Kurdish Objectives in Iraq’s Political Crisis

by: Emily Anagnostos with Patrick Martin

Key Takeaway: Iraqi politics are deadlocked. Several political parties and blocs boycotted the Council of Representatives (CoR) following the Sadrist protesters’ first breach of the Green Zone on April 30. The Kurdish Alliance, a bloc that consisted of nearly one-fifth of the CoR, withdrew on May 5. The bloc has now split, and two of its component political parties, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) and Gorran, formally reunited on May 14 to create a new bloc.  The PUK and Gorran were incentivized by the urgent need for financial assistance to the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) and likely by Iranian urging. A loan from the IMF in which Baghdad and the KRG will have a share proved decisive in incentivizing their cohesion. The PUK-Gorran Alliance will therefore likely strengthen ties between Baghdad and Arbil. Their rival, the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), retains ambitions of regional independence and a stranglehold on political power in the KRG. The Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) will either have to reintegrate or seek new political partners. The PUK and Gorran will likely eventually return to the CoR. Although they are still negotiating with the KDP, Kurdish parties are unlikely to return the CoR as one entity, ending what had been a significant, cohesive bloc. The new political alliance will nevertheless shift the power dynamics of both Baghdad and Arbil.

Introduction

The Kurdistan Alliance has been the framework under which Kurdish political parties have formed a consensus agenda in the Iraqi Parliament since 2005 elections. The Kurdistan Alliance since 2014 elections had been comprised of the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), Gorran, the Kurdistan Islamic Union (KIU), and Kurdistan Islamic Group (KIG), the five of which constituted the entirety of Kurdish representation in the Iraqi parliament and are the five largest parties in the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG). These five political parties are answerable to both the politics of Baghdad and those of the Kurdistan Regional Government. The Kurdistan Alliance has primarily aimed to maintain Kurdish influence within the Iraqi Government in order to guarantee financial and budgetary assistance for the KRG.

The Kurdistan Alliance persistently blocked Prime Minister Haidar al-Abadi’s attempt to create a technocratic government through his cabinet reshuffle, proposed first on February 9, 2015. The bloc has insisted on retaining the ethnic and sectarian quotas that ensure Kurdish representation within the government, preserve Kurdish control over ministries, and ensure that the Iraqi Presidency remains in Kurdish hands. The bloc’s goal in the reforms was retaining positions for Kurdish leaders, such as Minister of Finance Hoshyar Zebari, a member of the KDP. PM Abadi’s reform plans, however, seek to end the quota system on principle which threatens guaranteed Kurdish representation and may lead to a decrease in Kurdish representation.

The Kurdish parties had presented a unified bloc in Baghdad until May 1, while within the KRG they have been fractious and struggling with one another for power. KRG President Masoud Barzani has retained his office past when his term limit ended in 2013 when the legal council in the KRG parliament twice granted him a two year extension, first in August 2013 and then in August 2015, granting him full powers until the 2017 parliamentary elections. His rivals in the Gorran Party, the second largest party in the KRG, and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) denounced this extension, calling for new presidential elections and even for a new form of government. The political crisis split the KRG on October 12, 2015 when the KDP blamed Gorran for the large-scale anti-KDP demonstrations which erupted in Sulaimaniyah Province over unpaid salaries. The KDP expelled Gorran from the KRG, demanding that Gorran not return to the government until they had replaced several Gorran members whom the KDP blamed for the political tensions. The split in the KRG has continued since then without resolution. The KDP and Gorran have yet to reconcile and Gorran has not returned to the Kurdish Government in Arbil. The PUK attempted to act as a mediator between the five main political parties in the KRG in early 2016 in order to restore Gorran to the KRG. All five Kurdish parties met on February 3 for the first time since October 2015. They were scheduled to meet again on February 7 in the presence of Masoud Barzani, but the KDP “indefinitely delayed” these negotiations for reconciliation. These divisions have created incentives for Gorran and PUK to try to thwart Barzani’s consolidation of power, and even to seek recourse in Baghdad to achieve those gains.

