Signs Taliban are Planning for Peace

Part 2 of "Tehran's Turn" appeared yesterday in The New York Times Sunday Edition. Written by veteran Afghanistan reporter Carlotta Gall, "In Afghanistan, U.S. Exits, and Iran Comes In," repeats the fear-mongering of Part 1, which appeared mid-July, also in the Sunday paper, penned by Tim Arango, right down to the the headline, "Iran Dominates in Iraq After U.S. ‘Handed the Country Over’." 

The idea communicated to The Times' large Sunday audience is simple: U.S. military occupation of the Greater Middle East is all that stands in the path of an aggressive incipient Iranian empire. The truth is a bit more complex, but not by much: Iran is merely collecting the windfall created by the bellicose imperial U.S.

Gall is a good reporter who certainly knows the truth of Afghanistan, that the Taliban are proxies of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan:

President Trump recently lamented that the United States was losing its 16-year war in Afghanistan, and threatened to fire the American generals in charge.

There is no doubt that as the United States winds down the Afghan war — the longest in American history, and one that has cost half a trillion dollars and more than 150,000 lives on all sides — regional adversaries are muscling in.

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan remain the dominant players. But Iran is also making a bold gambit to shape Afghanistan in its favor.

This "bold gambit" is fleshed out entirely with quotes from Afghan officials, particularly Afghan intelligence. So a discerning critical reader will come away skeptical as to the extent of Iranian influence in Afghanistan. Gall, based on her published story, could just have easily replaced Iran with Russia.

The story goes something like this: Taliban CEO Mullah Mansour was on his way back from a powwow in Iran with Russian officials when he was blown up by a U.S. drone. Pakistan had blessed the assassination believing that Mansour had strayed too far off the reservation:

The death of Mullah Mansour removed Iran’s crucial link to the Taliban. But it has also fractured the Taliban, spurring a number of high-level defections and opening opportunities for others, including Iran, to meddle.

An overwhelming majority of Taliban blame Pakistan for Mullah Mansour’s death. The strike deepened disillusionment with their longtime Pakistani sponsors.

About two dozen Taliban commanders, among them senior leaders who had been close to Mullah Mansour, have since left their former bases in Pakistan.

They have moved quietly into southern Afghanistan, settling back in their home villages, under protection of local Afghan security officials who hope to encourage a larger shift by insurgents to reconcile with the government.

Those with family still in Pakistan live under close surveillance and control by Pakistani intelligence, said the former Taliban commander, who recently abandoned the fight and moved his family into Afghanistan to escape reprisals.

He said he had become increasingly disaffected by Pakistan’s highhanded direction of the war. “We all know this is Pakistan’s war, not Afghanistan’s war,” he said. “Pakistan never wanted Afghanistan to be at peace.”

The lede of Gall's story, that the Taliban are no longer entirely operated by remote control from Islamabad, thanks in no small part to assassination of Mullah Mansour, is buried beneath a lot of malarkey about Iranian meddling.

Any feelers the Taliban make in the direction of Russia and Iran are for peace. The Pakistan/U.S./Saudi position is one of perpetual war. That is how the U.S. role in Afghanistan is frequently referred to now in the mainstream media.

No Iran War

The takeaways from Obama's announcement yesterday are delay and obfuscation. Sending 300 military advisers to Iraq, as well as filling its skies with surveillance aircraft, will do nothing to roll back the jihadi gains in the north. The U.S., operating with its allies in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), wants Maliki gone, as they want to be rid of Assad in neighboring Syria. (A senior administration official was quoted as saying that future U.S. airstrikes could include Syria.) 

