Iran and Iraq Military Unite Against ‘Terrorism,’ Creating Potential Problems for U.S.

Iran and Iraq Military Unite Against ‘Terrorism,’ Creating Potential Problems for U.S.

Newsweek
Tom O’Connor
NewsweekJuly 24, 2017
Iran and Iraq have pledged to join forces against militant fighters and ideology in the region by boosting bilateral defense ties, a move that could present a challenge to U.S. foreign policy goals.

Iranian Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan and Iraqi Defense Minister Irfan al-Hiyali met Sunday in Tehran to sign a military agreement aimed at improving joint efforts to curb the influence of jihadis such as the Islamic State militant group. ISIS has conducted deadly attacks in both countries and is still being fought by Iraq with support from Iran and the U.S., but the U.S. has become increasingly concerned about Iran's growing foothold in Iraq. Despite the volatile history of the two majority Shiite-Muslim neighbors and their differing views on Washington, the new deal will reportedly see Iran and Iraq's armed forces work together on a number of strategic levels.

Related: U.S. military must leave Iran's borders and stop calling us terrorists, Revolutionary Guards say

Trending: Nation's Strictest Distracted Driver Law Bans Motorists From Even Holding Phones

"Extending cooperation and exchanging experiences in fighting terrorism and extremism, border security, and educational, logistical, technical and military support are among the provisions of this memorandum," Reuters quoted Iran's state-run Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) as reporting.

GettyImages-800038108View photos
GettyImages-800038108
More
Two Iraqis take a selfie while stepping on a U.S. flag during a parade marking Al-Quds (Jerusalem) International Day organized by the Popular Mobilization Forces in the southern Iraqi city of Basra, June 23. The Popular Mobilization Forces are the collective label for a number of majority-Shiite Muslim, Iran-backed militias battling the Islamic State militant group (ISIS) alongside U.S.-backed forces in Iraq. Haidar Mohammed Ali/AFP/Getty Images

While the U.S. has yet to offer an official response, Iran's Foreign Ministry reportedly said the following day that Iran's international relations were no one else's business. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Bahram Qasemi confirmed Monday that the military agreement had been signed and maintained that no third country should be involved in Iran and Iraq's relationship, IRNA reported.

Don't miss: Bernie Sanders Is Working With Democrats Now, but Will He Be Their Pick for President in 2020?

Iran and Iraq fought a bitter war in the 1980s, in which the U.S. publicly backed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, a Sunni Muslim Baathist, against the new Islamic revolutionary government of Shiite Muslim cleric Ayatollah Ruhollah Musava Khomeini. Privately, the U.S. backed both sides to attain funds to battle leftists in Latin America. After the U.S. ultimately toppled Hussein in 2003, Iran quickly began to build relations with the newly installed Shiite Muslim-led government of Iraq and has contributed the services of its elite Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corp. toward battling ISIS after the militant group took over nearly half of Iraq in 2014.

The U.S. has also sent troops and has lent extensive resources to assist the Iraqi military and Iraqi Kurdish forces, both of which have fought alongside Iran-backed, majority-Shiite Muslim militias, known as the Popular Mobilization Forces. The U.S. and Iran accuse each other of attempting to destabilize the region and of funding foreign groups classed as terrorist organizations in order to advance their own respective interests. Relations between the U.S. and Iran have become particularly tense since the election of President Donald Trump, who has pledged increased support for Iraq, but has taken a hard-line stance against Iran by increasing economic sanctions and suggesting a renegotiation of a 2015 nuclear treaty signed between the U.S., Iran and several other nations.

GettyImages-1424016View photos
GettyImages-1424016
More
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein shake hands December 20, 1983, in Baghdad amid a bloody war between Iran and Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands on both sides. The U.S. publicly supported Hussein against a hostile Iranian revolutionary government but provided arms to Iran in order to fund anti-Communist fighters in Nicaragua and facilitate the release of U.S. prisoners in Lebanon. Getty Images

Most popular: Blame Women? Texas Congressman Singles Out Female Senators as Reason Health Care Bill Failed

As ISIS loses the last of its ground in Iraq, Iran has taken the opportunity to court its neighbor. In addition to Sunday's defense agreement, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Hossein Jaberi-Ansari and Iraqi Parliament Speaker Salim al-Jabouri also met Sunday in Baghdad, where the second Iran-Iraq Joint Political Committee is due to be held, according to IRNA and Press TV, an affiliate of the semi-official Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting agency.

Iran and the U.S. have also downplayed each other's role in defeating ISIS in its former stronghold of Mosul, Iraq's second city and by far the largest population center the jihadis have ever controlled. The U.S. and Iran are also conducting parallel campaigns against ISIS in neighboring Syria, where their partnered factions have clashed at times.

U.S. mum on Iran-Iraq military agreement
What does the agreement mean, and how will it affect anything on the ground?