The Kurdistan Alliance Withdraws from Baghdad Politics

The Kurdistan Alliance withdrew from Iraq’s Council of Representatives in Baghdad, outraged over the failure of security forces to secure the CoR building during the April 30 protests, when Sadrist Trend-driven protesters stormed the Green Zone and the parliamentary building and physically assaulted Kurdish CoR members. Those assaulted included PUK senior member Ala Talabani, niece of PUK founder Jalal Talabani, and Deputy CoR Speaker Aram Sheikh Muhammad. The Kurdish parties left for Iraqi Kurdistan on May 1 after escaping the Green Zone and announced that they would not return to Baghdad until their physical safety was guaranteed. One Kurdish CoR member stated that there was “no hope in the current government” to contain the crisis, and called CoR Speaker Salim Juburi’s efforts to resolve the crisis as temporary and incapable of being implemented.  The Kurdish parties on May 5 refused to come back to the CoR for the next session, originally scheduled for 10 May.

The Kurdistan Alliance’s withdrawal from Baghdad represents a major inflection point in the Iraqi political crisis because the Kurdish parties control a significant proportion of the CoR and have the ability to help determine a quorum as well as advance and dismiss legislation. Their unified walk-out gave the Kurds a new source of leverage over the CoR, as Iraq’s political process remains paralyzed without their participation. 

The Kurdistan Alliance’s Demands

President Masoum met with senior ISCI member Adil Abdul-Mahdi on May 6 to discuss the political crisis and future plans in the Ministry of Oil, especially regarding the mission of self-sufficiency in the oil industry. The Kurdish demands regarding oil and gas laws were likely a central focus of this conversation as a solution to resume the political process in Baghdad. Kurdish demands also included addressing Article 140 in the Constitution regarding the disputed status of Kirkuk Province, a highly controversial topic which will not be resolved in these negotiations.  President Masoum continued to meet with other political parties with significant clout in the Iraqi Government, including meetings with ISCI leader Ammar al-Hakim, National Alliance leader Ibrahim al-Jaafari, and SLA leader Nouri al-Maliki all individually on May 9, where Masoum likely acted as mediator between political parties in order to relay the financial prerequisites of the Kurdish CoR members’ return and hear the negotiating terms from these three Shi’a political leaders. These negotiations were not decisive and failed to draw the Kurdish political parties back to Baghdad.

Most Kurdish demands of Baghdad were driven by money rather than security.  Initially, the Kurds maintained that the primary condition of their return to Baghdad was a guarantee that the events of April 30 would not repeat, calling it a “black day” in Iraqi political history. But the Kurdish political bloc continued to pursue its enduring demands for legislation in Baghdad on the core issues of revenue sharing, budget relief, and the status of the disputed internal boundaries (DIBs) that it wishes to incorporate into the Kurdish region. The KRG currently struggles to pay the salaries of both its government employees and its Peshmerga forces and, like Baghdad, is burdened with falling global oil prices. The Kurdish Alliance thus replaced the blustering of the previous days in order to demand more tangible financial concessions from Baghdad. These demands include the payment of government and Peshmerga salaries and implementation of oil and gas laws which would help the KRG’s floundering economic situation. They were relayed between various political parties by Iraqi President Fuad Masoum, a senior member of the PUK who also speaks on behalf of the Kurdish parties in Baghdad’s power politics.

The Kurds also issued a set of demands which were both unreasonable and unattainable. The walk out on May 1 was coupled with the publication of an op-ed by Masrour Barzani, nephew of KRG President Masoud Barzani, calling for an “amicable divorce” from Baghdad on May 5. The KDP thereby added the threat of declaring independence to the list of demands. Masoud Barzani announced back on January 26 that he would seek to hold a referendum before the U.S. 2016 presidential elections, likely using the upcoming U.S. elections as a tangible deadline to foster a sense of imminent change.

Baghdad Vies for Kurds to Return

The threat that Kurdish parties would withdraw indefinitely, and possibly permanently, from Baghdad changed the ongoing negotiations among Iraqi Government leaders who immediately prioritized negotiations for the Kurdistan Alliance’s return. But because Baghdad’s leaders were themselves fractured over Abadi’s reforms among other issues, several political groups within Baghdad will vie for the Kurds’ return to the CoR and into new political agreements. The emerging Reform Front, created from the rump parliament session on April 27, seeks Kurdish membership in its efforts to reach a quorum. Abadi hopes to court the Kurds back into the political process in order to resume his reform legislation and to block the Reform Front’s efforts to changing the status quo.

