Iraq

Congress Should Do Whatever Necessary To Prevent Iran From Developing A Nuclear Weapon

/ softballpolitics / 1 Comment

By Sal Bommarito

The impending Iran nuclear deal is one element of the ever-expanding enigma known as the Middle East. Every day the complexity of issues becomes more daunting exacerbated by indecision and rash diplomatic ploys.

President Obama and leaders from around the world must react to events in the Middle East influenced by a backdrop that includes ISIS fighters slaughtering other Arabs, a competitive Israeli election, a growing diplomatic rift between Israel and the U.S., a nuclear controversy, worsening tension between Shiites an Sunnis and an epic refugee problem.

Most of the issues are very important but none are existential with the exception of the Iran nuclear deal. The mass execution of innocents and the threat of civil wars in a strategic part of the world are disconcerting, but an Iranian nuclear capability is a game changer.

President Obama indicated at the outset of the current round of negotiations with Iran that a nuclear Iran was not a viable option. Things have changed dramatically over the past several months along with Obama’s objectives. He seems satisfied with a treaty that keeps Iran non-nuclear with a one-year lag if Iran opts out of the treaty; and the treaty expires in 10 years in any case.

Can you blame Congress for being unnerved by the new calculus? One day, our president is saying, “No nukes for Iran.” The next day, Iran is non-nuclear until they opt out, but no longer than a short decade.

The response of Republicans and Democrats to Obama’s efforts to keep them uninvolved was bipartisan; the lawmakers wanted to be able to approve a new treaty and any reductions in economic sanctions against Iraq. As Obama neared a deal with Iran, it appeared that he was prepared to be generous to our mortal enemy that has called for the annihilation of Israel and has been the most prolific supporter of terrorism in the region.

It’s probably a legacy thing. Obama has had very few memorable diplomatic achievements during his tenure, and he wants to make a big splash by ending the hostile relationship with Iran.

Republicans responded by asking Prime Minister Netanyahu to address Congress without [authorization, endorsement, approval] from the president. As the deadline for a deal approached, Senate Republicans sent an open letter to the Iranian leadership indicating that they were not happy with the proposals contained in the new deal, and that a new president or Congress could annul the treaty in the near future.

This action created a huge rift between the parties as it did break the traditional lines that separate the executive and legislative branches of the government. Many believe a president has the authority to negotiate a treaty, and after it is completed, the Senate votes to accept it or not. The Republicans were jumping the gun because they thought Obama overstepped his authority and was willing to give away too much relating to Iran’s ability to complete a bomb.

The question is, does Congress have a right, or even an obligation, to speak up and pre-judge a potentially dangerous arrangement by the president? Damn right it does! It’s unconscionable that the U.S. would negotiate a deal that would make Iran stronger militarily and create an existential threat to Israel.

When IS This ISIS Thing Going To End?

/ softballpolitics / Leave a comment

By Sal Bommarito

The possibilities for ISIS are numerous. Depending upon the actions of its opposition, the rebels may survive and/or morph into yet another manifestation of Al Qaeda or another Arab Spring; the former is more likely than the latter.

The surest way to “destroy and degrade” ISIS is for the U.S. to employ ground troops. There seems to be no impetus to do this on a grand scale, but over time, President Obama may approve the deployment of more Special Forces units to help root out ISIS. This action would make bombing missions more productive and give pause to ISIS fighters. Special Forces could also be used to assassinate ISIS leaders, which might destabilize the rebels.

By some miracle, or with the help of Iran, the Iraqis may make some progress in repelling ISIS and recover land absconded by the insurgents. Many are not sanguine about the motivation or the courage of Iraq soldiers, so significant Iranian intervention may be necessary to impact ISIS. Obviously, a mass Iranian intrusion could have a material effect, but there is no reason to believe that the Ayatollah’s army will be more inspired than the Iraqis.

A more significant issue is that the potential influence of Iran will increase in Iraq, as does its military involvement. This contingency will surely affect the tenuous Shiite/Sunni situation in Iraq. The more the Iranians interfere, the less chance Sunnis will ever achieve any significant political power or access to natural resources.

