what does post-ISIS Iraq look like?

What does post-ISIS Iraq look like?

Make or break.

After the Mosul campaign, ISIS' hold on Iraq would severely lessen, but by no means would it end. On the one hand, ISIS still controls territory in Hawija - which is southern Kirkuk province, a traditionally Kurdish region which Saddam Hussein repopulated with Sunni Arabs - and western Anbar province, which borders Syria and Jordan.

Yet ISIS' hold on Iraq would still exist after being driven out of Hawija and western Anbar. How? Suicide bombings.

Between 2003 and 2010, there were over 1000 suicide bombings that occurred in Iraq. Since then many more have occurred, especially since ISIS invaded Iraq from Syria in 2014. Suicide bombings destabilize Sunni-Shi'ite relations enormously, as they usually are perpetrated by Sunnis on Shi'ites. They cause backlash by Shi'ites on Sunnis, which in turn leads to more suicide bombings.

ISIS are the masters of suicide bombings. The Iraqi government will need to work very hard on security measures to prevent suicide bombings from occurring in the country, especially in Baghdad, where the majority occur.

The trick will be for Sunni-Shi'ite Arab Iraqi relations to improve substantially. In this regard, Haider Al-Abadi, the current Prime Minister of Iraq, excels over his predecessor, Nouri Al-Maliki, who largely inflamed the tensions. This is more important than giving Sunni Arabs autonomy: instead of autonomy, unity and nationalism must be encouraged.

The other trick will be for Yazidis and Christians to have a prominent place in Iraq, particularly in Nineveh. While much is said about the Sunni Arabs, Shi'ite Arabs and Kurds needing to get along in Iraq, little is said about the oppression and persecution towards Iraqi minorities. This is not a phenomenon that came with ISIS; Christians and Yazidis have been seen as agents of America and the devil since the beginning of the Iraq War.

How extreme a Muslim community is depends on how they treat their minorities. If Abadi can make important steps towards enabling Christians and Yazidis to have a prominent political voice in northern Iraq, it will do much good for the region as a whole.

But perhaps the biggest threat for a post-ISIS Iraq is Iran. Iran has a heavy sway over the country, and unlike in Syria, Iran's role in Iraq is destabilizing and unhelpful. Should Abadi bring Sunni Arabs, Shi'ites, Christians and Yazidis together, then pro-Iranian Shi'ite militias will destabilize Iraq from the south in response.

Should the Iranian militias gain more sway over Iraq, ISIS will return and return stronger. Thankfully, unlike Obama, Donald Trump would not put up with Iranian militias destabilizing Iraq and likely respond accordingly.

But it must be an Iraqi response to Iranian militias to have a more lasting impact. Should Iraqis of all kinds turn on the Iranian backed Shi'ite militias - as is happening against previous Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki - then Iraq is more likely to come together, not break apart as would occur should America fight the Iranian-backed militias alone.

I for one am optimistic. Donald Trump is the right leader at the right time for Iraq. On the campaign trail, he has criticized the Iraq War many times, been honest about Iran's hold on Iraq, pledged to eradicate ISIS quickly from Iraq, vowed to up oil exports from Iraq, vowed to not forget the Middle-East Christians and has promised Haider Al-Abadi strong and firm support.

I expect Iraq to stabilize drastically by the end of Trump's time in office.

Trump likely to end Democracy in Iraq

Iraqi Democracy has been abysmal.

The level of corruption under the previous Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki was enormous. Haider Al-Abadi, while promising reform, is still a member of pro-Iranian Islamic Da'wa party which means that Iran's preference has always dominated Iraq's "democratic" preference.

To reinforce this Iranian preference is in all of the Shi'ite militias running rampant in Iraq's south. These militias make Iraq's south unsafe, and also undermine the democratic process by intimidation and threats to their own community.

In short, Iraqi democracy only benefits Iran.

Trump has been critical of the Iraq War for a wide variety of reasons. Chief among these is that Iran benefits from Iraq's current climate more than America. Trump has been critical of the rise of Sunni discontent through ISIS and equally critical of the lack of economic benefits for the United States from the venture, i.e. the oil. He has also been more recently critical of the lack of support by America for the Christian populations of the Middle-East.

With all this in mind, it seems that Trump is set to re-shake the balance in Iraq to stabilize it - i.e. Trump plans to end Democracy in Iraq.

To reinstall a dictator in Iraq is a complicated process. Firstly, Trump will do nothing until ISIS is defeated in Iraq. Secondly, it would be unlikely that Trump would install a Sunni dictator in Iraq, as many of the Iraqi Sunni Arab tribes would unleash their rage at the Shi'ite community to an unnecessary level.

Thirdly, it would be unlikely that Haider Al-Abadi or anyone from the Islamic Da'wa Party would control Iraq under a dictatorship. To do so would be to keep Iraq in the grip of Iran.

Fourthly, it would be unlikely that a Christian or a Yazidi would be the dictator in control of Iraq. Such policy would create too many internal enemies without strong enough allies.

