New York // President Barack Obama on Thursday said the United States would send military advisers to Iraq and was prepared to take targeted military actions in the face a radical Islamist offensive, but reiterated that Washington saw a government with a more “inclusive agenda” as the only way ensure the country’s long-term stability.
Speaking after a meeting with his national security team, Mr Obama said US forces would not be returning to combat in Iraq but would be forming joint operations centres in Baghdad and northern Iraq, where Sunni insurgents led by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant have seized vast swaths of territory in the past two weeks.
He said the US had increased its intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance operations in Iraq to better understand the threats to Baghdad.
See map of ISIL’s push towards Baghdad
Although Mr Obama stopped short of calling on Nouri Al Maliki to step down, his stress on inclusive governance underlined concerns that the Iraqi prime minister’s Shiite-led government would have to change its approach to avoid all-out sectarian warfare that could tear the country apart.
The White House has been considering a plan to push Mr Al Maliki from power before the formation of a new government, in an attempt to address simmering Sunni anger that has led to the current military crisis.
But removing Mr Al Maliki and helping to forge an inclusive power-sharing arrangement in the next ruling coalition would require compromise from Iraq’s dysfunctional political class as well as Iraq’s neighbours, including Iran and Saudi Arabia, and could prove difficult and drawn out.
“It’s not a simple task where you can just wave a magic wand and you have an inclusive government,” said Richard LeBaron, a former US ambasador to Kuwait and a fellow at the Atlantic Council think tank.
“I don’t know that Maliki is just going to go without a fight, [and if he does go] the Sunnis will not trust the new government. The bit of shared interest that there is could easily disappear as people begin to engage.”
ISIL-led forces continued their advance towards Baghdad this week, attacking the town of Baquba just 60 kilometres from the capital and battling security forces yesterday for control of Iraq’s largest oil refinery at Baiji, although the military said it had repelled their attacks.
Mr Obama had previously rebuffed Iraqi requests for US airstrikes, saying that any US military action would be conditioned on concrete political reform.
“The president said he is not currently considering actions that would require congressional approval but was very clear that he would consult with Congress if that changed,” the US senate majority leader Harry Reid said after Mr Obama briefed senior legislators on Wednesday.
Mr Al Mailiki tried unsuccessfully to address us concerns with a televised appeal for national unity on Tuesday that was attended by Sunni and Kurdish leaders.However, the most powerful Sunni politician, Osama Al Nujaifi, did not speak during the event and left without speaking to Mr Al Maliki during the uncomfortable appearance.
US officials have urged Mr Al Maliki for years to roll back his authoritarian and sectarian policies and warned that they would lead to a resurgence of sectarian violence. The current crisis has led to growing calls by legislators in Washington and regional US allies for Mr Al Maliki to step down, and US media has reported that the administration is working with a range of competing politicians and regional countries to find an alternative.
But the violence could also lead Shiite parties to rally behind the prime minister as the prospect of sectarian bloodshed and threats to Shiite holy sites grows.
The threat from ISIL could “make the Shia less willing to remove him at this point despite the misgivings they have towards him”, said Zalmay Khalilzad, the former US ambassador to Iraq who was instrumental in installing Mr Al Maliki in 2006.
A possible compromise could be Mr Al Maliki choosing a successor from within his State of Law alliance, which won the most seats in the April elections, Mr Khalilzad said.
Iraq’s neighbors would also play a crucial role in efforts to remove Mr Al Maliki and create a consensus government. US diplomats have met counterparts from all of Iraq’s neighbours in recent days to try and find a political formula.
A key factor will be Iran’s participation. Tehran is Baghdad’s most important regional ally, and it is unlikely that any new government can be formed that it perceives as undermining its interests.
While Tehran has supported Mr Al Maliki, the ISIL threat on Iran’s border may push Tehran to recalculate and agree to work with the US and other countries on helping bring about a new Iraqi leadership.
Such tactical cooperation between Tehran and Washington occurred after Iraq’s elections in 2006. “Iran can play a positive role,” Mr Khalilzad said.
He said Iran would be more inclined to do so if Iraq’s top Shiite cleric, Ayatollah Ali Al Sistani, and significant Shia forces feel that “for the sake of keeping Iraq together … they have to make a change”.
The US will have to balance Iran’s role with the deep concerns among Arab Gulf allies about Tehran’s influence in Iraq.
UAE and Saudi officials are reportedly urging Mr Obama to drop his support for Mr Al Maliki, whose policies they blame for the current violence and the spread of ISIL. Gulf and US officials told the Wall Street Journal that if Mr Al Maliki steps down the UAE and Saudi would help stabilize Iraq.
But Gulf countries have dedicated enormous efforts in Syria and Egypt and have maintained few ties with Iraq’s various political groups in recent years as a result of Mr Al Maliki’s policies and relationship with Tehran. Analsyst say they may not be able to push Sunni tribal leaders and others who have allied for the time being with ISIL.
“The Saudis and Emiratis have turned their backs on Iraq in such a significant way that I’m not sure how much influence they can bring to bear and how much they have anymore in Iraq,” Mr LeBaron said.
tkhan@thenational.ae
* With reporting from Associated Press and Reuters