At some point, other countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey may reach a breaking point and finally become active members of the coalition. This possibility is doubtful unless ISIS threatens the stability of these nations. For instance, unless ISIS recruits large groups to commit terrorist acts, or ISIS grows strong enough to cross the Iraq or Syria borders, neighboring nations will probably refrain from any aggressive actions.

ISIS may try to establish a new religious state on Iraqi and Syrian territory. This is truly a pipe dream. With the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the last caliphate ended in 1924. It was overseen by a select group of Imams, but ruled by local leaders. Today, ISIS could never muster the resources to build a secure central government. The chances that any other nations would recognize this new entity are zero. ISIS squandered whatever political capital it had by murdering, immolating and torturing innocent men, women and children.

The final possibility is that the ISIS rebels tire of fighting. Constant bombing threats and months away from home will have an impact on the enthusiasm of the group. It just might dissipate over time leaving a massive, social, political and financial disaster in its wake.

After the hostilities subside, the problems are not over. Civil wars are likely in several places in the region. In particular, the Shiites and Sunnis will be at each other’s throats in Iraq. And, the world will once again be demanding that Assad in Syria abdicate. We can all look forward to continuing issues emanating out of the Middle East including the possibility that Iran may have a nuclear weapon in a few years.

Iran Will Effectively Annex Iraq After ISIS Is Defeated

/ softballpolitics / Leave a comment

By Sal Bommarito

Iran is assisting the government of Iraq and fighting side by side with Iraqis against ISIS on the battlefield. This turn of events that is documented in a New York Times story will likely lead to the effective annexation of Iraq by Iran after the war ends.

Iran has filled a void created by President Obama’s decision not to employ ground troops against ISIS. Recent successes on the ground throughout the country have stemmed, to a degree, the advances of the enemy.

There is a method to Iran’s actions that will greatly impact the direction of Iraq after ISIS is neutralized. Iran’s hegemonic behavior is recognized by all Arab nations. Its desire to control Arabs and assist Shiite regimes is infamous. This latest ploy to stem the tide of ISIS on the ground could very well lead to even stronger bonds between these two Shiite-controlled governments as they jointly oppress Sunnis throughout Iraq.

A civil war is inevitable in Iraq post ISIS. In order to gain total control, the Iraqi government must exterminate the ISIS insurgents and marginalize Sunnis who remain in the country. Oppression is virtually guaranteed. In fact, Shiite militia groups have already violated many Sunnis during the campaign against ISIS.

After a decade of support given to Iraq by the U.S. that included the end of Saddam Hussein’s reign of terror, a trillion dollars of financial assistance and thousands of American casualties, Iraq will likely yield to Iran politically.

Could this have been avoided? Yes, if the president had sent in ground troops to take the fight to ISIS, Iranians would not have asserted themselves upon the Iraqis. The price of assisting Iraq after the war might have been prohibitive and could have led to another nation-building adventure, something that most Americans eschew.

The bonds between Iraq and Iran have now strengthened materially and perhaps a puppet government that ruthlessly oppresses the minority religion will result in a tenuous peace.

The subordination of American leadership and military support may be the direction future presidents adopt. But, the impact of such a policy will enable hegemonic nations like Iran to increase their influence in surrounding nations and decrease the chances for democracy.

Why Has ISIS Been So Difficult To Eradicate?

/ softballpolitics / Leave a comment

By Sal Bommarito

The ISIS imbroglio is beginning to create extreme anxiety in the Middle East, among western nations and in America.

At first, the U.S. and Arab Nations did not give ISIS the respect it deserved. This horrendous miscalculation has enabled ISIS to become a cult that is admired by young and disenfranchised people around the world. The group’s expertise in using social media and to recruit new fighters has been spectacular. All this has evolved into a phenomenon- a fighting force that has held its own in spite of U.S. air attacks and continued confrontations on the ground. ISIS is repelling offensives by Iraqi forces, Syrian forces, Shiite militias and most recently Iranian fighters.

ISIS started out as a junior varsity imposition (to paraphrase a comment by President Obama) and has grown into a formidable group of fighters with a strong, although warped, ideology that is attracting many followers, affiliates and imitators.