The plan appears to be the creation of a federalized or partitioned Iraq with an augmented Kurdistan in control of its own oil sales and Kirkuk; re-Baathification in the form of Sunnis given control of the ministry of defense or interior, as well additional patronage-rich departments; while the Shia get a more U.S./GCC-friendly head of state. Alissa Rubin and Rod Nordland have the story, which appears to have been written with the ample help of USG, "Challengers Emerge to Replace Divisive Maliki":

The Kurds want the Iraqi central government to recognize the contested city of Kirkuk, endowed with oil, as part of the autonomous Kurdish territory they have carved out in the north. The Kurds also want assurances that they can sell the oil from Kurdistan without oversight from the central government.

The Sunnis want to lead at least one security ministry, such as defense or interior, and control some of the other powerful ministries such as education or higher education, both rich in patronage and jobs. 

So far the only point of near agreement among Iraq’s political factions is that Mr. Maliki, who has been prime minister since 2007 and is in his second term, must go. 

“We will not allow a third term for the prime minister; they must change him if they want things to calm down,” Nabil al-Khashab, a senior political adviser to Osama al-Nujaifi, the former speaker and most prominent of the Sunni leaders, said Thursday.

Washington's man in Baghdad orchestrating Maliki's ouster is Brett McGurk, assistant secretary of state for Iran and Iraq. Rubin and Nirdland continue,

It is far from clear, however, whether any of the suggested successors could gather enough votes. The names floated so far — Adel Abdul Mahdi, Ahmed Chalabi and Bayan Jaber — are from the Shiite blocs, which have the largest share of the total seats in the Parliament. 

Mr. Mahdi came within a vote of winning the prime minister’s job in 2006 and previously served as one of Iraq’s vice presidents. He is viewed as a moderate who has long worked well with the Kurds. 

Mr. Chalabi is a complex figure who has alternately charmed and infuriated the Americans but has ties both to them and to Iran. His biggest liability could be his uncompromising support for the systematic purge of many Sunnis from government jobs after the American-led invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein and his Baath Party a decade ago. Mr. Chalabi now says he supports terminating the basis for that purge, the so-called de-Baathification law. 

Mr. Jaber, a minister of interior in the transitional Iraqi government and later finance minister, could also face problems. He is alleged to have allowed abuse and torture of prisoners when he was in the Interior Ministry, and it is unclear whether he has much widespread support. 

Other names are beginning to surface, and while the Americans are urging quick action, it could take weeks, if not months, for the factions to reach consensus. 

*** 

Senior American officials in Baghdad, including the ambassador, Robert S. Beecroft, and the deputy assistant secretary of state for Iran and Iraq, Brett McGurk, have been encouraging the Iraqi political factions to work together. At least two Iraqi political officials said the Americans were urging the factions to agree on a replacement for Mr. Maliki.

“They want to see the back of him,” said an Iraqi official, who met with the Americans this week and spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the nature of the talks.

With a whisper campaign of Ahmed Chalabi to succeed Maliki we're back to the future. Chalabi was the neocon's man. They wanted him to run the show in Baghdad after the U.S. invasion. But things didn't go according to plan. Chalabi was seen as a puppet. He then recreated himself by allegedly cozying up to Iran.

The last great mobilization of anti-government sentiment in the United States, excepting the brief Occupy flowering of the fall of 2011, was in the run up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.  The "No Iraq War" yard sign was ubiquitous.

Shortly after Bush-Cheney invaded Iraq, people started altering there "No Iraq War" signs by duct-taping over the 'Q' and handwriting a 'N' to read "No Iran War." Then after not too long the manufactured yard sign below appeared:

People put up these "No Iran War" signs because the chatter in Washington was that "Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran." Everyone knew that the neocons were going after Iran. Saddam Hussein's Iraq, weakened by a decade of sanctions, would quickly topple thanks to U.S. military shock and awe and then it was on to Tehran.

But things don't work out the way elites draw them up in the board room.

After a quiescent anti-war movement hitched its cart to an attractive candidate in the Democratic Party things have gone from bad to worse. Now we're back on the road to Tehran.

The fact the Kerry is being sent out to rally support in the Middle East for regime change in Iraq is not a good sign. At this point all Kerry does is lie sonorously. More mayhem is to come.