Custom Search

By Daniella Peled.

This article was originally published by the Institute for War and Peace Reporting, iwpr.net, and it is reproduced by Iraq Business News with permission. Any opinions expressed are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Iraq Business News

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) poses a greater threat to Western security than al-Qaeda did in its day, according to an IWPR briefing this week.

Visiting London from Baghdad, IWPR Iraq chief of party Ammar al-Shahbander told the July 22 gathering that ISIS was an independent entity that operated in diverse ways and with different alliances in Syria and Iraq.

Speaking at the briefing via video link, IWPR Syria programme coordinator, Z.E., gave a snapshot of life in Aleppo and her work supporting citizen activism there. (Her name is not given here for security reasons.)

“Many people think that ISIS is not a threat to the West,” said al-Shahbander. “I completely disagree. ISIS is a much greater threat than al-Qaeda – it is the number one magnet for jihadis internationally.”

Not only has ISIS created its own de facto state, but it has a much more open recruitment policy than al-Qaeda.

“This is a very dangerous mix of people with top fighting capability and no ethics. ISIS is capable of violence beyond anything seen by al-Qaeda,” he continued, adding that the international mix of fighters made it all the more likely that they would bring extremist ideas back to their own countries.

At the same time, Shahbander argues that ISIS’s days are numbered in Iraq, as the range of Sunni groups that have struck up a temporary alliance with it and operate under its flag will ultimately turn on it – and they have significantly more military clout than it has.

By Ali Mamouri for Al-Monitor. Any opinions expressed are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Iraq Business News.

Najaf and Qom have taken two different approaches in dealing with general political affairs in Shiite communities since the introduction of the idea of ​​velayat-e faqih. Although this idea was put forward for the first time in Najaf by the founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, it has not been welcomed by the Shiite hawza (seminary).

Finally, Khomeini managed to attain his wish to implement velayat-e faqih on the ground after the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, which made this idea widely popular within the Iranian seminary of Qom.

The period after 2003 was a great challenge for both Najaf and Qom, during which competition emerged between them on how to deal with the political affairs of Iraq. Qom tended to implement its religio-political vision in Iran on the situation in Iraq, while Najaf had a different perspective over the situation in Iraq — which has a wider religious and ethnic diversity than that of Iran — therefore considering it impossible to have a narrow Shiite perspective over Iraq.

Najaf thus opted for dealing positively with the change by building an inclusive civil state in Iraq that does not only take into consideration the Shiite majority. On the other hand, Qom only saw in Iraq an American threat to Iran’s interests on the one hand and the Shiite majority on the other. According to it, the American threat must be eliminated and the Shiite authority must be in control.

The difference also appeared during the recent Iraqi crisis. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani contented himself with issuing a fatwa urging the support of the army in all of its religious and ethnic components against terrorists, while at the same time repeatedly emphasizing the need to completely ban militias and unofficial armed groups. He never mentioned the word Shiites, or anything else related to Shiism, in his statements and in the declarations made by his office and spokesman.

He was very careful when confirming the need to protect the holy places since he did not mention any specific description portraying these sanctuaries as Shiite shrines. His statements were broad and mentioned Christian and Yazidi temples and others in the areas falling under the control of the Islamic State (IS) — formerly known as the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS). Meanwhile, Qom authorities focused their attention on the subject of Shiites and the expansion of Shiism in Iraq. Their statements and denouncements made toward the various parties in this crisis were based on this sectarian ideological perspective.

By John Lee.

The Provincial Council of Najaf has reportedly decided to boycott Saudi Arabian merchandise because of what it describes as Riyadh's support for sectarian and terrorist groups fighting in Iraq.

The Media Director of Najaf's Provincial Council told AIN:

"The merchants who will violate this decision will be punished after the period given to them to sell the current stored Saudi goods."

(Source: FARS)

(Picture: Imam Ali Mosque, Najaf)

By Padraig O'Hannelly.

Earlier this week, King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud pledged $500 million of humanitarian aid from Saudi Arabia to the Iraqi people, to be administered by the United Nations.

This could be a very significant move, given that relations between Iraq and its powerful and wealthy neighbour have been strained for many years.

As recently as March, the Iraqi prime minister accused Saudi Arabia and Qatar of effectively declaring war on his country by funding Sunni fighters in Anbar province.

And while Saudi Arabia denies any such funding, it is generally believed that wealthy individuals in the country are a key source of funding for insurgents, including ISIS.

This development can only serve to improve relations between Iraq and Saudi Arabia and is to be welcomed.