But, something is amiss. ISIS, in spite of growing coverage by the media, is still an enigma. The public knows very little about the leadership of ISIS or its ultimate objectives. Surely, ISIS cannot believe it is capable of establishing a new Islamic nation. It does not have the resources or the experience to govern and service several hundred thousand or a million citizens. ISIS will never become a real threat to the west beyond its ability to conduct limited terrorist acts. And yet, to some Americans, the threat is growing every day.

One of the great frustrations surrounding ISIS is that information about the organization and its true potential is not being reported with any enthusiasm. The U.S. government’s operations are shrouded in secrecy, although Obama thought it wise to broadcast to the enemy that U.S. ground troops would not be deployed in the region. The U.S. mission has become a complete mystery- degrading and destroying the insurgents may be the slogan, but it’s not happening.

Exacerbating the affair is that the Obama administration is acting like a deer in the headlights. It is spending too much time trying to convince the world that ISIS is just a run of the mill terrorist organization and not a radical Islamic threat. It should be developing a battle plan to kill off the cockroaches that have destabilized the Middle East.

Maybe Obama’s grand plan is to force Arabs to clean up their own mess. All things being equal, this tactic sounds reasonable. It is the Arabs who are under siege, so why should America pay for a war and put its young people in harm’s way?

The answer to the question traces back to the role of the U.S. in the world. In simple terms, should America step aside while ISIS immolates, beheads, tortures, rapes and displaces millions of people? Should America stand by and enable ISIS to commit egregious crimes against humanity? What is going to happen to the 5 or so million displaced Syrians and Iraqis? The writer believes America cannot turn its head in good conscience.

While we are on the sidelines dropping bombs from 15,000 feet, evil forces are imposing themselves. For instance, it has been reported that Iran is supporting Iraq ground forces and making points with Iraqi Shiites that control the country. Looking ahead, if ISIS is ever “neutralized,” Iran will have great influence over Iraq- the cost of the support it is now providing.

Other issues in the Middle East are muddying the water for the Obama administration. The president is determined to give Iran a nuclear capability in ten years. Prime Minister Netanyahu thinks this is an insane thing to agree to. Israel is preparing to go to war with Iran if it gets its way. More than any other issue, Iran’s nuclear program is diverting the U.S. from the task of dealing with ISIS.

Affiliates of ISIS are popping up all over the Middle East and murdering innocents. Lone wolves are planning nefarious acts in countries around the world. Why isn’t the U.S. leading a response to all these events? Is our country now just a spectator, a follower of other nations that have the courage to battle evil forces?

There is still time for the Obama administration to act decisively and prove that America can lead the free world.

Obama’s Middle East Legacy

/ softballpolitics / Leave a comment

By Sal Bommarito

In defense of President Obama, it’s obvious he really wants peace in the Middle East. Unfortunately, his non-confrontational approach has made it clear that he does not wish to engage any evil forces with the full military and diplomatic might of the U.S.

The problem with this strategy is that our adversaries are playing by different rules. This is a function of several issues. The Shiite/Sunni feud is responsible for the intransigent attitudes of many Arabs. Neither sect will rest until the other is annihilated. Iran and Saudi Arabia lead the two groups of combatants.

The U.S. cannot negotiate with one of the sects without offending the other. Each group relishes the thought of the U.S. engaging militarily and/or diplomatically against the other. This is the reason why the Iran nuclear negotiations are so profound. If the U.S. spurns the Iranians, plays hardball regarding the production of nuclear material and increases economic sanctions, the Saudis will be overjoyed. Conversely, if the U.S. deals with Iran, the Saudis will be dismayed.

The ISIS war has surfaced many of the contradictions prevalent in the Middle East. The U.S., Iran, Russia, Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia oppose ISIS. Yet, Iran and Russia support the Assad regime in Syria. It has been difficult to coordinate military operations with such dramatically different perspectives pertaining to Syria.

The U.S. has chosen a seemingly benign approach to ISIS. It is prepared to kill ISIS fighters with bombs, but unwilling to engage them on the ground. Most observers and participants in the war believe that effective ground support is critical to defeating ISIS. Without it, ISIS will recruit, fortify, terrorize and survive.

It’s likely that most opponents of ISIS would prefer that the U.S. go all-in with a massive invasion and finish off the relatively impotent ISIS force, even though Arab countries would publicly criticize such an action. Obama has a dream that U.S.-trained Iraqi soldiers will be capable of providing ground support necessary to kill ISIS some number of years into the future, a questionable strategy to say the least.

