Who Is Lying About Kirkuk And Why It Matters

cross-posted in Times of Israel:

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/who-is-lying-about-kirkuk-and-why-it-matters/


Among the growing Baghdad-Barzani rift, various claims have been made about who knew what and when, and who said what and why.

The  three competing perspectives are as follows:

* US betrayed Kurds by failing to stop the invasion by Iraqi forces, Iran-backed Shi'a militias, and the IRGC. Kurds have been strong allies to the US during the fight against ISIS, and have peacefully voted to secede from a state, which is increasingly manipulated by the Islamic Republic of Iran, and thus is not a good fit for the significant Kurdish population. The oil fields can and should be peacefully negotiated by the two governments, but the Iraqi forces have no business invading Kurdish-held territories, which the latter have liberated from the ISIS presence. Moreover, Iraqi Constitution, Article 140, provides for Kurdish independence, and given that the Constitution was comprised with the assistance from US lawyers and the State Department, US is well aware of that provision and should be respectful of it.

* Kurdish leadership new full well from CIA, State Department, and Pentagon statements before the referendum that US was strongly opposed to secession and would not be supportive if Baghdad decided to take back its territory in the aftermath. Barzani blatantly lied to its population, leading them to believe that the US was deceptive about its support for Kurds. There was no reason to believe that the independence referendum had international support. Barzani overstepped his authority in the attempt to distract from his own illegitimate hold on power despite the constitution.

* The well trained Iraqi forces, armed by the United States, had significantly more field experience in long-term operations than Peshmerga. Furthermore, Baghdad was planning to invade Kirkuk regardless of whether or not Kurds held the referendum, so it was only a matter of time before the region was overrun with Iraqi forces coupled with Iran-backed Shi'a militias. Barzani did not necessarily count on the Talabani faction to sell out to the IRGC, but had decided to call the referendum, knowing that they would be taken over regardless, to draw attention to the upcoming takeover, and also to start taking active steps towards the future, knowing that putting that off would likely make it less, not MORE likely to gain international support and recognition with time.  Furthermore, regardless of US statements, it was in the US interests to support Kurds and to avoid clashes between allies, so regardless of US statements about the referendum, it was reasonable to expect that they would mediate in a manner that would avoid violent takeover and could help negotiate oil. It's not in the US interests to have IRGC presence regardless of how the US administration feels about Baghdad's claims to Kirkuk, or or other issues complicating Kurdish path to independence.

These three narratives are not necessarily mutually exclusive. And the Kurdish people should have had realistic expectations of the US role in their own story, and had demanded better preparation and organization of troops, clear communications, and an actual plan from the Barzani government, not to mention dealing with the election issue instead of going for populist slogans. However, none of these considerations takes away from the legitimacy of the following concerns:

Whatever the concerns of the US in balancing various interests in the region and preventing further destabilization, failure to take a leadership role in preventing conflict, actually led to the very destabilization it was trying to prevent. Pentagon's denials about the role of IRGC in this avoidable situation are not helping the US credibility, and further, play into the hands of the very actors no one wants to see play a decisive role in the future of Iraq and Kurds. These lies and denials make US look treacherous, deceptive, anti-Kurdish and do nothing to dissuade the Kurds from moving forward with whatever faulty narrative Barzani may be peddling. In fact, it is pushing them into the embrace of the Russians, while IRGC and Baghdad government feel emboldened to disregard Kurdish claims, and act in a matter that is punitive and vindictive, rather than defensive of Baghdad's legitimate claims and interests.  As a direct consequence of US failure to intervene, several disturbing developments occurred:

IRGC, dressed as Shi'a militias, and in conjunction with actual Iran-backed militias,  have continued plundering and raiding their way through the territory, up to Al-Qosh, increasingly placing minority civilian populations and Jewish and Christian historical sites in danger.  Minorities, such as Christians and Yazidis, have been forced to choose among three factions - Kurdish Peshmerga, the PMU units, now linked to Iran, and Iraqi forces,  in order to protect their civilians and interests. That does nothing to simplify the situation, as the continuous clashes may force these groups to pick up weapons against each other.  Christian militias that run their own defense in Nineveh are paid by PMU, which is troubling to US interests in preventing Iranian financial transactions that benefit the IRGC, recently designated as a terrorist organization. Qasem Soleimani, despite being recognized as a terrorist by the State Department in a recent statement, continues to play an active organizing role in the planning and implementation of the regional takeover.

