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

Why I am disappointed in Trump's Muslim Ban

Make no mistake: I think a Muslim ban is needed for several countries in the Middle-East to the United States.

However for Trump, choosing Iraq and not Pakistan was a grave mistake and potential injury to real allies on the ground. Having met Muslim extremists myself, I have never found a western-born Iraqi who supports terrorism as I have met western-born Somalis and Pakistanis. It is good that Somalia was selected - it was grievous that Pakistan was not.

Iraq's Sunni Muslim population was largely secular before the Iraq War. This suggests that the majority of Iraqi Sunnis only ally with ISIS because they feel they have no choice - though the minority, such as in the case of Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, benefit more from supporting terrorism than emigrating to America and returning to their secular roots.

Iraq has the potential to replace Saudi Arabia as America's top oil and Arab ally. But adding Iraq to the list of banned Muslim-majority countries threatens to undo that and throw Iraq more forcefully into the arms of Iran.

Far better would have been for Trump to choose Pakistan over Iraq. I agree with not adding Afghanistan to the list, as many Afghanis support American intervention against the Taliban. But adding Iraq to the list threatens to undermine peace and stability returning to the Middle-East. Trump needs to tread more carefully.

Why the Iraq War will cause Shi'ite deportation

Since the Iraq War, the Middle-East's populations have never been the same.

When George W. Bush put Shi'ites in charge of Iraq by democracy  - via an illegal war - the Iraqi government started rapidly remaking the ethno-religious makeup. They stopped the Sunni Arab population increase in Kirkuk as done under Saddam Hussein; they increased the amount of Shi'ites in Baghdad and other Sunni-Shi'ite mixed areas; and, to top it all off, they give priority visas to Shi'ite refugees to continue an increase in a Shi'ite-dominated society.

This is going to cause repercussions elsewhere - in fact, it has already caused repercussions in Syria. The Islamist uprising in Syria was fuelled largely by Islamic State of Iraq, and much of the ideology of the Syrian rebels is more like ISIS than even Al-Qaeda. Even Jabhat Fateh Ash-Sham, the Al-Qaeda branch in Syria, has more in common with ISIS than Bin Laden's vision.

Had the Syrian rebels won the war, they would have genocided the minority Alawite, Druze and Christian communities, as is ISIS' vision, resetting the balance of power in the Middle-East closer to the way it was before: a Sunni power on one side; a Shi'ite (or Iranian allied) power on the other. (this discounting the massacred minorities.) Before it was Saddam Hussein the Sunni power of Iraq and Bashar Al-Assad the Iranian allied power in Syria. The Syrian rebels hoped that, though a Shi'ite Iraq would be problematic, a Sunni Syria would be able to stem the tide of Iranian power in the Middle-East.

Of course, without Barrack Obama willing to completely engage in the war, the Syrian 'revolution' was always doomed to failure.

Worse still for the Sunni Arabs is what Trump will do. Letting Russia secure Iran-allied Syria, and securing and stabilizing Iraq himself by increasing their oil exports - over an above Saudi or Iranian exports - will shift power further away from Sunnis than in a long time - a very long time, maybe the first time in a thousand years. This will, of course, cause problems elsewhere.

With a pro-Iran power in Syria; Shi'ites in control and increasing control of Iraq, what on Earth are the Sunnis who hate Iran going to do?

Increase the change in Ethno-Religious makeup of course.

War is coming to the Arabian Gulf, and when it comes it will be absolutely awful. It would make the Syrian-Iraq War look tame by comparison.

The powerless Shi'ite minorities of other Sunni-dominated countries will be driven out. This is especially true of Saudi Arabia, where 10% of the population is Shi'ite; Bahrain, majority Shi'ite; and Kuwait, 30% Shi'ite. The Shi'ites in these regions have next to no power to stop forces like the Islamic State from wiping them out, and they can hardly count on the support of their kingdoms to be adequate.

These Shi'ites will largely resettle in - that's right - Iraq. So the Iraq War, which gave Shi'ites more power in Iraq, will also equally destroy Shi'ite power in the Gulf. The Shi'ites in the Gulf will move to Iraq and solidify Shi'ite control of Iraq.