The issue of leadership has been swept under the rug from the start of the ISIS crisis. Most observers expected the U.S. to lead the fight. This has not been the case; Obama is influenced by some combination of reticence and ambivalence about leading the charge against the insurgents; he probably fears another multi-year occupation. Bombing alone is more of a support function in this type of war. ISIS needs to be rooted out with foot soldiers.

Ironically, the brave King of Jordan has exhibited real courage in the face of the gruesome execution of his hero pilot. Many of us are wondering why the U.S. is not stepping up even as the threat of ISIS is proving to be greater every day.

The legacy of the American president will not be favorable. The U.S. is no longer considered a reliable ally by Arab countries and by Israel. The president has chosen to lead from behind, an absurd and ineffective way to prosecute a war. Negotiating with a charter member of George W. Bush’s axis of evil (Iran) could prove to be destabilizing. There are millions of refugees and those displaced by ISIS that are in dire need. This could result in a catastrophic humanitarian disaster that will be assigned to Obama and the U.S.

The principal problem with President Obama’s current plan is that he does not seem to appreciate the ramifications of not dealing with deadly forces now. By punting, he has allowed them to have successes, which will make them stronger and more difficult to defeat in the future.

Middle East Predictions: ISIS, Civil War, Terrorism

/ softballpolitics / Leave a comment

By Sal Bommarito

The prospects for peace in the Middle East are not favorable in the near future. The ISIS conflict and several other ongoing problems will continue to plague the Arab world during the next year. This essay will examine some of the more pressing issues and their effect on the geopolitical landscape.

 

The ISIS caliphate will begin to take shape as hostilities wane between ISIS and its enemies. It will be a monumental achievement for the interlopers to establish a new nation on stolen ground. The brutality of ISIS will not subside. In an effort to solidify its dominance, ISIS will execute opponents as well as non-Sunni Arabs. These actions will serve to exacerbate the refugee crisis and increase the number of displaced Arabs.

 

The immigration of refugees to countries neighboring Syria, including Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon, will create dire circumstances for the lost souls and for the countries that have been so receptive to those in need. Refugees will encounter worsening living conditions and be ostracized by citizens of countries to which they immigrated. It is likely that thousands will perish from starvation, cold weather, unsanitary conditions and genocide.

 

The coalition’s plan to train and arm Iraqi soldiers and moderate rebels in Syria will be unsuccessful. This contingency will create a stalemate if the U.S. does not send ground troops. Ground force support of bombing operations is critical as ISIS fighters fortify their positions in populated areas. Pilots have not been able to identify and destroy targets without experienced controllers on the ground.

 

At some point, the U.S. will be forced to abandon its objective to destroy ISIS. There is no reason to expect that President Obama will change his battle plan during the final two years of his administration, even if Congress petitions him to do so.

 

The extraction of U.S. forces from the region is a significant goal of the Obama administration. This coupled with resistance of Americans against ground troop utilization should ensure another unsuccessful American military escapade.

 

Iraq will continue to be a battleground where Shiite government forces encounter persistent Sunni opposition and ISIS fighters. The current leader of Iraq will eventually cave into hard line pressure and increase the oppression of Sunnis not under the control of the ISIS caliphate.

 

The Shiite/Sunni feud will escalate throughout the region as each sect employs insurgents to destabilize nations governed by the other sect. Yemen is the latest victim, where Shiite fighters have deposed Sunni leadership.

 

The consensus among nations determined to dethrone Bashar al-Assad of Syria will dissipate as domestic conditions in each Arab country worsen. The U.S. has already deferred its earlier objective to topple Assad, so he will survive for the time being. Iran must deal with western sanctions and oil-inspired economic instability, so it will be diverted. Turkey has a gargantuan refugee problem that is taxing its financial condition and a growing Kurdish push for independence. The only state that will likely pressure Assad is Saudi Arabia. Nevertheless, Syria will continue to be a killing field as ISIS protects its gains and Syrian rebels battle against Assad.