CoR Speaker Salim al-Juburi was among the first to visit some Kurdish parties in order to secure their return to the political process in Baghdad, but he went to Sulaimaniyah, the headquarters of the PUK, rather than the Iraqi Kurdistan capital of Arbil where the KDP prevails. Juburi’s outreach to Kurdish leaders on May 8 appeared to be relegated to the Kurdish opposition parties of the PUK and Gorran, with Juburi visiting recently-returned Gorran leader Nushirwan Mustafa, who had returned to the Kurdistan Region on April 28 after seven months in London seeking medical treatment. The timing of his return is not coincidental. Juburi also met with Gorran Deputy CoR Speaker Aram Sheikh Muhammad and PUK leader Ala Talabani. Gorran and the PUK stand to lose from continued political absence and are less committed ideologically to an independent Kurdish Region as the KDP. They also have stakes in removing the political stranglehold of President Barzani over KRG politics.

The international community, led by Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Iraq Jan Kubis, finally achieved a breakthrough that softened some Kurdish parliamentarians’ hardline stance against their return to the CoR by appealing to financial interests. Kubis carried out a series of meetings in both Sulaimaniyah, the headquarters of the PUK, and Arbil, the headquarters of the KDP, on May 8, where he reminded the Kurdish parties that they would have access to the much needed International Monetary Fund (IMF) loan only if they participated in the government in Baghdad. Iraq stands to gain significant financial support from a proposed $15 billion loan from the IMF over the next three years. The KRG, as a part of Iraq, would stand to inherit a portion of that fund, which, if approved, is slated to release the first of three installments in June 2016. The prospect of massive financial support through the IMF loan is further enticement for Kurdish parties to remain active in the Baghdad government.

The Kurdish Alliance Fractures

The Kurdistan Alliance has formally fractured over these financial incentives. The threat of no international financial assistance has motivated several Kurdish CoR members to walk away from stringent Kurdish demands of independence and from the KDP. The Iraqi Government has continued to court Kurdish opposition parties, who are the most likely to soften at prospects of the IMF loan, as Prime Minister Abadi personally sent a delegation to Sulaimaniyah on May 12 to meet with PUK member Ala Talabani and Gorran Second Deputy CoR Speaker Aram Sheikh Muhammad. The IMF loan was the weight needed to break apart the Kurdistan Alliance. Gorran and the PUK announced on May 14 that they had ratified a new political alliance. The two announced that they would run on the same list in 2017 elections and would coordinate in political efforts in the KRG, in the CoR, and in provincial governments.

The new PUK-Gorran Alliance will seek alternative demands and negotiations for participation in Baghdad and will be more willing to cooperate with the federal government than the KDP in order to achieve their financial demands. A Reform Front member made an unconfirmed report on May 13 that suggested that the PUK-Gorran Alliance and Baghdad plan to carry out significant financial negotiations including handing over oil sales to Baghdad in exchange for Baghdad providing salaries for Kurdish employees in Sulaimaniyah, Kirkuk, and Arbil provinces.The PUK and Gorran are not in favor of declaring independence of Iraqi Kurdistan at this time, and a senior PUK official, Mulla Bakhtiar, noted during Juburi’s May 8 visit that “we are still a part of Iraq.” Deputy Prime Minister of the KRG and PUK member Qubad Talabani later stated on May 15 that now was not the time for Kurdish independence, pointing specifically to the KRG’s weak economy and infrastructure. The KRG, with the PUK-Gorran Alliance in charge, would remain a part of Iraq and would seek negotiations with Baghdad.

The PUK and Gorran together have 29 CoR members (originally 30; one Gorran member has joined the Reform Front) to the KDP’s 25. Currently 216 of 328 CoR members are assessed to be boycotting CoR sessions, the possible return of the new PUK-Gorran Alliance would likely influence other blocs, notably the Sunni Etihad bloc with roughly 40 active members, to return as well. (The current size of Etihad is unclear, as some members have joined the Reform Front, but Etihad likely retains a sizeable number of members.) These additions could put the CoR in range of meeting quorum and resuming sessions. The KIU and KIG may also be persuaded to follow the PUK-Gorran lead and return their seven CoR members to Baghdad. The Reform Front will try to court the PUK-Gorran Alliance to join their bloc in order to sway the CoR majority in their favor. Nouri al-Maliki praised the new PUK-Gorran Alliance on May 18 as an “important step” to overcoming divisions within the Kurdistan Region and “an overall understanding with Baghdad.” The Reform Front will likely increase relations with the new alliance in the coming days in order to persuade the PUK-Gorran Alliance to considering rejoining the CoR as a part of the Reform Front.