A Shi'ite Iraq is likely to cost much of the rest of the region an absence in Shi'ite populations and cause mass Shi'ite emigration to Iraq. This may even occur in Afghanistan, depending on Trump's policy. The Iraq War has truly changed the ethno-religious balance in the Middle-East.

Iraq: the Impending Revolution PART TWO

For part 1, see:

http://jwaverfpolicy.blogspot.com.au/search?updated-max=2016-10-22T01:48:00-07:00&max-results=7


Iraq's Impending Revolution is perhaps not the kind I previously predicted.

With Trump's Iraq policy coming more and more to light, previous assessments made are no longer relevant. Before, I maintained that the likelihood of a civil war between the Kurds and the rest of Iraq would ensue after the war on ISIS reached its conclusion. I maintained that this would result in the defeat of the Iraqi Army at the hands of the Kurdish Peshmerga, meaning an Iraqi revolutionary like Muqtada Al-Sadr would take control of non-Kurdish Iraq and solidify Iraq's fragmentation.

These claims no longer stand as relevant, due largely to the change in Administration in the United States. In the article, 'the Trump-Iraq Betryal: Why Saudi Arabia is terrified,' I pointed out that Trump's oil policy in Iraq suggests a shift in American policy away from Saudi oil dominance in the Middle-East in favour of Iraq.

Together with this has been Abadi's accommodating proposal to allow the areas occupied by Kurdish Iraq to democratically vote for whether or not they wish to return to mainland Iraq, or whether they are content to be ruled by the Kurds. This suggests a softening of stances between the Abadi government and their Kurdish counterparts.

Yet Trump would cause a revolution in Iraq, but not one benefitting Muqtada Al-Sadr in the slightest. The revolution Trump would inspire would be an oil revolution.

Trump's oil revolution in Iraq would likely stabilize the country drastically. Trump would in his words, 'bomb the hell out of ISIS,' then renegotiate Iraqi's oil deals to maximize benefit for the West and Iraq.

Together with this renegotiation would be Trump leaving behind American troops to protect Iraqi oil deposits from an ISIS insurgency. ISIS would know that should Trump increase oil production in Iraq to benefit trade between the two countries, ISIS' main base of support would evaporate. This has been seen in the Arabian Gulf as well, where Arabs that would otherwise support extremism have been bought off by their oil-rich governments. Trump is likely to use the same method to stabilize Iraq.

Such news couldn't come at a worse time for Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Arabian Gulf. For given Trump's policy on Assad remaining in Syria, 'safe zones' in Syria funded by the Arabian Gulf and increased oil relations between Iraq and the West, it seems likely that Trump is set to put sanctions on Saudi Arabia - or at least put Saudi Arabia in an unbearable position, making continued stability in the kingdom impossible.

One sort of revolution would occur in Iraq; another sort would occur in Saudi Arabia. Should Trump succeed, ISIS would be driven out of Iraq and Syria, and instead find its main base in Saudi Arabia.

The Trump-Iraq Betrayal: Why Saudi Arabia is terrified

For a while I was skeptical - now I stand much more sure.

On 18th of November Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi and Trump engaged in a phone call in which Trump pledged 'strong and firm' support to the Abadi Government. Trump said and I quote, 'You are key partners to us and will find strong and firm support.'

In contrast, we have not heard Trump saying anything of the same caliber about Saudi Arabia or to their king.

An integral part of Trump's foreign policy upsets Saudi Arabia enough: the Syrian Government will not be removed by the Trump Administration, meaning Iran, Saudi Arabia's arch nemesis, will still enjoy dominance in Syria and much of the Middle-East.

But a second integral part of Trump's foreign policy is in Iraq. Not only vowing to 'bomb the hell out of ISIS,' Trump has repeatedly said, again and again, 'We've gotta take their oil.'

What does this mean? It means upping oil exports from Iraq.

Combined with this is Trump's threatening of sanctions on Saudi Arabia if they refuse to cooperate in creating safe zones in Syria for refugees, in order to stop the refugee crisis. Such policies are antithetical to Saudi interest, as Saudi wishes for Syria to destabilize and its refugees to resettle in Europe.

