How likely is Iran's direct involvement in Iraq?

[Serpentine]

Since last few days, IS has been trying to capture city of Ramadi and break the siege of its forces in parts of Fallujah, both of which are dangerously close to Baghdad. Given the unreliable performance by some parts of Iraqi army (not all of it, especially their special forces are doing pretty good), a major assault on Baghdad may be initiated by IS, or in another scenario, they may even try to attack city of Karbala, holiest city among Shiite Muslims after Mecca and Medina. However it's highly unlikely that they could achieve anything in Kerbala, given their zero support base in the city.

Iran on the other hand has made it clear explicitly that holy cities in Iraq are its red lines, meaning any direct attack on them by IS authorizes direct involvement with cooperation of Iraqi government. Also Iran has stated that it will never allow Baghdad to fall in IS hands.

It should be noted that Iraq has more than enough manpower and weapons to handle the IS problem, the problem comes from the fact that Iraqi army has a long way to become a professional army and since IS incursion is an immediate danger, it isn't that wise to wait for the army to become professional enough to handle the IS. This situation can not go on for years and the IS cancer needs to be removed as soon as possible.

So the question is, as IS gets close to Baghdad and some holy cities in Iraq, how likely is it for Iran to get involved directly, with full force to prevent any major attack on Baghdad, Karbela, Najaf and Samarra? There already advisers on the ground and weapon shpments going both to Peshmerga and Iraqi troops and also Shia militias. But direct involvement is another story.
Is Iran ready to accept the costs of such a big operation? I don't think there will be any objection from Iraqi government. Will Iraqi people accept it?

Is it even in our interest or Iraq's interest to get directly involved if the situation gets worse?

@1000 @Malik Alashter @Dizer @SALMAN AL-FARSI @New @The SiLent crY @rahi2357 @raptor22 @JEskandari @Sinan @Kaan @xenon54 @Syrian Lion and others.

 

[Winchester]

So Iran gets involved and screws up its relationship with one of its few remaining Arab allies???
plus than the GCC will also get involved if not directly than possibly through proxies so makes no sense..

I don't think there will be any consent from Iraqi government.

 

[rmi5]

Iran on the other hand has made it clear explicitly that holy cities in Iraq are its red lines, meaning any direct attack on them by IS authorizes direct involvement with cooperation of Iraqi government. Also Iran has stated that it will never allow Baghdad to fall in IS hands.

that's just empty talks.

So the question is, as IS gets close to Baghdad and some holy cities in Iraq, how likely is it for Iran to get involved directly, with full force to prevent any major attack on Baghdad, Karbela, Najaf and Samarra?

I doubt if Iran do anything more than what they do now.
PS, I would have personally support military actions to secure holy cities of Iraq.

Is Iran ready to accept the costs of such a big operation?

No

I don't think there will be any consent from Iraqi government.

Open diplomatic consent? No, of course not
consent in private? Maybe, yes

Is it even in our interest to get directly involved if the situation gets worse?

It depends on how you define your interests. If you mean your national interests(regardless of anything else), then of course it's not.

@Malik Alashter what's your opinion?

 

[Serpentine]

So Iran gets involved and screws up its relationship with one of its few remaining Arab allies???
plus than the GCC will also get involved if not directly than possibly through proxies so makes no sense..

Sorry man. I used the wrong word, I am a bit tired right now. I meant objection, there wouldn't be any disagreement from Iraq's government in such scenario, that's what I mean and it's my speculation.

On the part of GCC, no they won't enter the war, because their participation will mean nothing except their direct assistance to IS which they claim they are fighting with right now. GCC has no say in this regard.

Open diplomatic consent? No, of course not
consent in private? Maybe, yes

As I said above, I used the wrong word, I meant objection. If U.S doesn't put Iraq's government under pressure, there would be no other problem at all. Iraq will be more than happy to have another force fight its war for free, on the ground of course, which is the factor that can defeat the IS, not aerial bombardments.

 

[1000]

Unlikely, there was no direct involvement during the 2006-2008 civil war when Askari shrine was bombed by Al Zarqawi ( ISI back then ), only state with likely direct involvement is the US, then their western allies follow suit.

