Did Iran just throw their Iraqi proxies under the bus (tip to Instapundit)?
U.S. officials have intercepted chatter and received confirmation that terrorist leaders in Iraq have been fleeing the region and have gone into hiding fearing United States intelligence capabilities after the successful airstrike that killed Iranian Quds Force leader Qassem Soleimani, according to multiple sources that spoke to SaraACarter.com. ...
James Carafano, vice president of foreign and defense policy studies at the Heritage Foundation, told this reporter that Iran’s inability to protect its most prized asset was a message to proxy terrorist organizations and terror leaders that they were vulnerable.
“Makes sense,” said Carafano. “If this is all Iran will do to avenge Soleimani no one can expect Tehran to expend a lot of capital to protect them from the Americans.”
I'd been pondering exactly that possibility when I read this.
Consider that while Soleimani was the prime target he wasn't the only target of our drone strike:
Among those [others killed] was Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, deputy commander of Iran-backed militias in Iraq known as the Popular Mobilization Forces, and five others, including the PMF’s airport protocol officer, Mohammed Reda.
It wasn't just Iran that took a hit. Iran's proxies in Iraq took a hit, too.
Yet Iran told their proxies to stand down and let Iran handle the retaliation. And then, as I noted, Iran conducted a pretend retaliation with their missile strikes at two of our bases in Iraq:
I hear the attack did no damage. Honestly a single fighter bomber could fire as many warheads. This seems token despite Iranian boasting, conceivably giving us the option to tighten sanctions as our response. ...
I was shocked that Iran's missile barrage was basically a pageant--aimed to miss apparently--rather than a retaliation. With no American casualties (and I'm not sure if there were any at all) and very few missiles, the need for American retaliation as I assumed evaporated.
Iran demonstrated that they weren't willing to risk American attacks on Iran itself over Iran's militias inside Iraq. If Iran really stood up to America would the proxies be ducking and covering the way they are?
Iran is willing to fight to the last dead Arab to defeat America; but Iran isn't ready to risk much to protect their cannon fodder, are they?
As I wrote early in this crisis as Iraq War 3.0 began, let's, with our Iraqi friends, have a full-court press against the pro-Iran militias inside Iraq:
The fight against Iran's proxies in Iraq--which I've frequently mentioned--should be by arrest, cutting off funding, intelligence and targeted assassinations of Iranian leaders and agents in Iraq, and armed Iraqi action against the Iranian-controlled militias only as a last resort when the militias can't be brought under control or disbanded. We want to avoid turning Iraq into a battlefield that Iran can wreck as a consolation prize if they can't control Iraq.
Pursue our enemies while they run. It's easier to kill them this way.
And if we do that, others may be less willing to fight and die for Iran.
UPDATE: Strategypage has more on the subject, including the November document revelations about how Iran operated inside Iraq, with bonus material that showed how little Iran actually cared about their Shia brethren in Iraq. I mentioned the documents in this post.
UPDATE: What are we waiting for?
The Iranian-backed Iraqi armed factions are lost, distracted and unable to effectively strike American forces in Iraq after the loss of two key leaders last week, Shia leaders have told Middle East Eye.
On Friday, the United States assassinated top Iranian general Qassem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, deputy head of the Hashd al-Shaabi Iraqi paramilitary grouping, when a drone fired three guided missiles at their convoy. Six other men were also killed.
Will they behave when they recover their cohesion and command and control? Sweep them up now!
UPDATE: Geopolitical Futures has a good overview of the US-Iran struggle, with some focus on Iraq. And this should be a call to America and Iraq to hurry up and strike:
Iran can’t afford to allow Iraq to become a bastion of anti-Iran forces, nor can it wage a conventional war against the U.S., Israel, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Iran must therefore use what it has used so effectively in the past: special and covert operations. It follows that Iran will take its time to respond. It also follows that the U.S. and its allies, having bought time by killing the head of the Quds Force, must use the time effectively.
Yes! Use the time we bought effectively! Crush the Iranian-controlled militias in Iraq.
UPDATE: Although I concede that we might be doing this already. To sweep up more we would not publicize our actions to warn the targets. Are we exploiting the chaos in enemy ranks and sweeping them up?
UPDATE: Somebody neither ducked nor got under cover (tip to Instapundit):
A prominent pro-Iran militia commander has been killed by unidentified gunmen in Iraq.
High-level Popular Mobilization Forces leader Taleb Abbas Ali al-Saedi was shot dead late on Saturday in Karbala, a city about 62 miles southwest of Baghdad.
Local media reported that al-Saedi was 'assassinated' by unknown gunmen, but no further details about the shooters were immediately available.
Al-Saedi was the commander of the Karbala Brigades, a unit within the Iran-backed Shiite PMF umbrella group.
Fingers crossed that this is just one of many such leaders being arrested or killed. We won't win Iraq War 3.0 by ceding the initiative to Iran.
UPDATE: Our enemies in Iraq are fighting us:
The Iraqi military said in a statement that eight Katyusha rockets had been fired at the base, about 80 km (50 miles) north of the capital Baghdad, and that the four wounded included two officers.
Don't let up in our fight against our enemies. The casualties were Iraqi. So Iraq should be at our side fighting these enemies.
