Iraq: the Impending Revolution

(NOTE: Regarding ISIS and the Iraq War, there are those who blame Barrack Obama for withdrawing the way he did in 2011 - Obama has other things he should be blamed for re Foreign Policy, but withdrawing from Iraq is not one of them.

The blame for ISIS and the Iraq War rests squarely on the Bush Administration and especially on Dick Cheney who, if one sifts through old videos from the 1990's, would find out that he did know better - but did it anyway because, as they say, "money talks."

Since 2004 - yes, since 2004 - Iraq has been ISIS' most effective base. Under its founder, Zarqawi, ISIS used to be called "Al-Qaeda in Iraq," but Zarqawi's methods were quite different to those of Bin Laden: Zarqawi was interested in starting a Sunni-Shi'ite war across the Middle-East - Bin Laden was focused on sustaining a long-term Sunni war on the West. Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, the current leader of ISIS, heralds directly from Zarqawi's vision. Al-Qaeda in Iraq and ISIS are the SAME organisation.)



No matter what happens in Syria, Yemen or Libya, Iraq is destined for more chaos.

Since 2003, Iraq has been the Middle-East's centre for chaos. An argument could almost be made that, without the Iraq War, the Arab Spring would never have happened. Without the Iraq War, the Syrian Civil War would not have been as horrid or as deadly.

Without the Iraq War, there would not be any ISIS in Iraq.

Now the Iraqi Army is moving in to take control of Mosul, one of Iraq's largest cities, which has been under ISIS control for over 2 years. On the northern side of Mosul is the Kurdish Peshmerga - both are moving in to wrest this city back from ISIS control.

But few pundits give thought to what is likely to happen after ISIS is removed from Mosul and from Iraq. But the signs are telling, and the answer is clear: ISIS will not leave Iraq, more blood will be shed, and a revolution will take place.

 I will answer each of these points below:

1) ISIS will not leave Iraq. This does not mean that ISIS will immediately return to the Sunni areas of Iraq as soon as America withdraws - they will not have the popularity from the Sunnis to do so as of yet - but they will use Iraq as a hideout from which to plan terrorist attacks across the world.

ISIS is interested in sparking a Sunni-Shi'ite conflict across the entire Middle-East - they have succeeded to do this in Iraq and in Syria, but their new target has been Saudi Arabia.

If Bashar Al-Assad remains in power in Syria, Saudi Arabia will be faced with the ISIS threat immediately. The image of Saudi Arabia losing the Sunni-Shi'ite war to Iran would cause Saudis to look elsewhere for inspiration. ISIS provides the most tempting inspiration of all.

If Assad does remain power in Syria and after losing its territories in Iraq and going underground, ISIS would be likely to direct the majority of its resources to destabilizing the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and it would do this from its base in Iraq, secured in the utter chaos that is post-Saddam Hussein Iraq.

ISIS is, unfortunately, likely to succeed in destabilizing the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Were a war to break out in the Kingdom, ISIS would be able to hop across from Iraq's southern border, control territories in the north and east of Saudi Arabia then, after succeeding in pushing Shi'ite Saudis into the ocean and establishing dominance in the region, it may be able to invade Iraq from the south.

Yes: after the Syrian Civil War spilling into Iraq, a Saudi Civil War could also spill into Iraq.


2) More blood will be shed. But more immediate is what will happen after ISIS is temporarily defeated in Mosul. What is likely to happen is that the Sunni Arab tribes of Iraq would not have the power or military might to govern or defend themselves: Shi'ite Arabs would likely take control of their regions after ISIS does.

This would mean life would be miserable for many Sunni Arab Iraqis, but they would be sick of war and retaliation by this stage, and would likely not fight as hard against the Shi'ites as they did - with ISIS - over the past 2 years. They would likely try and blot out the suffering of their own people.

Where a more even-grounded war would be fought would be a war between the Peshmerga - the Iraqi Kurdish forces - and the Iraqi Army and its associates in the Hasd Ash-Sha'abi militias. But without American support, the Shi'ites of Iraq cannot hope to defeat the Kurds. The Kurds would, at a price, win for themselves complete autonomy in northern Iraq.

This would cause many Iraqis not to blame the Sunnis, but the Iraqi government for its problems. In this, Shi'ites and Sunnis would be united: Kurdish separation from Iraq was unacceptable, and significant change must occur to prevent further separation.


3) A revolution will take place. Iraqis are sick and tired of living in violence. They are sick and tired of the corruption in their country, and they are aching for stability. Iraqis from Sunni and Shi'ite Arab regions do not wish to split from each other - they would rather continue killing each other - but they are aware that the international community might split them up if their country does not stabilize.

This fear from both Sunnis and Shi'ites in Iraq; a loss of territory due to Peshmerga defeating the Iraqi Army and associates; a growing mistrust in the Iranian-backed government; all these factors would lead Iraq in one direction: revolution.

Muqtada Al-Sadr seems the most likely candidate to take advantage of this revolution. Though initially Iranian-backed, he has softened his sectarian rhetoric and focused much more on Iraqi nationalism. That is his defining trait over the Iraqi government: he is more interested in bringing Sunnis and Shi'ites together as Iraqis.

Current Iraqi Prime Minister Haider Al-Abadi is unable to deliver on the democratic reforms he has promised. He lacks the will and power, whereas Sadr does not. Sadr has influence over much of Shi'ite Iraq - he is perhaps the most influential Shi'ite Iraqi at this moment - and the Sunnis in central Iraq would do anything for representation - maybe even support Sadr.

Sadr would then likely rein in the Shi'ite militias in the Sunni territories, tone down the sectarianism and work hard at uniting Sunni and Shi'ite Iraq to each other.

If Sadr fails to end the sectarianism, nothing will change in Iraq. ISIS would return, likely from the south, and likely sacking Baghdad the next time, and Iraq would be broken into three states.

Either way, the revolution is on its way. Let it not take you by surprise when it happens.