puzzle; we should consider that the international politics sometimes is a combination of giving and receiving, we should consider timing; we should consider the strength and weak points of other actors and ourselves as well in that particular time; etc. If we use this method in a more comprehensive manner and consider more aspects and dimensions of a single conflict, we might not only be able to solve that conflict but also we might be able to ease the tension in some other areas. Simply because, in our contemporary world, the series of conflicts are to some extent related and interconnected with each other; although they might be far away from each other in geographical term. If the coalition forces look at the ISIS problem from this point of view and consideration, they might probably come up with a better plan, much more better than the current and future plans. I'm pretty sure in this matter. As i look at your plan against ISIS, i see that the coalition are wasting their resources in the favor of the enemies; they are losing the precious time; they are losing a tangible opportunity, which at this particular time is in front of their eyes. 




M. Sirani                                    04.03.2015