Current political situation in Iraq may result in the fall of Prime Minister al-Albadi

The current Iraqi political mess appears to be more focused and organized than in the past.  A rump parallel paliament, determined to increase Iranian influence in Baghdad, continues to challenge the authority of the Council of Representatives.  The Iraqi Constitution is written to provide a checks and balances system that is similar to the U.S. Constitution, but Iraqi politics really is about who has the most supporters and authority with the militias.  Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has managed to fight off a number of efforts to remove him from office.  When the war against ISIS goes badly, the various political groups lay-off the anti-Abadi campaign, for fear that if Abadi falls and ISIS takes comtrol of Baghdad, then the Iranians may not be so willing to interfere in Iraqi politics.  But when the military situation is positive, as appears to be the case currently, the effort to remove Abadi and install an Iranian puppet regime.  As long as ISIS constitues a real threat to Iraq, the Iranians will not commit themselves militarily.  Currently the Iranians are content to have operatives on the ground in every province, and to to keep advisors in place with the various Shia militias.  The recent successes on the battlefield have emboldened the pro-Iranian elements to attempt a coup and install a pro-Iranian government while the military situation is positive.  Teheran is a bit more pragmatic than its Shia supporters in Iraq, and will no doubt wait for what it considers to be an ideal environment before commiting regular forces to the conflict in Iraq.

Given the equities involved, why haven't the Iranians moved into Iraqi full-force and push ISIS out of Iraq?  Such an effort would certainly increase the public support for Iran and embarrass the United States, which has been supporting the Abadi Administration with military aid and U.S. Special Forces.  No doubt Iran is determined to control Iraq, and the Iranians would welcome the opportunity to play the role of "liberators", but the Iranian military is not up to the task of providing military support and troops to the Hezbollah-supported effort in Syria.  Iran has a long history of supporting Hezbollah and the de facto president of Syria, Bashar al-Assad.  The situation could change dramatically within the next month.  If the Russian effort to prop-up Bashar al-Assad is successful, and the Iranian troops who have been fighting on the Syrian front are welcomed home as victors, the pressure would be on Teheran to follow up the victory in Syria with a successful campaign against ISIS in Iraq.  As things stand, Teheran does not appear to be ready to commit regular military elements into Iraq, especially when Iran has ongoing commitments in Syria and Yemen.  Don't expect to see an increase in Iranian military activity while the conflict in Syria continues.  Teheran loves a military parade, but when it comes to commiting resources in a foreign conflict, the Iranians will be patient and wait until the situation either deteriorates further, or an armistace or ceasefire manages to take hold.  Another variable in the mix is the U.S. political season.  The Iranians will want to know who sits in the Oval Office before embarking on a full-scale military effort in Iraq.  The Iranians do not want a confrontation with the United States, especially given the freedom they have to basically act unilaterally in the region.  The Iranians will be content to continue its efforts in supporting Hezbollah in Syria, and by providing advisors and military specialists to the Shia militias in Iraq.  So much will depend on who sits in the White House in 2017.

Should the United States work together with Iran to defeat ISIS/ISIL?

Link: Cooperation between the U.S. and Iran?

Are we prepared for the possibility of cooperation between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran?  On Friday, a plane carrying U.S. contractors on their way from Afghanistan to Dubai was forced to land in Bandar Abbas, Iran.  It would have been no surprise if the Iranian authorities had caused headaches for the United States by keeping the plane grounded.  But for some reason, the issue was resolved quickly and the contractors made it to Dubai in time for the weekend Camel Races.  Personally, I would have expected the Iranians to create some international incident, and the fact that they didn't could be a message that the Iranians are open to some sort of dialogue.  Its possible that Iran views the threat of ISIS/ISIL as more of a danger than American Imperialism (at least temporarily).  What would lead Iran to consider working with the United States against ISIS/ISIL, and what could be gained by such a rapprochement?

Iran is an Islamic Republic, but it is a Shia-only club.  Iraq was traditionally governed by Sunni Muslims, which fueled the animosity that lead to the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War.  ISIS/ISIL is a Sunni-based terrorist movement, and has shown a willingness to attack Iraqi Shia targets.  In fact, Iran has sent military support personnel to assist the Shia militias that ostensibly are in place to protect Shia holy sites in Iraq.  At this stage Iran must recognize ISIS/ISIL as its most dangerous external threat.  ISIS/ISIL has grown in both manpower and firepower as it continues to reap the harvest of new recruits and abandoned Iraqi and Syrian military equipment.  For all of its support for terrorist groups like Hezbollah, Iran is basically a functioning republic with a regular army.  ISIS/ISIL, with its unpredictable nature and its ability to change strategy quickly, is just the kind of foe the Iranians want to avoid.  One would assume that Kurdistan would be the direction from which ISIS would invade Iran, which would mean that ISIS/ISIL would have to defeat the Kurdish Army and the Pesh Merga (Kurdish paramilitary) first.  But ISIS/ISIL has shown tremendous quickness of movement and unpredictability, and might just pop up somewhere else on the Iraq/Iran border.  The Iranians are correct to consider ISIS/ISIL a real threat to their national security.

Would a joint anti-ISIS/ISIL effort on behalf of Iran and the United States be successful, and is it a possibility to begin with?  Both Iran and the United States have the military means to destroy ISIS.  But it is doubtful at this stage that either has the conviction.  The United States has the means to render ISIS/ISIL ineffectual (at least temporarily) from a prolonged air campaign alone.  The Iranians, with an inferior and aged Air Force, would be obliged to use large numbers of troops (and to cross the Iraqi border).  But ISIS/ISIL is hindered by its present lack of cohesion.  Is it a terrorist organization or an army?  Have enough volunteers swelled the ranks that supply has become a daily concern?  Has ISIS/ISIL captured so much equipment that it has become a burden to what was once a lean, stealth-like organization?  ISIS/ISIL is vulnerable, especially from a supply perspective.  But again, the issue for both the Americans and the Iranians is conviction.  Does either side want to make the call to devote the resources necessary to send ISIS/ISIL back to the Stone Age?  As of right now, the answer is no.

For anyone who seriously hopes for peace in this region, any cooperation between Iran and the United States must be seen as a positive development.  But I just don't see it happening.  And the problem isn't in Washington DC, its in Teheran (or should we say Qom).  The religious leaders of the Islamic Republic will never be able to reconcile themselves to cooperation with "The Great Satan".  The United States has extended the Olive Branch on more than one occasion in the last decade, only to be meet with a cold shoulder.  The non-interference with a planeload of U.S. contractors on the tarmac of an Iranian Airport is a very surprising and encouraging sign.  But this relationship will improve with tiny steps (such as the one just mentioned) over an extended period of time.  But the situation could become fluid quickly.  The Iranians want to do whatever they can to keep the U.S. Army from returning to Iraq. Maybe some sort of joint military operation (as unlikely as it is) that eliminates ISIS/ISIL, would be the one development that keeps large numbers of U.S. troops from returning to Iraq.

(This is a very interesting question and I very much welcome all other considerations and opinions.  Please comment!)