 

[Winchester]

Sorry man. I used the wrong word, I am a bit tired right now. I meant objection, there wouldn't be any disagreement from Iraq's government in such scenario, that's what I mean and it's my speculation.

On the part of GCC, no they won't enter the war, because their participation will mean nothing except their direct assistance to IS which they claim they are fighting with right now. GCC has no say in this regard.

i doubt GCC will just sit back and allow this especially Saudi with Iran in this case right at its border...pretty sure a free iraqi army can be created in no time...

 

[rmi5]

As I said above, I used the wrong word, I meant objection. If U.S doesn't put Iraq's government under pressure, there would be no other problem at all. Iraq will be more than happy to have another force fight its war for free, on the ground of course, which is the factor that can defeat the IS, not aerial bombardments.

It's not that much simple shia Iraqi arabs are nationalistic people as well. They normally would not like Iran interfering in their country. But, attack on the holy cities can change the game. That's why I mentioned Malik, he is both religious and nationalist, so it's interesting for me to know his opinion.

PS. I blame all of this shit happened on persians. You fueled the sectarian war, and now holy cities can be in danger. I hope shit does not hit the fan, since I know there would be hundred of thousands Arab, turk, pakistani shias flooding to those cities, and an unpredictable damage, and massacre of both sides would be caused. I doubt if IS can do much in that case.

 

[Serpentine]

It's not that much simple shia Iraqi arabs are nationalistic people as well. They normally would not like Iran interfering in their country. But, attack on the holy cities can change the game. That's why I mentioned Malik, he is both religious and nationalist, so it's interesting for me to know his opinion.

I don't think it would be seen as an occupation force since Iran will immediately get out after the the situation is settled. So they wouldn't mind I think, as long as the sole purpose is to fight IS.

I strongly suggest to see this video, talking to some Iraqi Turkmen regarding Iran's help for them to fight IS. It's from BBC btw.

 

[1000]

It's not in anyone's interest to deploy Iranian soldiers in Iraq.

Southerners don't want foreigner in their safe area's, government doesn't want it, if Iranian soldiers go on the offensive against ISIS in Sunni areas then you only make it worse, it will create new internal problems and feelings of foreign occupation, safavids occupation etc all over the media, ISIS will gain a lot of support.

As for Iranian interests, Iran will lose money and soldiers, the US can attack the Iranian soldiers in Iraq in that case from above, they have Apaches in Baghdad, why wouldn't they do that ( eventually ), they did the same against Mahdi militia in 2008. The Iranian supported militia's operating in Iraq aren't being that helpful either, people from Basra are admitting this themselves. Many of them are young religiously brainwashed without combat experience so they roam around in the safe south enforcing their religious laws instead of fighting ISIS, they start protesting against western involvement as well which does not help Iraq in any way. Those militia's should be under Iraqi gov control as Abadi stated, they shouldn't be funded and controlled by foreign states though that's Iraqi interests, the only thing in Iranian interests is to keep funding militia's..

I say let the west be the one to intervene directly as they're already doing, people will have less problems with the west intervening then any neighbor as well.

Britain to re-deploy drones from Afghanistan to Iraq | i24news - See beyond

 

[rmi5]

I don't think it would be seen as an occupation force since Iran will immediately get out after the the situation is settled. So they wouldn't mind I think, as long as the sole purpose is to fight IS.

I strongly suggest to see this video, talking to some Iraqi Turkmen regarding Iran's help for them to fight IS. It's from BBC btw.

To be honest, I don't care that much about BBC, specially these kind of reports which are purely made for propaganda. they are trying to fool people. I only consider them serious, when they mention confirmed numbers, ... in their articles.

As an example, while BBC Farsi is bashing Turkey on a 24/7 basis and supports kurds in koubani, you would see that BBC Azeri or BBC Turkish are just talking about Turkey helps civilians If you can read cyrillic alphabet, even try to compare BBC Tajiki with BBC Persian, and you would see the difference!!!