The only two options I see would be either a Kurdish-dominated dictatorship or a secular Shi'ite like Ayad Allawi taking control. Each have advantages and disadvantages, and it is difficult to say which Trump would take.

But in either scenario, the threat of ISIS return would be greatly reduced. On the one hand, Ayad Allawi is immensely popular with Sunni Iraqi Arabs, and is a bridge between previous supporters of Saddam Hussein and Iraqi Shi'ites. He could heal the sectarian wounds of Iraq. On the other hand, Sunni Arabs would prefer being ruled by secular Sunni Iraqi Kurds than Shi'ite Iraqi Islamists.

However, though the threat of ISIS would be reduced, a new threat would emerge: a Shi'ite terrorist organisation in southern Iraq. Though Kurdish and Sunni Arab Iraq would likely stabilize under the new dictatorship, Shi'ite Iraq would become more unstable and less safe. However this benefits the Trump Administration more than hinders it, as they are able to claim lasting victory over ISIS and are merely fighting Iran, whose destabilization of Iraq caused ISIS in the first place.

With Trump reshaping Iraq for stability and not for democracy, Iran would be weakened in the region, and America would be fighting a proxy war with Iran in Iraq.

In stark contrast, Hillary Clinton believed in weakening Iran by overthrowing Bashar Al-Assad in Syria, which would have had disastrous consequences for the region. Had Hillary Clinton succeeded in overthrowing the Syrian government, it would have resulted in instability so far unparalleled in the Middle-East: genocides of Christians, Alawites and Druze would have occurred, and Syrian Sunnis would have fought with Israel on the Syrian-Israeli border under ISIS and Al-Qaeda. That is to say nothing of the spillover of instability into Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

Rather than weakening Iran by destabilizing more countries, Trump has chosen the more logical conclusion: stop destabilizing Syria and stabilize Iraq by ridding it of Iranian influence. To do this would be difficult, but is likely to have a lasting impact on stability for the entire Middle-East.

Will Trump hand Iraq over to the Kurds? Detailed analysis

The last 14 years have seen Iraq in absolute chaos.

On the one hand, the Iraqi government has been subdued by Iranian influence, meaning that democracy in Iraq benefits Iran, not Iraq. Iranian puppet Muqtada As-Sadr has sizable influence, as does his militias. Hashd Ash-sha'abi and other militias are growing in power and strength, and the Iraqi government has not the strength to reign them in. Even Nouri Al-Maliki, the previous Prime Minister who was responsible for the Sunni Arab discontent, still holds enormous influence.

That is in the south. In the center of Iraq, Sunni Arabs were so much neglected that when the most violent extremist group of our time - the self-declared Islamic State - invaded Sunni Arab regions of Iraq, the Sunni Arabs were left to their fate by the Iraqi Army. Today, most Sunni Arabs are in Iraqi Kurdistan for refuge.

Yet in the north, in Iraqi Kurdistan, there is stability. Yes, that's right: in Iraq, there is a region with stability. It's Iraqi Kurdistan.

America has had a positive relationship with the Iraqi Kurds, first shown when America implemented a 'no-fly-zone' in Northern Iraq to prevent Saddam Hussein massacring them. And no, that's not rhetoric - it is well documented that Saddam Hussein was massacring Iraqi Kurds during the Iran-Iraq war.

In turn, the Kurds have shown again and again a willingness to work with America in the face of common adversaries. Once America deposed of Saddam Hussein, the Kurds ended up with an enormous amount of autonomy. Since the Islamic State invaded Iraq, the Kurds have increased their territory and their autonomy.

Trump has shown a willingness to reexamine Iraq War policy, rather than just making more Iraq Wars elsewhere - like Obama did with the Arab Spring. Obama desired to overthrow Bashar Al-Assad in Syria - a stable ally of Iran - while doing nothing about Iran's influence in Iraq - an unstable ally of Iran. Talk about hypocrisy!

At least Trump sees that Iran having an ally in Syria is not worth destabilizing the entire Middle-East for. Trump is not going to remove Bashar Al-Assad from power in Syria.

However, the Trump Administration has put Iran 'on notice' for testing a ballistic missile in defiance of the law of the United Nations. This has begun with American sanctions on Iran, and is unlikely to end there. In Trump's words, 'nothing is off the table.'

Trump has also not been shy to expose that Iraq is controlled by Iran. In a tweet, Trump said and I quote,

“Iran is rapidly taking over more and more of Iraq even after the US has squandered three trillion dollars there. Obvious long ago!”

Rather than removing Bashar Al-Assad from power in Syria - which would create enormous problems for Israel and the region - and more likely than an Iran War is Trump re-invading Iraq.

To be sure, this is unlikely to be Trump's first point of call. First he wishes to implement American sanctions on Iran, which he has done. Second, he would get his allies to implement sanctions on Iran. If neither deters Iran from seeking nuclear capability, then stronger measures involving military strength would undoubtedly be enforced by the Trump Administration.

But Trump cannot afford to have Iraq warring on America as America wars on Iran. Most of the political power in Iraq is with pro-Iranian Shi'ite militias, who would obstruct Trump in Iraq just as he seeks to obstruct Iran.