Shia Volunteers fighters of the Imam Ali Brigade, an armed faction with the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces (aka Hashd al-Shaabi), train in their camp in Najaf, 100 miles south of Baghdad. CREDIT: AP Photo/Anmar Khalil
Iran and Iraq signed an agreement on Sunday that would see strengthened military cooperation aimed at fighting “terrorism and extremism,” a deal that probably won’t please President Donald Trump.
Iranian state media reports that the memorandum of understanding (MoU) “includes expansion of cooperation and exchange of experiences on combating terrorism and extremism, security of borders, as well as educational, logistic, technical and military support.”
There hasn’t been much response to the MoU in the United States so far. But given what we know, it’s doubtful that the deal with be met with high-fives.
The Trump administration has ratcheted up tensions with Iran, recently accusing the the Islamic Republic of violating “the spirit” of the nuclear agreement. The two countries have also butt heads over the civil war in Yemen, with the United States siding with the Saudi-led coalition that first intervened in the country two years ago.
Last week, Trump agreed to re-certify the deal, confirming that Iran was complying with the terms of the 2015 multilateral agreement. Still, White House officials noted that he did so with great hesitation, and one official who spoke with the New York Times on the condition of anonymity said that the president spent 55 minutes of an hour-long meeting arguing with his advisors that he did not want to do so. Trump is also still pushing for a new set of sanctions against Iran, which the House is set to vote on this week. The Countering Iran’s Destabilizing Activities Act focuses on Iran’s ballistic missile program and was passed by the Senate in June.
And in its annual Country Reports on Terrorism, released last week, the State Department yet again called Iran “the leading state sponsor of terrorism.”
The State Department did not respond to a request for comment on what it means for Iraq, where U.S. troops have been fighting for over 14 years, to sign a military agreement with the country the United States sees a major global security threat.
Although Iran’s presence in Iraq has, at times, been viewed as as a material threat to U.S. forces, the Pentagon appears to be taking a wait-and-see approach to the MoU.
“It’s not immediately obvious to me that the contents of this MoU would have any bearing on U.S. troops. We’re always going to take appropriate measures to protect ourselves,” Pentagon spokesman Major Adrian Rankine-Galloway told ThinkProgress.
“We main close and recurring communications with the government of Iraq. We work only with the government of Iraq and the security forces under their command and control,” he said, adding that U.S. forces are there at “their invitation.”
Iraq’s future hinges on what happens next in Mosul

Iraqis might be more likely to look to Iran or Kurdistan to determine the future stability of their state.
thinkprogress.org
As ThinkProgress reported last week, the role of the United States in the future of Iraq is unclear as Iranian-backed Shia forces and Kurdish Peshmerga fighters have increased their footprint in Iraq in the fight against the self-proclaimed Islamic State (ISIS).
The role of Iran and the Hashed al-Shaabi forces it supports, however, now seems more clear than ever. The 122,000-strong, predominately Shia fighters were poised to maintain their position even before Sunday’s agreement was signed.
Iraqi Prime Minister Hayder al-Abadi has supported Hashed al-Shaabi’s role in Iraq. Following the liberation of Mosul from ISIS, al-Abadi said last week that the militias “must remain at least for years, as the terrorism threat still exists.”
The Baghdad government has “excellent relations with Iran,” and when ISIS was about to roll into Baghdad, Iran’s support was crucial until the United States joined the fight, said Paul Salem, vice president for policy analysis, research and programs at the Middle East Institute
“The Americans are quite aware that Iran will try to push Baghdad to get the Americans to leave after the push to liberate Mosul is over,” said Salem.
The danger is that Iran could go back to fighting the United States via the Shia militia, as it did in the earlier years of the war.
So how does this MoU look, from the U.S. perspective?
“It looks like the U.S. made the wrong decision in 2003,” laughed Salem.
“The U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, bottom line, handed Iraq over to Iranian influence,” said Salem. “That’s a fact.” This MoU, he said, is just the continuation of an already strong relationship.
But, he said, that doesn’t mean that the Iraqis are Iranian lackeys — so, just because Iran wants U.S. forces out, it does not mean that Iraq will oblige.
Michael Knights, the Lafer fellow of The Washington Institute, specializing in the military and security affairs of Iraq, Iran, and the Persian Gulf states, offered a dissenting view. He sees the MoU as a PR game for Iran.
“The U.S. is by far the largest provider of military assistance to the Iraqi government… We have many months more of major combat operations and pretty significant Department of Defense budget for supporting the Iraqi security forces,” said Knights, adding that all of this means that the U.S. intends on maintaining significant presence in Iraq for at least the next three years.
Knights called the MoU as a “nothing burger” that exists as a face-saving tactic for Iran, perhaps a reminder of their relationship with Baghdad.
“They’re too smart to base their influence on military power. They’ve got a dozen other things other than supplying military power. That’s what we [the U.S.] do the best,” he told ThinkProgress.
“They’re not interested in competing with us on our strongest suit. They’re much more interested in places where we can’t go and we don’t matter,” — such as leadership of religious schools and institutions, said Knights.
“Plus they know how to outlast us. We care about Iraq now, but will we in five years?”