 

Iran will not be able to negotiate a deal with the U.S. to produce a nuclear weapon. The U.S. Congress is going to resist any inane deal that would make the Middle East more dangerous and encourage others to develop or buy a nuclear weapon.

 

Saudi Arabia will be the only country with relatively stable conditions. Low oil prices will decrease its revenues, but it has significant monetary assets on hand. The inability of Iran to develop a nuclear weapon will be a great relief to the Saudis. The new king will attempt to increase his country’s influence by bribing other nations and unleashing Sunni insurgents into Shiite countries.

 

The big question relates to terrorism. Will all the upheaval in the Middle East create new problems for the west? Will ISIS encourage new lone wolf atrocities throughout the world? Is global terror on the rise and being encouraged by ISIS’ success? Will ISIS refocus on building a new nation based upon terror, cruelty and fanatical religious ideology?

 

Obama Will Likely Send Ground Troops To Iraq

/ softballpolitics / Leave a comment

By Sal Bommarito

President Obama has proven to be one of the most unpredictable leaders in modern times. This characterization is based upon his propensity to adjust earlier policies for a wide assortment of reasons even if new perspectives contradict earlier assurances. Obama seems to have trouble staying any course.

Last week, after indicating on several occasions that granting amnesty to illegal aliens was not a constitutional option available to the president, Obama, in effect, gave amnesty to several million people living illegally in the U.S.

Yesterday, the president decided to step up military operations in Afghanistan as reported by the New York Times. What? I thought the American occupation of Afghanistan was over. But, the president flip-flopped on yet another promise. Why did he implement this reversal? After all, U.S. is back in Iraq after guarantees that the hostilities in that country were over. Why not reengage in Afghanistan as well?

Obama is not shy about surging in any hot spot when it suits him. In Afghanistan, increased aggression by the Taliban, an improved relationship with the new Afghan leader and a full court press by U.S. generals has led to another change in policy. The new policy “ensures American troops will have a direct role in fighting [in Afghanistan] for at least another year.

Obama’s decision “allows American forces to carry out missions against the Taliban and other militant groups threatening American troops or the Afghan government . . .” In May, the president indicated that U.S. troops would have no combat role in Afghanistan in 2015. Supposedly, his change of heart to increase U.S. engagement was influenced by the ISIS situation and the inability of Iraqi forces to repel ISIS fighters.

The new direction in Afghanistan foretells more changes in U.S. military operations in the region. How will Obama resist the urge to deploy ground forces in Iraq? The same generals are telling the president directly and indirectly that the mission to destroy ISIS is in great jeopardy without support on the ground. If Iraqi officials became more amenable, will the president ignore their request for him to surge in the country? Doubtful.

What is disturbing is that the president continues to change his policies in reaction to an assortment of pressures. They may come from the enemy, host countries, U.S. allies, the political environment back home and Obama’s legacy, which has taken a beating in recent weeks. The problem with this apparent indecision is that no one can depend upon what the president says. He just cannot be trusted to set an objective and follow through to its consummation.

In Iraq and Syria, things are going to deteriorate as ISIS troops advance, or at a minimum retain and fortify existing positions. It is highly likely that the generals will win over Obama, and the U.S. will then assume a greater role by sending in ground troops to fight ISIS.

ISIS Miscalculations

/ softballpolitics / Leave a comment

By Sal Bommarito

Unlike other major confrontations in recent history, none of the key players in the ISIS war with the exception of ISIS itself is all-in. And, the situation is complex with many conflicting agendas, so it will be next to impossible to bring long-lasting peace to the region after hostilities end.

Underlying the ISIS conflict are many age-old feuds and much unfinished business, along with trillions of dollars of oil and gas reserves. Each of the major players in this Kabuki dance has an individual agenda.

The most important actors in this drama are the U.S., Iraq, Syria, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Israel. The extras are millions of refugees that are taxing the resources of several states that have generously accepted those who have fled ISIS oppression. In the coming months, through the winter, a humanitarian crisis is very much a possibility.

As anticipated, the U.S. evolved as the principal catalyst opposing ISIS, not the other nations mentioned above that have so much more to lose. ISIS’ only allies are the most radical Sunnis and malcontents from around the world that have enlisted with the jihadists. The jihad has no outside support so it funds itself with the spoils of war, commandeered oil and the sale of antiquities.

