An Interview with Marina Ottaway
March 29, 2015
Exclusive Interviews
Ottaway: Iran is helping Iraq in the fight against ISIS more decisively than the United States, in the sense that it is providing support on the ground, not only from the air. There is no doubt that the primary reason for Iran’s intervention is to fight ISIS. A state in-the-making controlled by a radical Sunni organization is a threat to Iran. If ISIS had succeeded in overrunning the Kurdish peshmerga, they would be on the border of Iran. Although Iran’s primary goal is to fight ISIS, rather than to make war on all Iraqi Sunnis, the intervention of Iran could increase sectarian tensions if the Shia militias it support commit atrocities against Sunnis. Even if they do not, the presence of Shia militias in predominantly Sunni areas will rise Sunni fears.
Gulan: Osama Al-Nujayfi, who is Sunni and also deputy president of Iraq, has made it clear that military processes by Shiite Populate mobilization forces which are led by Iran for re-taking control over Tikrit, Anbar, and Mosul will certainly transform the war into Sunni-Shiite war. So, he has asked not to let Shiite Militias participate in taking back Mosul. To what extent is it important for international coalition to really take this risk into consideration?
Ottaway: The international coalition cannot prevent Shia militias from taking part in the effort to retake Mosul. The Iraqi government and the Shia militias do what they want, not what the United States tell them to do. And I doubt al-Abadi will keep the Shia militias away from the battle for Mosul; he does not have enough troops in the regular Iraqi army. There are reasons to be concerned that the sectarian tensions will increase.
Gulan: The wide intervention of Iran in Iraqi affairs and also in Syria for preserving Assad in power might break the silence of Turkey and Saudi Arabia, and they may intervene. To what extent is there a risk that Saudi Arabia and Turkey might intervene in Iraq and Syria against Iranian interventions?
Ottaway: If Turkey and Saudi Arabia took a more active role in the fight against ISIS, their support for the Iraqi government might decrease its dependence on Iran, and thus help stabilize Iraq. The problem at present is that Iraq desperately needs military support, given the conditions of its military, and that Iran has provided the most support for a threatened country. The influence of Iran will not decrease as long as Iraq is dependent on Iranian support. Ideally, Iran should not interfere in Iraqi affairs, but it will not stop doing so. Thus, greater Saudi and Turkish involvement might bring about a more balanced situation.
Gulan: With the beginning of Iranian led Shiite Militias attacking Anbar and Tikrit, Boko Haram also paid homage to ISIS and recognized IS as an Islamic Caliphate. This means, however, that automatically Islamic State is becoming the Sunni sectarian representative. To what extent will the unity of terrorist organizations from Pakistan to Libya and Nigeria, endanger the geopolitical map of this wide territory?
Ottaway: Symbolically, ISIS has become the symbol of radical Sunni Islam everywhere, and is why so many organizations are declaring their allegiance to it. In practice, the declaration of allegiance to the Islamic State by Boko Haram probably does not mean much. There are no indications so far that ISIS is helping Boko Haram. On the other hand, there is some evidence that ISIS has some involvement in Libya and in the Sinai, so declarations of allegiance by organizations in that area are probably more than symbolic.
Gulan: Another aspect of terrorist militia groups is the existence of Shiite militias, like Houthis in Yemen, and there is the risk over Bahrain, then to Iraq and Syria and to southern Lebanon and Hezbollah. This means that it will endanger the gulf-states and Jordon. The Lebanon Hezbollah has advocated fighting for Shiite and Jihad in the name of Shiite. In your view, to what extent are Shiite Militias in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen preparing a ground for a huge regional war?
Ottaway: I do not see any indication that Shiite militias are preparing a huge war to take over the entire region and if they tried they would run into a lot of trouble. Shia militias can take advantage of the weakness of political mistakes of Governments to make inroads. The Houthis succeeded in taking over Sanaa because the government had been in complete disarray for months, for example. But there is a limit to the power of Shia militias. Do not forget that Shias are a minority in all Arab countries except Bahrain.
Gulan: United States and NATO have become partners with Iran’s revolutionary guard corps, Hezbollah, Shiite Militias in Iraq and Syria in the war against ISIS. On the other hand, U.S. allies, Saudi Arabia, Gulf States, Jordon, Israel and Egypt are against this aspect. To what extent has this war created a distance between the U.S. and its traditional allies in the region?
Ottaway: There are tensions between the US and its allies in the region, there is no doubt. But it is not correct to say that the US is partnering with all the organizations you mention. They are working together against a common enemy without being allies, in the same way in which the US and the Soviet Union both fought against Hitler and Germany without being allies. Countries that do not like this convergence between US and Iran should consider that the US cannot prevent Iran from fighting ISIS, so they have to make a choice: do they want the United States to be involved in the fight against ISIS even if Iran is also fighting ISIS? Or do they prefer that the US gets out of Iraq and Syria, leaving Iran as the only country helping Iraq fight ISIS?
Gulan: To what extent is there a risk that this war might get out of control and transform from a war against terrorist groups into a global war by the Russian and Chinese intervention against NATO and West?
Ottaway: I think that danger is remote.