Second, Turkey and Iraq are moving to cut off Kurdish access to Syrian and Turkish overpasses, which will ease the likelihood of future Turkish entry into the area. Turkey views Kirkuk as its own sphere of interests, and considers the prevention of contiguous Kurdish territories between Iraq, a likely Syrian Kurdish federation,and Kurdish territories in Turkey as central to its interests.  There is also a growing possibility that Turkey may target the oil pipelines remaining under Kurdish control, which will deprive the Kurds of their essential livelihood and further empower and embolden Erdogan's expansionist neo-Ottoman ambitions in the region. Turkey is becoming an increasing threat to US interests in the region and elsewhere, and this additional step will make that much harder for the US to defend its foothold, access to energy, defense of minorities, or relationships with more stable and less aggressive allies.

For now, however, Iraq is more likely to gain control of that pipeline and has already taken steps to bypass the Kurdish region in providing oil to Turkey. Iraq and Turkey are on the same page with regards to Baghdad's regaining control and dominating Kurdistan, and Turkey has already made a similar security agreement with Iran. This triumvirate will ultimately prove hostile to US interests in the region, and should be broken up by the US, regardless of Barzani's flaws. US needs to prioritize what is at stake. Iran-oriented Iraq is no great ally and will likely prove a hindrance in the US's future battles against Iranian aggression. And Turkey is proving increasingly less of a friend and more of a menace as it opposes US presence in the region, detains US citizens, interferes with US strategy in Syria, and threatens US allies. The more time the US wastes maintaining supposed neutrality that only strengthens our enemies, the more likely we are to find ourselves friendless when our neutrality inevitably backfires.

Article Published on JerusalemOnline

http://www.jerusalemonline.com/blogs/irina-tsukerman/op-ed-when-allies-fight-america-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place-31888

Op-Ed: When allies fight - America between a rock and a hard place
Irina Tsukerman explains how the Iraqi incursion into the Kirkuk province has sparked a problematic situation for the US. However, she argues that the Iranian aid that Baghdad is receiving should have triggered the Trump administration to end its “hands-off approach” to the issue.

Iraqi forces in Kirkuk Photo Credit: EPA-EFE
The current standoff between Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi's national sovereignty claims in taking over the Kirkuk province and gaining control of the oil-rich fields has placed the US in a difficult position of having to mediate between allies in an attempt to preserve a semblance of stability in a region already plagued by diverse and persistent conflicts. Another NATO ally, Turkey, is likewise placing pressure in an already complicated situation. The US is bound by the terms of a defense treaty to defend other NATO members from all attacks, but Turkey sees even countries outside its own borders as its spheres of influence and has been increasingly aggressive in intervening in the course of events in areas it claims as its territory or potential for future conflicts.

Whether such an expansive interpretation of national interests merits support from other NATO members certainly merits reexamination, but in the instant case, the predicament is directly contributing to further complications and forces the US to have to juggle competing claims of legitimacy in a way that is inching closer to being unresolvable. However, Baghdad's incursion into Kirkuk has crossed the lines of discussion and created a situation where discussing the conflicting interests of various parties in a diplomatic setting is becoming increasingly moot.

Reports of Kurds being forcibly displaced, coupled with actions that caused the Kirkuk's Kurdish governor to flee the area altogether, defy Baghdad's claim that the operation is in place merely to prevent the dissolution of the country. Likewise, Vice President Al-Maliki's comments placing the blame for the creation of ISIS on Erbil in order to break up the country add disturbing and disingenuous undertones to this course of events.