The U.S. observed the devastation created by ISIS in Iraq and decided to come to the rescue. This occurred even though it spent millions of gallons of American blood and trillions of dollars over the past years trying to rebuild Iraq. Frankly, the efforts of our brave soldiers were frittered away in a matter of months when the president made good on his promise and ended the Iraq occupation, prematurely. Iraq could not effectively govern or secure itself, and so the U.S. has returned for a third act.

Iraq has no effective leadership as it attempts to convert from a Sunni-dominated nation to Shite. As expected, the Shiite government disenfranchised Sunnis. It dismissed them from the military and refused to share power. The result was chaos, a place ripe for Sunni insurgents to establish a caliphate.

The joke is that the U.S. and the Shiite government expect to recruit Iraqi Sunnis to fight against ISIS Sunnis without a new arrangement that includes Sunnis in the government.

President Obama engaged America in another war and promised upfront to not use U.S. ground forces. Rather, he has a pipe dream that Iraqis can defend themselves. But, the president led us through years of frustration in Iraq, so he should know his reliance on an undependable Iraqi Army is a huge miscalculation.

Many U.S. military people, active and retired, have opined about the chances of winning the war without U.S. ground troops. Some have bravely stated the truth; it’s not likely, while others want to be loyal to their commander-in-chief. The latter skirt the issue and say the U.S. might have to reconsider its policy, even though they know effective ground forces are critical.

The most upsetting aspect of this episode is that the U.S. reengaged in Iraq without a realistic plan to complete its mission. How could our military people depend upon an army that deserted when they first faced off against ISIS? Why would our military leaders think they could create an effective fighting force in a few months when they couldn’t do it over a decade?

Politically, it will be difficult to deploy U.S. ground soldiers. But, it is the only way to end this war in the foreseeable future. From time to time, bombing sorties are successful. But, nothing in the newspapers suggest that bombing is turning the tide of the war.

Wars are not won from 30,000 feet. Arabs are not prepared to engage ISIS because they know the U.S. will do it for them. The U.S. should disappoint them, pack up its stuff and let the Arabs fight their own damn war.

Should Obama Continue War Against ISIS Without Congressional Approval?

/ softballpolitics / Leave a comment

By Sal Bommarito

There are several troublesome issues relating the president’s decision to double the U.S. soldiers in Iraq. An article in the New York Times addresses some of them.

The timing of the announcement is noteworthy and suspicious to say the least. Yet, the administration said it did not intentionally delay the announcement until after the mid term elections. Such an action before voters went to the polls might have spooked the electorate and resulted in a worse fate for Democrats. It is difficult for some to accept the administration’s response.

Is the new mini-surge a precursor to a greater deployment of troops in the near future? The president insisted that the latest manpower increase does not represent any change in his previous edict that the U.S. would not provide ground support in the fight against ISIS. The article indicates that the new soldiers will be operating in the field not in protected areas. What level of U.S. troop deployments would represent a change in policy, 2,000, 5,000 or 10,000 more troops?

The cost of this latest adventure in Iraq is expected to be over $5 billion, $1.8 billion of which will be dedicated to training Iraqi soldiers. It should be noted that the U.S. spent $60 billion per year during the highpoint of the previous occupation. After all that military assistance, the Iraqis were totally ineffective against ISIS in their initial encounters. Are Americans supposed to believe $1.8 billion will be sufficient to convert Iraqi soldiers into a lean and mean fighting machine? Ironically, the administration found a third party to blame for the decline in battlefield readiness of Iraqi forces- the former Iraq administration led by Nouri al-Maliki.

The president is walking on a dangerous constitutional line. The U.S. invaded Iraq and Syria using the War Powers Act. But, the country has been engaged long enough to require a mandatory approval of the military operations or a declaration of war by Congress. When is this going to happen? Or, will the president continue to prosecute the war on his own authority? Congress has an obligation to oversee the mission, costs, deployment of troops and materiel and a timetable for the end of hostilities.

Exacerbating the situation is an impending deal with Iran, in which the U.S. is likely to eliminate or reduce economic sanctions in exchange for Iran’s help in fighting ISIS. If this deal enables Iran to move closer to a nuclear capability, the current skirmish in Iraq and Syria will become a much larger confrontation.

