It makes no sense to base American policy on removing a thorn from Tehran’s paw

OPINION:

National Security Adviser John Bolton said in Israel over the weekend that the removal of U.S. troops from Syria is conditioned on defeating the remnants of the Islamic State. Mr. Bolton was likely soothing allies concerned about the pace of President Donald Trump’s withdrawal plan. Otherwise, such a condition would commit the United States to an endless deployment as a combatant in someone else’s civil war — and on behalf of an adversarial power, Iran.

Mr. Trump correctly observes that the United States is doing Iran a favor by fighting ISIS. Hence, it makes no sense to base American policy on removing a thorn from Tehran’s paw. Indeed, the president’s logic suggests that the White House should withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq as well as Syria.

Many concerned about Iranian aggression contend that the 2,000 U.S. troops Mr. Trump wants to remove from eastern Syria might at one point be repostured to confront Iran. That is unlikely. There is no authorization for military force against Iran and its allies, and Democrats are pushing for new legislation that prohibits it explicitly.

Some argue that at least the Syria deployment blocks Iran’s land bridge, stretching from Iraq to Lebanon. However, says Tony Badran, senior fellow from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, that’s like controlling an area of the Brooklyn Bridge over the East River.

The two terminus points of the land bridge are controlled by Iran and its allies. And on both sides, says Mr. Badran, “under the pretext of counterterrorism and state-building, the United States finds itself in the surreal position of propping up an Iranian order and actual Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps bases.”

Hezbollah mans the western terminus, through which the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has circumvented the U.S. deployment in Syria by flying heavy weapons directly into the Beirut International Airport. The Trump administration could exercise its leverage over Hezbollah’s local auxiliary, the Lebanese Armed Forces, which has received more than $1.7 billion in U.S. aid since 2006. Instead, Washington chooses to fund the Lebanese forces unconditionally in the hope it may one day again prove a useful ally.

The eastern terminus in Iraq is controlled by the Popular Mobilization Units, IRGC-trained Shiite militias that have been integrated into the Iraqi government. It is difficult to imagine the circumstances under which Washington would seek or receive approval from the Iraqi government it supports to turn American arms against Baghdad’s Iranian allies.

Thus, the presence of U.S. forces in Syria and Iraq make us hostage to Iranian policy. The American remit is to fight ISIS — or any Sunni who contests the Iranian order of the region.

A recent report by Ben Taub in the New Yorker shows how Baghdad’s anti-ISIS operation is in practice a campaign of revenge against Iraq’s Sunni population. Sunni communities have been displaced and destroyed, with U.S. assistance on the ground and, more significantly, in the air. By supporting the Iranian-allied Iraqi government’s campaign, it was inevitable the U.S. would get further drawn into a conflict between Sunnis Arabs and the Iranian-backed order, from Baghdad through Damascus to Beirut.

As Mr. Bolton told me in July 2017, before he was named national security adviser: “Many Sunnis supported ISIS not because they like ISIS but because they don’t want to be ruled by Baghdad, or in Syria, ruled by (Bashar) Assad. If there’s no alternative, what will they do when ISIS is defeated except find another vehicle to fight Iranian allies?”

Sunni principals like Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri, who has ceded his country’s strategic decisions to Hezbollah, have accommodated themselves to Tehran’s regional order. However, any Sunni fighting Iranian domination will be targeted as ISIS, a campaign the United States has obliged itself to prosecute. This implicates the United States in a perpetual war against any Sunnis who choose not to live under the Iranian boot.

Sadly, this is consistent with the policies Washington has implemented since the U.S.-led coalition invaded the fertile crescent nearly 15 years ago — policies that have tipped the balance of power in favor of Iran and its allies.

In Iraq, the freedom agenda meant that the ballot would empower the Shiite majority. The sectarian dynamics of the region, together with Iran’s cultivation of Shiite leadership, dictated that the majority sect, under cover of democratic governance, would dominate the Sunnis.

The Pentagon’s counterinsurgency strategy armed and funded Sunni tribes to vanquish al Qaeda and other Sunni foreign fighters. Shiite politicians rewarded their Sunni neighbors who fought for a unified and independent Iraq by hunting and imprisoning their leaders.

The State Department’s efforts to strengthen state institutions in Lebanon and Iraq augment the power of the Iranian allies who control those states’ key institutions. The money earmarked for reconstruction efforts in a Syria ruled by Mr. Assad in conjunction with the IRGC will do the same.

Counterterrorism operations — i.e., the anti-ISIS campaign — are directed against Sunnis alone, even though the IRGC, Hezbollah and Iraqi militias have targeted American forces.

In time, the Trump administration may draft a more comprehensive policy actively countering Iranian aggression. One way to start is by withdrawing support from Iranian-allied entities, and push ahead in removing U.S. troops from Syria and then Iraq.

• Lee Smith is the author of “The Strong Horse: Power, Politics, and the Clash of Arab Civilizations.”