Through it all, the US continues to issue statements claiming that it's "closely monitoring the situation" and trying to mediate among all sides. Without a question, it's in the US' interests to avoid any action that would lead to deterioration of any possibility of returning to a diplomatic track or further destabilizing the region. However, the current hands-off approach not only plays into the hands of its enemies but emboldens action that goes far beyond the securing of Baghdad's perceived interest in preserving its territorial integrity.

How should, then, the US act in situations where its allies - one, a state armed directly with US weaponry, and another, a courageous nation that has been an important asset in the war against ISIS - are in a state of conflict? I would posit that the resolution of the instant scenario should be guided by the same norms the US utilizes in evaluating any situation where its allies come to a head.

First, how does the situation affect US national interests, in particular, any security considerations?

Second, does the US have binding defense treaties with either of the allies and what are the terms of those treaties? In the event that there is no such agreement, or where the agreement amounts to little more than arms trade or promises of assistance in the event of an invasion by outside forces, what is the nature of the relationship between the US and that ally?

Third, has either party involved in the conflict been the aggressor or violated any international laws, norms, or committed any acts deemed unconscionable during the course of the conflict?

Fourth, what role can the US constructively play in order to preserve good relations with both sides, and to mitigate possible damages, including minimizing the number of any casualties, property damage, population displacement and political and economic complications?

Fifth, are there any other factors to be taken into consideration, such as involvement of third parties, such as state and non-state actors, and their role in this conflict, and goals with respect to the US’ own interests and agendas?

Sixth, how are this situation and the US action or inaction affect US relations with other allies, who are likely to be affected by the conflict?

In the past, the US has tried to keep its involvement to a minimum or even stay completely neutral during wars between Pakistan and India, even when those wars took place during the Cold War and Pakistan was largely US-oriented while India had a far stronger relationship with the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, the nature of the US outlook on the matter was affected by the fact that the US-Pakistani relationship at the time was largely governed by the view that Pakistan played a role as part of buffer states and that US interests included backing any state that could either potentially fall under Soviet influence or could be helpful in preventing Soviet expansionism.

At the moment, however, the situation in the Middle East is in flux, and our stated goals and unarticulated considerations are far from black and white. Our limited goal of defeating ISIS in the area has been largely met with the help of both Baghdad and the Kurds. The next issue looming large on the minds of the administration and policy experts alike has been the containment of Iran's aggression. Whether containment is the best way to characterize the current stand on Iran, whether it's feasible, or the best possible course of action in the current climate are all questions deserving of independent evaluation. However, there is no doubt that Iran's aggressive actions in Syria, Yemen, Iraq and elsewhere have given cause to concern in the White House, so much so that just a week ago, Trump placed the IRGC on the list of global terrorists.

Balancing respect for the right to peaceful self-determination with the national sovereignty and territorial integrity rights of others would be a complicated matter under the best of circumstances, but there is one factor that shifts the tenor of the discussion altogether - the role of Iran and the IRGC in Baghdad's forcible takeover of the Kirkuk province.

Baghdad had invited Iran's tanks to its borders days prior to the invasion, so Iran's involvement in the matter should come as no surprise. Those who have been following the events closely should be well aware that Iran's interest in the matter is preventing similar secessionism from taking root among its own minorities, including the Kurds, who have grown restless and have had long-standing conflicts with the Iranian regime.

A joint operation between Iran and Iraq in this matter would be concerning enough, but the fact that Iran sent the IRGC, rather than its military or police forces, to participate in this operation should have been the red line for the US, changing the calculus of conflict. Baghdad's invitation of the IRGC and continued involvement with Qasem Soleimani after the US had designated the IRGC a terrorist organization is an act of betrayal of whatever defense interests we have with Baghdad. It is indisputably a strike to our national security interests - because the US President has deemed that it is so and because the executive branch has taken decisive action in making clear that IRGC is a security threat. Admittedly, the administration sent some mixed signals with respect to the level of seriousness as to the enforcement of the new policy.