Eliminating Iran Sanctions In Exchange For Cooperation Against ISIS Is Foolish

/ softballpolitics / Leave a comment

By Sal Bommarito

Is the West prepared to effectively give Iran a green light to build a nuclear bomb by eliminating economic sanctions in exchange for Iran’s participation in the battle with ISIS? A Newsweek article indicates that negotiations are already underway to forge together a deal “that would end sanctions in return for assurances [Iran will] not develop a nuclear weapon.”

It appears that the U.S. and Iran are negotiating two different transactions. The U.S. wants Iran to agree to not build a bomb, whereas Iran still maintains that it has a right to a nuclear program, which effectively enables it to build a bomb. It will be a monumental effort for each party to accomplish their objectives.

Before the U.S. agrees to cooperate, it should reconsider whom it is dealing with and whether there are other ways to defeat ISIS that would not include arming Iran.

Iran has not given up its dream to build a nuclear device, no matter what it says publicly. It is the only way that Iran can achieve a level of parity with Israel, which has a nuclear capability. In this regard, Iran will lie, cheat and steal to achieve its goal. The most important question is: Can Iran be trusted to live up to guarantees after economic sanctions are eliminated? Considering Iran’s nefarious activities throughout the Middle East, the U.S. should have concerns about Iran’s trustworthiness.

The Newsweek article indicates several disturbing things. Iran is supporting a militia that has destabilized Yemen. President Bashar al-Assad will be protected by Iran, even as nearly every Arab nation has called for Assad to step down. Iran has maintained contact with Nouri al-Maliki, Iraq’s former prime minister, which will enable it to disrupt conciliation between the Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis.

The willingness of the U.S. to deal with Iran should be affected by its longstanding feud with it. Diplomatic relations ended in 1979 when Iranian clerics encouraged radicals to take 52 U.S. diplomats hostage for a year.

Iran continues to commit human rights violations. For example, Newsweek reported that Iran executed 1,000 people last year. Iran security forces continue to harass and arrest peaceful protesters as well as journalists. Most disturbing is the support Iran affords Hezbollah, a ruthless terrorist organization. Despite all these concerns, some western countries are anxious to ally with Iran against ISIS.

What does Iran bring to the table militarily? GFP indicates that Iran has 500 thousand active soldiers and 1.8 million reservists. It has 2,400 tanks and various types of fighting vehicles and rocket launchers. Aircraft total 481 including attack planes and helicopters.

The Jerusalem Post points out that Iran’s military resume is not impressive. The country’s efforts to spread its ideology have been less than impressive and with a “lack of follow through.” In a nutshell, Iran has been cautious about employing its military. Rather, it relies heavily upon “indirect diplomacy, menace and intrigue.” Nevertheless, Iran has been emboldened by the U.S.’s meek responses to crises in the region.

Iran did not perform admirably in its war with Iraq in the 1980s. Some people attribute this to “overestimated nationalism” and Iranian “unwillingness to sacrifice.” So, what might we expect from Iran in the ISIS war? The allies should not be too optimistic.

A nuclear weapon would enable Iran to assert itself without directly confronting its enemies. The threat of a nuclear strike is the hammer that Iran will wield if left unchecked.

A trade off would be acceptable if Iran was honorable and lived up to guarantees and promises about its nuclear program. Since Iran leaders have repeatedly said the country has a right to do whatever it wants, nobody should derive any comfort. Sanctions are the only power we hold over Iran, other than the threat of an outright assault. Giving up sanctions would be disastrous.

With this in mind, I think the deal that is percolating is foolish, naïve and shortsighted. The coalition cannot be sure that Iran will engage fully and effectively with ISIS, or even whether it can repel ISIS terrorists.

Meanwhile, Israel and Sunni Gulf Arabs are not going to sit by idly and allow Iran to build a nuclear bomb. It is entirely possible that Israel will take action against what it believes is an existential threat. Similarly, Saudi Arabia is likely to set loose insurgents to destabilize Shiite bastions in response to an Iranian deal.

President Obama had better be sure that mechanisms are in place to prevent the development of a bomb by Iran, as a nuclear event could materially change the Middle East.