(Flag image via Shutterstock)

By John Lee.

An official source at the Saudi Arabian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has said that King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud has ordered  $500 million of humanitarian aid for Iraqi people affected by the recent tragic events, including displaced people, regardless of their religious, doctrinal or ethnic affiliations.

The United Nations Secretary General has been informed of this aid which will be provided through the United Nations organizations for the Iraqi people only.

(Source: SPA)

By Mustafa al-Kadhimi for Al-Monitor. Any opinions expressed are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Iraq Business News.

Ayad Allawi, the former Iraqi prime minister and leader of the Iraqi Nationalist ("Wataniya") Party, blamed the Iraqi government for policies that have allowed it to be "defeated by a bunch of dwarfs and killers as it sought outsiders’ help," instead of drawing on the "strength from its honorable people, from the tribes, army officers, dignitaries and politicians."

Allawi, in an interview with Al-Monitor via telephone and email from Amman, said that protests in Anbar province "have been met with repression and intimidation instead of [the government] adopting some of their demands by dealing with them morally and through a national dialogue." He described the protests as "initially peaceful, constitutional."

Allawi said, "The valiant Iraqi army has nothing to fight for. This brave army has lost its identity and its role. It doesn’t know whether it is fighting for the country or fighting for the sect or for the person or for the party."

The former prime minister, whose party gained 21 seats in the Council of Representatives during the April 30 elections, said US policy in Iraq is "without a compass" while Russian influence is growing, "a crescent stretching from the Crimea [Peninsula] and the Black Sea through Iran, Iraq, Syria and part of Lebanon."

The text of the full interview follows:

Al-Monitor: You suggested a road map to resolve the current crisis. What is this map?

Allawi: The problem doesn’t lie in just putting in new faces, although this is important. Perhaps more important, regarding how to get out of the impasse and the causes that led to it, is this map, which employs two axes: goals and mechanisms.

The essence of the goals are an inclusive political process without discrimination, quotas, exclusion or elimination — except for terrorists and those who steal public money; then achieving national reconciliation immediately; then building the institutions of a state that is professional and able to perform its duties away from regionalism, starting with internal security, the armed forces and the judiciary and its institutions.

By Andrew Parasiliti for Al-Monitor. Any opinions expressed are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Iraq Business News.

Iraq’s ambassador to US: war with ISIS 'acid test' of US-Iraq ties

Iraq’s ambassador to the United States said June 26 that his country’s preference is to rely on US military assistance to battle the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS).

Asked about reports of Iranian drone flights and provisions of military equipment to Iraq, as well as Syrian airstrikes on ISIS forces inside Iraq, Ambassador Lukman Faily, who met with Al-Monitor at his office in Washington, said that if US military aid is not forthcoming, “we will not be in a position to choose our partners and whoever is available to help us in our survival war, then we will take that.”

Faily, who was in Baghdad for US Secretary of State John Kerry’s meetings with Iraqi leaders this past week, said many Iraqis are asking if the United States will “support a democratically elected government in this war of aggression by an international terrorist organization.”

Iraq’s ambassador, who was born in Baghdad and completed the April 2014 Boston marathon, said that Baghdad is desperate for air support in its battle with ISIS.

“Any air supremacy support provided to Iraq will surely have a significant effect. That to us is a key game changer,” Faily said.

“We have had offers from the Syrians before and we declined them,” he said. “But it seems that the support that we sought from the US is not coming in a timely manner to deal with our urgency, which is more or less putting us in an uncomfortable position in seeking support from whoever is available on the ground.”

Faily expressed hope that Iraq’s neighbors could rally to provide “unusual” support in this time of crisis in Iraq.

By Mark DeWeaver.

While it has long been assumed that ISIS gets most of its money from donors in the Gulf, recently declassified documents suggest otherwise.

Researchers at the RAND Corporation found that donations actually accounted for less than 5% of the group’s funding during the period from 2005 to 2010. (See this article.)

The city of Mosul, rather than Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, turns out to have been, as one researcher put it, “the area that was keeping the group afloat”—through extortion rackets, kidnapping, and robbery.

Following the fall of the city on June 10, it’s hard to see how this can continue to be the case. Out of a population of 1.8 million, the BBC has reported that 500,000 have fled. Presumably the wealthiest residents will not be returning any time soon. It is also unclear how Mosul’s remaining state employees are going to be paid. Obviously it won’t be possible to extort money from businesses without customers or collect ransoms from people who can’t afford to leave town. You can’t get blood from a stone after all.