It's the same thing here, they publish this report here, while publish the complete opposite in BBC Arabic The report does not mention any proofs, numbers, sources, ... hence I would ignore it. BTW, I was talking about nationalistic sentiments of Shia arabs, not shia turkmens

 

[Serpentine]

It's not in anyone's interest to deploy Iranian soldiers in Iraq.

Southerners don't want foreigner in their safe area's, government doesn't want it, if Iranian soldiers go on the offensive against ISIS in Sunni areas then you only make it worse, it will create new internal problems and feelings of foreign occupation, safavids occupation etc all over the media, ISIS will gain a lot of support.

As for Iranian interests, Iran will lose money and soldiers, the US can attack the Iranian soldiers in Iraq in that case from above, they have Apaches in Baghdad, why wouldn't they do that ( eventually ), they did the same against Mahdi militia in 2008. The Iranian supported militia's operating in Iraq aren't being that helpful either, people from Basra are admitting this themselves. Many of them are young religiously brainwashed without combat experience so they roam around in the safe south enforcing their religious laws instead of fighting ISIS, they start protesting against western involvement as well which does not help Iraq in any way. Those militia's should be under Iraqi gov control as Abadi stated, they shouldn't be funded and controlled by foreign states though that's Iraqi interests, the only thing in Iranian interests is to keep funding militia's..

I say let the west be the one to intervene directly as they're already doing, people will have less problems with the west intervening then any neighbor as well.

Britain to re-deploy drones from Afghanistan to Iraq | i24news - See beyond

Iran has no business with Mahdi army, as far as I know, it mostly supports Badr brigades and Saraya which both of them have very close relations with government and both were involved in battles against IS effectively, like Amerli.

Maybe that's the case, but I was talking about the worst case scenario, not current situation. What if IS attacks Baghdad and captures half of it for example? It's very unlikely, but it may happen. Would Iraqis still have problems with Iran getting involved?

To be honest, I don't care that much about BBC, specially these kind of reports which are purely made for propaganda. they are trying to fool people. I only consider them serious, when they mention confirmed numbers, ... in their articles.

As an example, while BBC Farsi is bashing Turkey on a 24/7 basis and supports kurds in koubani, you would see that BBC Azeri or BBC Turkish are just talking about Turkey helps civilians If you can read cyrillic alphabet, even try to compare BBC Tajiki with BBC Persian, and you would see the difference!!!

It's the same thing here, they publish this report here, while publish the complete opposite in BBC Arabic The report does not mention any proofs, numbers, sources, ... hence I would ignore it. BTW, I was talking about nationalistic sentiments of Shia arabs, not shia turkmens

Yes, maybe those nationalists object Iran's entrance to the conflict, but I think if Baghdad or Karbala for example come under attack, some things may change, but these are all speculation.

The only scenario in which I believe Iran will certainly get involved is that IS gets dangerously close to our borders and make it clear that it wants to attack Iran, it's also unlikely to happen, because IS knows what it is doing and it is not stupid to open a huge new front.

 

[raptor22]

As you said ISIL has got a zero fan in Baghdad and holy cities due to dense Shia population which means it suffers from lack of a crucial item for an urban warfare, in addition we ought to proceed current strategy to strength and arm Iraqi army, Syrian army and Kurds to confront ISIL to put pressure on them from several directions , the fact is ISIL should be defeated by Iraqis .... on the other hand boot on the grounds option could only add fuel to the flames of sectarian conflicts. but desperate times call for desperate measures any encroachment on holy cities and Baghdad should get proper respond .

 

[yavar]

It's not that much simple shia Iraqi arabs are nationalistic people as well. They normally would not like Iran interfering in their country. Be.

when i say a fool when it open his mouth it can only embarrass it self .

look at it and he tell you . only fool could said what you said

 

[rmi5]

when i say a fool when it open it mouth it can only impress it self .


look here this tell you . only full could said what you said

Yeah, it is clear from your writing ability that who is a fool.

 

[yavar]

Yeah, it is clear from your writing ability that who is a fool.

thanks you .