Sound analysis of the animated coverage and commentary of US-Iran relations with regard to Iraq and the expanded presence there of the Sunni extremist group ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria).
Washington and Tehran are indeed likeminded on the subject of ISIS, namely, both desire its disappearance. For that reason, both are working toward the same goal, and US-Iranian talks have taken place. However, concerning Iraq's future, both Washington and Tehran also seek a measure of influence and leverage in Baghdad, goals that do not complement one another.
That said, Iran can play a positive role in Iran—politically, militarily—and should be included. (Likewise, they should also be welcome to any diplomatic process regarding Syria.) That Iran has regional interests and would like to preserve its influence in Iraq is clear. The United States, of course, takes a dim view (not always incorrectly) of Tehran's regional jockeying, on account of it being an official enemy. In similar fashion, Washington is generally tolerant of its allies' intrusions - to say nothing of its own involvements. The calculus, after all, is not moral consistency.
The crisis in northern Iraq is largely political. Without the support of former Baathist elements along with a shared hatred of the Shiite-dominated Nuri al-Maliki government by the country's Sunni population, it is doubtful ISIS would have achieved the success it has so far. A politically integrated, democratic, and stable Iraq would have helped prevent such an experience. Therefore, it follows that the solution is also political.
Certainly, confrontation with ISIS is in order. The group has perhaps thousands of fighters in Iraq who are well armed and not shy of a fight. However, a US bombing and/or drone campaign will do little else than claim the lives of civilians, possibly strengthen ISIS's resolve, and further destabilize the country; the results of other drone campaigns are in. Iraqi military/police operations, maybe with international support, would likely be sufficient means of addressing the issue, especially if accompanied by genuine political reform.
In an atmosphere of reform promising greater Sunni political involvement, the Baath loyalists from Saddam Hussein's regime now fighting alongside ISIS—many of whom belong to a group called the Naqshbandia—would likely cut ISIS loose and pursue their ultimately secular agenda. Similar to US-Iran relations in Iraq, the Naqshbandia and ISIS also share a common enemy, but not longterm plans. In the event the Naqshbandia throws in with a united Iraqi front, ISIS is finished.
At present, President Obama is implementing counterterrorism measures, principally, intelligence gathering and sending in Special Forces to function as military advisers. In all probability, there is more in store.
The media coverage has been in the mode of tactical assessment: what Obama should and should not do. However, I haven't see any discussion of pursuit of options through the UN. (If readers find an interesting article on this subject, please send it my way.) Barring certain extreme circumstances, any military action must receive Security Council evaluation and approval to, according to the UN charter, "maintain or restore international peace and security" (see Art. 39). The charter's principles and statutes were created for this very purpose. Furthermore, it was the disregard of international law and its institutions that helped create the current situation in the first place.