__________

Note: ISW has tracked Iraq’s building political crisis since early February, following political reforms proposed by Prime Minister Abadi and the challenges to them.  The Council of Representatives (CoR) has also faced challenges from an increasingly fractious set of parties some of which have attempted to break off from the CoR and form a “rump” Parliament that later morphed into a new opposition bloc, the Reform Front, composed of members from various parties.  As with all political maneuvering, ISW has relied on media reporting as well as our own assessment of likely political coordination, cooperation, and alignment among and between individuals and parties.  We are currently re-examining our methodology in light of recent maneuvers and statements leading up to the CoR Ramadan break and will update our CoR graphic when that analysis is completed.

__________

Iran and the New PUK-Gorran Alliance

Iran has used its historic relationship with the PUK in order to facilitate this Kurdish political reorganization consistent with their interests: preventing Kurdish independence, marginalizing Barzani, and returning to a stability in Baghdad consistent with the status quo prior to protests. Iranian representatives therefore conducted a series of meetings with the PUK after the April 30 protests, likely in an effort to steer them politically and guide their demands. Iranian Ambassador to Iraq Hassan Danaifar met with KRG Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani on May 3 to discuss the political crisis. Danaifar met on May 4 with Second Deputy Secretary General of the PUK Barham Salih in an unpublicized meeting that did not reach vetted media. Iranian Intelligence Minister Mahmoud Alavi likewise visited both PM Nechirvan Barzani and President Masoud Barzani in Arbil on May 15, the latter of whom Alavi invited to visit Tehran. Alavi then with Barham Salih and First Deputy Secretary General of the PUK Kusrat Rasul Ali in another unpublicized meeting in Sulaimaniyah on May 15. Iran likely has their own requests of the PUK and Gorran, including the return of the Kurdish political parties to Baghdad in order to restore stability in the Iraqi government. The Iranians have likewise used their relationship with the PUK to corral President Masoud Barzani’s move towards independence and attempts to monopolize power.  

The KDP Reacts

The new PUK-Gorran Alliance is also large enough to be a formidable rival to the KDP in KRG. The PUK became the third largest party within the KRG after the 2013 parliamentary elections when Gorran split from its ranks and formed its own party, seizing 24 seats in the KRG parliament and reducing the size of the PUK from 29 seats in 2009 to 18 seats in 2013. The KDP remains the largest party with 38 seats. As 2017 elections in the KRG approach and as President Barzani continues to remain as president beyond his term limit, the re-merger between the PUK and Gorran, which at current numbers would boast a combined 42 seats in the KRG parliament, could pose a significant political driver and perhaps a threat to Barzani, who has occupied his office since since 2005. The KDP unsurprisingly denounced the new alliance as “deepening internal issues” within the KRG on May 18.

The KDP is now fracturing internally. Some members still call for independence.  One KDP CoR member stated on May 10 that the “partnership between Baghdad and Arbil has collapsed.” President Masoud Barzani’s speech on the centenary of the Sykes-Picot Agreement on May 16 called for recognition that the Sykes-Picot had “ended” and to treat Iraq as a “brother and neighbor” and no longer a partner. These strong condemnations of continued contact with Baghdad contradict actions and statements made by other ranking KDP members.

Other KDP members would prefer to remain in Baghdad politics.  KDP member and Finance Minister Hoshyar Zebari met with President Fuad Masoum on May 11 about the impending IMF loan.  KRG Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani stated on May 12 that “as long as we are part of Iraq, we should not be cut off from the political process,” calling for the Kurdish CoR members to return to Baghdad. Nechirvan Barzani’s statement echoes sentiments closer to PUK official Mulla Bakhtiar than to KDP associates and family members.  Some KDP members may therefore return to the CoR on their own accord.

Alternatively, the lack of cohesion in rhetoric may be a way for the KDP to maintain its political leverage. President Masoud Barzani’s continued rhetoric requires political negotiators in Baghdad – whether it is Abadi or the Reform Front – to likewise increase their bids for the KDP’s return. Meanwhile, PM Nechirvan Barzani and key KDP officials like Zebari continue to soothe Baghdad’s concerns that their bids are unreceived and provide continued physical contact between the KDP and Baghdad. The KDP will not relinquish power easily, whether in Baghdad or Arbil, and will play all its cards in order to make Baghdad cater to its demands..