For instance, the administration seems to disregard the fact that the IRGC, as all other entities in Iran, get their marching orders directly from the Supreme Leader-guided regime. The IRGC is not an independent entity. It's not a non-state terrorist organization. It is a central part of the Islamic Republic. So when Secretary of State Tillerson makes comments that the US will not interfere in the European trade with Iran, he is, in essence, saying that despite the fact that the US finds that Iran directly sponsors terrorism, it is okay for its allies to trade with Iran and that somehow it's possible to separate trade and investment, from Iran's other activities. The argument that has not worked in the designation of all of Hezbollah (interestingly, an Iranian proxy) as a terrorist entity is somehow still being applied to the Islamic Republic. It's not helpful.

Nevertheless, the new policy is what it is, and as such, requires some level of intervention if the IRGC directly and opens threatens US national security interests, which is exactly what it is doing at the moment. That becomes an overarching consideration. If other allies, including Turkey and Baghdad, refuse to recognize why the IRGC involvement is such a central concern to the United States and ignore this issue, their status as allies comes into question. Any actor that openly cooperates with the US enemies and aids and abets activity by US-designated terrorist organizations in a way that will likely directly impact US interests and security is not acting as a friend.

All other questions, under such circumstances, fade into the background. The first and foremost concern should be: how does this affect the US? The answer is simple: it is harmful to the US, the presence of its troops in the region, its relationship with other allies, and it's most certainly detrimental to its new policy and the goals of countering Iranian aggression. The news that the IRGC, led by Qasem Soleimani, whose forces pressured PUK into giving up control of Kirkuk behind KRG leader Barzani's back, has now established five military bases and headquarters in Kirkuk is both a disaster and an embarrassment. Continuing to deny Iran's involvement will not make it so. Rather, by taking no action to deter the IRGC from spreading its influence in the area, we are openly contradicting our own policy, violating our own laws, betraying our own constituents who are relying on the US government for protection against enemies, and emboldening the openly adversarial Iranian regime. And that is all before we even get to our practical and moral obligations to the Kurds, our other important relationships in the region, or any other considerations.

We are showing ourselves to have no principles, to be a lawless nation, that is incapable of consistently enforcing its own national security strategies, and by failing to stop the incursion of the IRGC into the Kirkuk province, we are opening ourselves to future attacks

JOL Blogger | Irina Tsukerman

Irina Tsukerman is a human rights and national security attorney based in New York. Her focus of interests ranges from assisting liberal dissidents and persecuted minorities to international geopolitics to relationship-and coalition building between Jewish and non-Jewish communities in New York and internationally. In addition to Jerusalem Online, her articles have appeared in a range of publications including PJ Media, Jerusalem Post, Times of Israel and Morocco World News. She has also appeared on Moroccan media and Fox Business.

Click Here for more reports by Irina Tsukerman

Time for the President to Stop Hiding Behind the Obama Holdovers and to Own His Policies

OK, here's something I don't understand.

An Obama holdover has not only not been replaced, but been allowed to remain the same position, undermining the new Iranian strategy and lying to his boss, to the agency he serves, to the President, and to the entire country.

After he is duly outed, nothing is done, and in fact other agencies, double down on his lies and terrilble advice and pursue the same course of action.

You know how that's possible, that Rex Tillerson, the Pentagon, and the CIA are all going along with the adversarial ideology of one State Department employee?

Because a) they agree with it and b) that's in effect, an order that comes directly from the PResident. That's the only way how all these agencies could continue with their course of action.

Time for the President to stop hiding behind the Obama holdovers and to own his policies.

Lame Excuses from the Pentagon

The Pentagon is claiming ignorance about the blitz takeover of Kirkuk by IRGC and Iraqi forces.

If so, one of the three things is true:

1. Our own "allies" just stabbed us in the back by failing to inform us about an attack on another ally - and we are perfectly ok with that.

2. Our intelligence capabilities are at an all-time low.

3. Someone's lying, and we actually knew all along, but didn't want to get involved, and now, after international criticism for inaction, are trying to make ourselves look somewhat better by claiming incompetence and victimhood over malice.

Either way, shame on DoD.

The Fall of Kirkuk - and of the US new policy on Iran

Left mostly to civilians, PKK volunteers, and others Kirkuk fell to Iraqi troops and Iran-based militias in a matter of hours.  Iraq is seeking to take back the oil-rich region from Kurdish control.