And it only gets worse.

Trump's energy policy speech highlighted that the Trump Administration wishes to 'have at it horse' in regards to oil, gas, coal and fracking in America. While many Greens have fainted in shock that Trump has been so much the Climate Change denier, there is more than a little method in his madness.

Trump understands that there are only 2 ways to get a country like Iraq stable: either put a Saddam-Hussein-type dictator in power, or push up their economy through oil exports. If anyone were but to go through the conservative kingdoms of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United Arab Emirates (Dubai), Kuwait or Bahrain, they would see that these kingdoms rule in peace because of their enormous oil exports.

Trump wishes to replace the Saudi oil trade with the combined might of Iraqi and American oil, which only together could replace Saudi's oil trade in the West.

This leads Saudi Arabia to an unprecedented predicament. Shi'ites would rule Syria, Iraq and Iran. Russia would be rebuilding Assad's Syria and strengthening trade with Iran. Trump would be rebuilding Iraq through 'taking their oil.' What place would Saudi Arabia have for either America or Russia?

For Saudi Arabia, this is terrifying.

Instead of an unstable Iraq, the Middle-East would see an unstable Saudi Arabia. Instead of ISIS' main base located in Iraq, it would be located in Saudi Arabia, destabilizing the kingdom and attempting to replace it with ISIS' vision of a Caliphate.

Shi'ites would benefit in Iraq and Syria due to Trump policy. But in Saudi Arabia, where 10 per cent of the population is Shi'ite, there would be genocide and Shi'ites would flee in overwhelming numbers.

No longer would Al-Qaeda's top base be located in Syria under Jabhat Fateh Ash-Sham, but under Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, in both Yemen and southern Saudi Arabia.

None of this is good for stability in Saudi Arabia. But in Trump's mind - so it seems - better an unstable Saudi than an unstable Iraq and Syria.

Why the Iraq War was Deviously Clever

The Iraq War is, without exaggeration, the single worst foreign policy blunder in American history. But looked from another perspective, the Iraq War was deviously clever.

How, you might ask? Consider the following points:


1) America now has Shi'ite allies.

The loudest Iraqi Shi'ite voices, like Muqtada Al-Sadr, would never admit it or even dare to say it, but the truth of the Iraq War is that it provides America with Shi'ite allies for the first time since the Iranian Revolution of 1979. This occurred because the majority of Iraqis are Shi'ite, and by America allowing Iraq to become more democratic - though horrendously corrupt - the Shi'ites have ended up with all the power in government.

2) Iran and America have a mutual ally

Because of the Iraq War, Iran and America share an ally. This has meant that previously unattainable goals, such as removing Iran's nuclear stockpile, have been more readily achieved, especially under the Obama Administration. It also means that counter-Sunni-terrorism objectives against ISIS and Al-Qaeda are also easier to achieve, as information can be shared through their mutual ally. It gives Iran and America more room for dialogue, rather than just endlessly threatening each other.

3) The Iraqi Kurds have more freedom

Coupled with Shi'ites controlling Iraq is an enjoyed greater autonomy for the pro-Israeli Kurdish population of Iraq. It gives Israel more of a chance for an ally in the Middle-East. Even if the Kurds don't become an autonomous region, Iraq is forced to concede more often and not pursue as many anti-Israel policies as under Saddam Hussein.

4) Mostly Shi'ites are anti-Israel, most Sunnis are anti-Shi'ite

Saddam Hussein was a Sunni Muslim who championed being anti-Israel and pro-Palestine. Iran since 1979 has also been very anti-Israel and pro-Palestine, together with Hezbollah in Lebanon (from 1985), Hafez al-Assad (from 1971) and his son and successor Bashar Al-Assad, both of whom ruled in Syria and protected Hezbollah after it was formed.

