New dilemmas in Iraq following ISIS victory in Ramadi

By Aaron Balshan

Last Sunday, the Anbar Provincial Council voted in favor of allowing Shiite militiamen participate in anti-ISIS operations in the province. While participation of Shiite militias will serve to alleviate pressure being applied by the Islamic State’s advances in the region, the deployment will also create larger existential dilemmas for Sunni tribal fighters, the US-led coalition and Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi.

It is no coincidence that the council’s vote came on the same day that ISIS made unprecedented advancements in Anbar. The provincial capital of Ramadi, the nucleus of Anbar, fell to a recent ISIS lightning offensive in the area. Within a few days the group managed to take control of the strategically vital Government Complex and Anbar Operations Command Center, killing at least 500 civilians and security forces in the process. Such an advance effectively ensures the group’s consolidation of power over the city.

While Shiite militias have increasingly operated in Anbar over the past two months, their participation has been limited to small-scale covert deployments that have never been officially sanctioned by the government. However, even when their presence was limited, concerns of human rights abuses by Shiite militiamen in the area were rampant. On February 7, a group of Shiite militiamen allegedly murdered two members of the Albu Jaber clan in Ramadi. While the council demanded accountability for the incident, no punitive action was taken. Many Shiite militias are backed by Iranian weapons, money and tactical officers. Therefore, to prosecute Shiite militiamen means threatening Iranian interests. In this context, despite the vote, which many tribal fighters only accepted out of absolute necessity, a large portion of the leaders will likely protest the decision and prevent Shiite militia forces from operating in areas under their jurisdiction.

Such an occurrence may create detrimental infighting, which could manifest on the battlefield or in the political arena. Regardless, the fighting would only serve to benefit ISIS’ advances in the area if the deployment of the militiamen would not be heavily regulated and monitored by the government, the U.S.-led coalition and international organizations. Ultimately, such abuses would lead to a dramatic increase in pro-ISIS sentiment in the Anbar province, improving the group’s operational capacity and freedom of movement in contested areas.

The US-led coalition has consistently opted out of any anti-ISIS operations where Shiite militiamen play a large role. Anbar has been the traditional main area of influence for the United States, while the Iranian-backed Shiite militiamen typically operate against ISIS in eastern and northern Iraq -- areas with substantial or majority Shiite populations. In order to maintain influence in the area and prevent large-scale abuses against Sunni populations, the US will likely attempt to minimize the number of Shiite militiamen permitted to operate in the province by leveraging the use of coalition airstrikes against ISIS positions. Such airstrikes will serve as an essential supportive measure for government offensives that will soon take place.

The announcement also follows the passing of a controversial bill in the United States House of Representatives on May 16, which called for the Kurds and Sunni tribesman to receive $720 million in arms directly from the US government. The bill was seen by many in the Iraqi government as an attempt to circumvent Baghdad. Some Shiite militia leaders went so far as to threaten attacking American installations and interests in the region if the bill passes. To ignore such threats could lead to direct confrontation with the militias, which has the potential to put America face-to-face with Iran and could force the acceptance of a broken Iraq. While US President Barack Obama has indicated his willingness to veto the bill, the latest developments will force him to make a hard choice between supporting Sunni tribal fighters versus the possibility of direct confrontation with militias, as well as the undermining of the central government and the past two decades of US policy vis-à-vis Iraq.

The US-led coalition’s position is diametrically opposed to the positions of the Shiite militiamen. This places Abadi and his administration in a relatively significant existential crisis. Criticism concerning Abadi’s handling of Iraq’s security situation has continued to increase following an alleged ISIS massacre of dozens of soldiers during an ISIS ambush near the Thar Thar Dam north of Fallujah in late April. While support from both the US and the Shiite militia forces are integral to the fight against ISIS, the more Shiite militiamen are allowed to participate in Anbar operations, the less the coalition will support them. Conversely, the more militiamen are excluded, the more fiery domestic criticism against Abadi becomes, which could ultimately lead to a usurping of his authority. When looking at the gains made by ISIS in the past week, it becomes clear that ISIS’ true victory was not on the battlefield, but in the domestic and international political arenas.

Aaron Balshan is an intelligence analyst at the Levantine Group.