If a decision to military action on Iran were to be made by the Trump Administration, it would likely be initiated by a second invasion of Iraq, to remove the pro-Iranian government and remove an Iranian ally from the region.

While such an undertaking would be enormous and expensive, it would be less enormous and less expensive than invading and occupying Iran. Such unilateral action in Iraq might force Iran to give up on nuclear capabilities for fear of similar reprisals.

But what government could replace the failed Iraqi democracy? Either a Shi'ite secular dictator - perhaps making Allawi a dictator - or, perhaps even more tempting for Trump, the Iraqi Kurds.

For the Kurds, their goal has never been domination - only independence from Iraq, Iran, Turkey and Syria to form their own state. But Trump could tempt them with much more than just independence. Controlling Iraq would give the Kurds priority access to Iraqi oil wealth; priority access to Basra, the only port in the country; and, temptingly, Kurdish dominance in the region for the first time since the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire.

The advantages of a Kurdish-controlled Iraq for Trump's Middle-East are obvious. Kurds would look after the Iraqi Christians; Kurds would make sure Iraqi Sunni and Shi'ite Arabs stop fighting each other; Kurds would quench Iranian and Saudi proxy wars in Iraq by maintaining the peace; Kurds would provide a form of governance and stability not seen since the days of Saddam Hussein, and probably with less sectarianism and bloodshed as was common under Saddam Hussein.

Kurds from Turkey would have a place of refuge in Iraq; Iran would be panicked by their Kurdish problem in the north-west of their country. If Iraq stabilized under the Kurds, Iranian Kurdistan might be annexed by Iraq and Trump to further reprimand Iran if their nuclear actions continue.

Of course such a sysmic shift in the Middle-East would create consequences. Turkey would of course not be happy with the result. Iran and Syria would also be unhappy, but this bothers Trump less, as Trump does not intend to ally strongly with either power. The majority of the Gulf would be very happy; Sunni hardliners would again focus on Israel over Iran, and Israel would be relieved to have an ally in the region.

Many of the Sunni Arab Iraqis are currently seeking refuge in Iraqi Kurdistan, so it would not be hard for the Kurds to offer the Sunni Arabs an alliance to get their towns back from the Shi'ite militias. Sunni Iraq, Kurdish and Arab, would fall to Kurdish power rapidly.

But the Shi'ite Iraqis in particular would not go down without a fight. It would be difficult to drive Iranian influence back into Iran from Iraq, but with American help such a fight could be accomplished.

The advantage of Kurdish control of Iraq would be Trump able to easily dispose of "Iraqi democracy," one of the most corrupt democracies in the world. Instead, the Kurds would control Iraq with secularism, slowly introducing Arabs to proper democracy, as did Bashar Al-Assad in Syria before the war.

By no means is re-invastion of Iraq Trump's first point of call. He would of course hope to provide strong, firm support to Iraq under current political circumstances. But should Iran continue to search for nuclear capabilities, war and restriction of allies and resources would be the only solution to such provocation.

Don't worry, Abadi. Trump's Muslim Ban does not change benefits for Iraq

Much has happened in the first 10 days of Trump's Presidency. But the most controversial has been the Muslim Ban from 7 different countries.

It is interesting, though, that Barrack Obama was the one to name the 7 countries, not Trump. Also interesting that in 2011, Obama banned Iraqi refugees for 6 months, twice as long as Trump's immigration ban.

I am disappointed in the way Trump banned the Iraqis together with the other countries, as it sends the wrong message to Iraq.


So, I decided to respond with a letter of sorts to Iraqi Prime Minister Haider Al-Abadi.



Dear Prime Minister Haider Al-Abadi,


Expect things to get better - a lot better.

Trump's Iraqi policy can be summed up in two phrases: "bomb the hell out of ISIS," and, "get out of the nation-building business and focus on stability." Abadi, I would advise you not to worry about Trump saying he would "take [your] Iraqi oil," because in Trump language, "take their oil," means upping oil relations between Iraq and the West substantially.

Abadi, you and your country are incredibly important allies to America. You are not only important because of your oil - you are important because you have a Christian community, and Trump has vowed to remember Christians of the Middle-East in his foreign policy. You are important to Trump because you are on the front line in the war on terror, and terrorism is your common enemy. You are important to Trump because you have a Shi'ite community, which means you can work as a middle ground between Iran and America.

You are important to Trump because within your country lies the secret to the defeat of terrorism.

Abadi, your oil is not just a resource - it is a weapon, a weapon which can oust countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar from their high thrones, from which they destabilize the world with terrorism. If Trump unlocks the oil potential of your land Iraq, Iraq will stabilize quickly - but also, Qatar and Saudi Arabia will go bankrupt and be no longer able to fund terrorism.

To you, Abadi, I say this: wait. Wait and see for what I tell you will come to pass before your eyes. When the oil rivers flow from Iraq, peace and stability will increase dramatically in the Middle-East, and your country will benefit most of all.


Yours sincerely,
John Waver