US stood by and did nothing.

President Trump recently announced a shift in policy in Iran, which would include designating IRGC as a terrorist organization, responding to Iranian militias engaged in terrorism with harshness, and preventing Iran's expansionism in the region.

Well, today's assault on Kirkuk following the recent independence referendum and a week of tensions, threats, and attempted negotiations was the first test of our commitment to the new policy and we failed it.

We have allowed Iraqi forces, armed with US weaponry, and on the dole from the US government for many years, as well as Iran backed militias, adversarial to our efforts in the region and inimical to US interests and those of her allies, to attack an ally who has stalwartly backed us in our fight against ISIS, showed an openness to Western values of democracy and liberalization, and a strong interest in a growing alliance with the United States.

Furthermore, we have hypocritically allowed the source of the many factionalist troubles in the Middle East, the Sykes-Picot treaty, to continue dictating the present and the future of the region, effectively killing the dream of self-determination, moving away from colonialist maps, and towards a future, where nations can forge their own paths and choose their own governments. Foolishly, we have also allowed a large supply of oil to end up in the hands of groups backed by an expansionist regime, and committed to terrorism and domination of the region.

It would have taken but one phone call from President Trump to stop Abadi's forces from entering Kirkuk, bring all parties to the table for a negotiation, and resolve the matters civilly, peacefully, and diplomatically. Instead, we have allowed our ally, the Kurds, to be publicly brutalized and humiliated by the presence of the enemy forces in the city they helped liberate from ISIS.

And the head of this operation is none other than the fearsome Iranian Major General Qassem Soleimani, who plays a key role in the intelligence and the IRGC, the very organization President Trump just designated as part of Global Terrorists  organization, enforcing the law he signed as part of the sanctions package on Russia, North Korea, and Iran earlier this year. We had multiple opportunities to nab Soleimani in the last few years of the Obama administration, but let him get away, liberating him from the sanctions lists, and allowing him to cut weapons deal in Russia, in violation of our own security interests.

I need not tell you what is likely to happen when someone like Soleimani is in charge. But let's not leave the matter to our imagination. Let's look at Iran's treatment of its own significant Kurdish minority - treatment that includes disproportional executions, facilitation of drug flow into the regions, frequent denial of civil rights, and brutal torture of even peaceful human rights activists. Our failure to stop Soleimani from playing an active role in the fall of Kirkuk, as well as our lack of will in enforcing both our own existing laws and the newly articulated policy by the White House shows that our interest in stopping IRGC is significantly less than our apparent interest in appeasing Abadi, Erdogan, and various Arab states vehemently opposed to the existence of a Kurdish state.

Besides showing ourselves once again as a poor ally to the one group that is openly embracing our interest in liberalization, diversity, and enlightenment in the region, we are also shooting ourselves in the foot by opposing an important buffer state against Iran and increasingly bellicose Turkey, who would likely have positive relations with Israel, could be a good trade partner, and could move the region in a positive direction through its commitment to education and business investments. There's only one thing that's worse than betraying good allies, and that is betraying our own constituents. Americans and Congress have shown strong opposition to the IRGC, articulated by the sanctions signed into law this summer. We were explicitly promised the end of the Obama administration's failed appeasement posture and the beginning of a stronger, more assertive US that looks out for US national security interests above all else. Instead, we are getting more of the same - failure to contain an organization we just designated as terrorist, spread of strife and needless violence in the one part of the  region that showed signs of promising stability, and endless deception over what standing up to Iran means in practice as opposed to what we were led to believe we were getting.

I urge President Trump to listen to good advice not from former and still interested oil executives, but from regional and national security experts well familiar with the dangers of IRGC and Erdogan's neo-Ottoman ambitions, to take all action that would get Abadi to back off, to secure Kirkuk against invasions, and to have Soleimani taken into custody or killed, as the head of a terrorist organization that he is. That is the only way to show our commitment to our new policy on Iran, and to secure our national security interests and those of our regional allies, and to be taken seriously on the international stage by friends and foes alike.