It’s not even clear that ISIS could have stolen as much US$ 420 million from the Mosul branch of the Central Bank of Iraq (or, in some accounts, from a combination of the CBI and private banks). While this figure has been widely reported in the media, some analysts have dismissed it as wildly exaggerated.

In any case, looting can be only a short-term source of funds. Once the city’s homes and businesses have been stripped of cash and salable assets, this bonanza will come to an end as well.

ISIS apparently had a pretty good thing going in Mosul, where it could help itself to a share of the economy of one of Iraq’s largest cities with all but complete impunity. Once this golden goose has stopped laying, I wonder if they won’t end up concluding that they should have left well enough alone.

By John Cookson. Any opinions expressed are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Iraq Business News.

US Secretary of State John Kerry's whistle-stop swing through the Middle East and Europe will likely include a meeting this week with Iraq's embattled caretaker prime-minister Nouri al-Maliki.

At the Baghdad summit we can expect Secretary Kerry to again hammer home Washington's demand that the Iraqi premier form an inclusive government of national unity with Sunni politicians given prominent roles. The top US official will also seek assurance that the 300 American military advisers being sent to shore up Iraq's military are immune from prosecution on Iraqi soil.

In my opinion Secretary Kerry's visit to Baghdad is almost certainly mission impossible, as Al-Maliki is not likely to relax his hard-line stance on either issue.

On Sunni inclusiveness Washington has made the same impassioned plea for years and Al-Maliki has ignored it, even as unrest raged in Al-Anbar and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon warned Iraq was facing disaster. It was a high-risk political gamble by Al-Maliki, but the recent general election result shows millions of Iraqis supported him and endorsed his policies.

On the question of whether 300 advisers will not be tried in Iraq if they commit crimes; again Al-Maliki is unlikely to U-turn on his consistent policy of non-immunity, especially as few in Baghdad can forget how 4 American Blackwater security guards, working for the State Department, escaped prosecution in Iraq for shooting dead 14 Iraqi civilians in 2007 - their US trial is ongoing.

Al-Maliki's tough position was boosted Sunday when Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei came out and expressed strong opposition to intervention in Iraq by the United States - or anyone else - and he insisted that the Iraqis themselves can bring an end to chaos sweeping the country.

Khamenei also suspects Washington wants to keep Iraq under its control and place its own stooges in power.

By Tariq Abdell. Any opinions expressed are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Iraq Business News.

“…The ultimate test of statesmanship is what to do in the face of war…”   -- Thatcher’s statecraft

The upsurge in Sectarian violence across Iraq underscores the blatant failure of Iraq’s consensual democracy and the vulnerabilities of its security forces as result of a host of daunting and intricate constraints: A sectarian commander-in-chief, lingering ethno-sectarian loyalties, politicized security apparatus; and the regions geopolitical tensions, namely Syria’s civil war and Saudi-Iran’s rivalries.

Irrefutably, the cumulative effects of Maliki’s sectarian-based policies – marginalization and disenfranchising of Sunnis in particular- are to blame for exacerbating Iraq’s sectarian violence and, subsequently, entrenching Iraq’s centuries-old ethno-sectarian schisms as evidenced by ISIS’s recent offensive, supported by Sunni tribes, in north-central and northern Iraq.

For Washington to help Baghdad fend off a protracted sectarian war and a total chaos, it must first devise a set of benchmarks as a precondition of U.S. military and financial support. The endgame of such benchmarks it to force Maliki to renounce his sectarian-based policies, espouse a genuine and inclusive democracy, and form a government of national unity that heads to the people’s aspirations regardless of their political and religious beliefs; to include an action plan that reflects the country’s pressing priorities:

• Genuine national reconciliation to overcome interfaith communal distrust and sectarian violence.
• Overhauling of Iraq’s security apparatus namely the forces reporting directly to Maliki -SWAT and CTS in particular- to curb sectarian loyalties, rein in corruption, and build a cohesive and effective Military.
• Repealing of the Anti-terrorism law - Article 4 in particular- and the use of secret informants and coerce confessions.
• Reversal of targeted and unjust De-Ba’atification law.
• Merit-based appointments to promote efficiency and accountability.
• Providing access to basic services (e.g., potable water, electricity, running sewer, etc) and equitable distribution of oil revenues.
• Investing in human capital through education and training to fend off societal and political unrest.
• Advancing the principles of human rights and rule of law.
• Diversifying and reviving of Iraq’ strategic industries to curb its dependence on a single commodity – fossil fuel.