By removing Saddam Hussein from power, the last major Sunni power that unequivocally refused cooperation with Israel was destroyed, meaning that the only really anti-Israel powers in the Middle-East are Iran or Iranian allies: Iran, Hezbollah and Assads' Syria. This has caused the anti-Israeli enthusiasm of many Sunnis to be replaced by an anti-Shi'ite enthusiasm - this change of focus means Sunnis would sooner fight Shi'ites than Israelis, and Shi'ites would be unable to fight Israel as they would be preoccupied by fighting with Sunnis.

This has left Palestine in an awkward position: Palestine is now the only Sunni power that wishes to fight Israel; the rest are Shi'ite, and Palestine is thus mainly supported by Shi'ites.

5) ISIS targets Shi'ites first, West second and rarely targets Israel

ISIS perhaps benefits Israel most of all, as ISIS is the main reason Sunnis are fighting Shi'ites and not Israel. Osama Bin Laden, founder of Al-Qaeda, said, "America will never dream of security unless we will have it in reality in Palestine. God willing, our raids on you will continue as long as your support to the Israelis will continue," This rhetoric has all but evaporated in ISIS, as they speak threats against Assad's Syria, Shi'ite Iraq, Iran and Shi'ites in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait - much more than they threaten Israel. When ISIS fail to target the Shi'ites, such as when they are pushed back from key cities in Iraq and Syria, they deliberately target America, France, Belgium and other countries to put pressure on the West to leave them alone.

This is worse for the West - we should expect not only 9-11's but worse ones, as ISIS is more cruel than Al-Qaeda - but to Israel, it is a glorious breather. No longer is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at the uttermost in people's minds, but Arabs killing each other from 2 different sects of Islam in Iraq and Syria is.

6) Israel has allies for the foreseeable future

Since Iraq has turned Shi'ite, Saudi Arabia has become more paranoid by the threat of Iran's influence in the region. It has meant Saudi has wanted to quell Iranian influence in Syria (in which they have not succeeded, largely due to American distaste for a Syrian war so soon after the Iraq War). Not only in Syria, but in Lebanon, in Yemen and Iraq. Because Saudi Arabia have been largely unsuccessful in their war on Iranian influence, Saudi-Israeli relations are closer than ever.

But this is unlikely to last, as Saudi Arabia is about to explode from within as a response to losing Syria and Iraq to Iranian influence. If ISIS successfully detonate in Saudi Arabia - as Alistair Crooke predicts - then Israel will lose their ally.

However this would cause countries such as Egypt, Jordan and Iraq to get closer to Israel. Both Jordan and Iraq have borders with Saudi Arabia - should ISIS control those borders, both will need Israeli help to counter the threat. (Jordan already has strong relations with Israel, so that wouldn't change. However Iraq would have America and Iran as close allies as well as, paradoxically, Israel.)

7) The Gulf would completely destabilize

Sometimes I ponder that the real reason the neocons destabilized Iraq was due to 9-11 and an inability to attack Saudi Arabia directly. Saudi Arabia is holy land for Muslims, and 9-11 occurred in the first place because Americans have been sent there since the Gulf War to protect the Saudi Government. To escalate attacks on the Arabian Peninsula after 9-11 would have been most unwise.

By handing Iraq's government over to Shi'ite Arabs, it was perhaps sending a clear message to Saudi that America is prepared to change their allies if 9-11's continue. Not only so, but in knowing Saudi Arabia would, in Iraq, fund a terrorist group more extreme than Al-Qaeda, it would cause Saudi Arabia to destabilize and/or be overtaken by terrorists, punishing the Saudis for their role in 9-11.

If Saudi Arabia deconstructs at the hands of ISIS, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and U.A.E. would follow suit. It would cause genocide of Shi'ites in the Gulf, forcing them to flee to Iran, Iraq or another Iranian-dominated country for safety.

Perhaps Yemen would also fall under ISIS influence, but that is harder to know for sure. Perhaps South Yemen would pledge allegiance to ISIS, or perhaps not, because South Yemen is closely affiliated with Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, not with ISIS. It is hard to know, as Al-Qaeda does not share ISIS' radical ideology to the same extent.
 
Trading instability and oil productions between Iraq and the Gulf might just mean America could exact revenge for 9-11.