Baghdad Sweetens the Deal

President Fuad Masoum arrived in Arbil on May 16 and May 17, meeting with President Masoud Barzani and later with Vice President Qubad Talabani to stress the importance of political solutions. Masoum also met with PUK founder Jalal Talabani and with Gorran leader Nushirwan Mustafa in Sulaimaniyah on May 19 to congratulate the new PUK-Gorran Alliance and discuss the return to Baghdad. Masoum seeks to bring the Kurds back to Baghdad while maintaining the cohesion in the Kurdish bloc.

On May 17, the Iraqi Central Bank, managed by Ali al-Alaaq, announced that it will open a branch in the Kurdistan Region as the result of talks between the “federal government” and KRG Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani. Alaaq, a prominent member of the Dawa Party, was part of the delegation personally sent by PM Abadi to meet with PUK and Gorran officials in Sulaimaniyah on May 12. The opening of a banking establishment in Arbil that is directly and inherently connected to Baghdad suggests long-term coordination between Baghdad and Arbil and an intent to establish continued relations. The opening also underscores that the Kurdistan Region will not move for independence any time soon and instead will continue negotiations that allow for long-term financial support from the Iraqi Government in return for the Kurdish parties’ return to the CoR. Additionally, the announcement on May 19 that the IMF has  a $5.4 billion standby agreement to Iraq, with the ability to receive up to $15 billion from international aid over three years, and the rumor that the Kurds would receive 17% of this loan, adds further pressure and enticement for the Kurds to remain active in the Baghdad political process. The personal visit of Oil Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi to visit President Masoud Barzani in Arbil on May 19 also suggests that the KRG and Baghdad will continue to conduct financial agreements. These signs of the KRG’s continued financial dependence on Baghdad indicates that all Kurdish parties will return to the CoR, however it is unclear when they will return and if they return as a cohesive bloc or separate entities.

Will the Kurds Return to Parliament?

The fracture of the Kurdistan Alliance will force the Kurdish parties to reevaluate their positions in both Baghdad and Arbil. It is unlikely that the Kurdistan Alliance as it existed before April 30 will remain. The new PUK-Gorran Alliance will shift the power dynamics within the Kurdish political parties. The PUK and Gorran are likely to return to the CoR as negotiations, primarily over the IMF loan, continue. The KDP may return as well, but it is unclear if it will return within the framework of the PUK-Gorran Alliance or outside of it. The new PUK-Gorran Alliance will likely work more closely with the Abadi government in Baghdad.

PM Abadi may find the Kurdish parties with the PUK-Gorran Alliance at the helm a more malleable and open-minded political ally that can help him retain his control over the government and keep pro-Maliki political forces at bay. The PUK and Gorran will likely soften their position on Baghdad’s oversight in northern Iraq if Baghdad can guarantee substantial financial support to the alliance’s primary support base in Sulaimaniyah and Kirkuk provinces. The PUK-Gorran Alliance’s current disinclination towards Kurdish independence will also ease the concerns of Abadi, Iran, and the U.S. which seek a unitary Iraq. 

The KDP may seek new partners within the CoR in order to maintain its relevance as the PUK-Gorran bloc moves ahead. Maliki’s Reform Front is trying to entice it, a dangerous course of action because it could empower the Abadi government’s main challenger. But the PUK-Gorran alliance itself is also negotiating for the KDP’s return, and it can offer a combination of concessions in Arbil and Baghdad that help stabilize both, a tremendous boon for an Iraqi government on the verge of collapse.

Russian Airstrikes in Syria: April 19 - May 12, 2016

By Genevieve Casagrande

Pro-regime forces supported by Russian airpower are continuing operations to encircle and besiege the Syrian opposition in Aleppo City following the expiration of a series of temporary ceasefires on May 12. Russian air operations in Aleppo from April 19 – May 12 demonstrate Russia’s continued prioritization of support to its client regime in Damascus. Russia has nonetheless continued to present itself as a constructive international arbiter to the Syrian conflict through a series of Russian- and U.S.-brokered partial ceasefire deals from May 4 – 11. Russia maintains a robust military presence in Syria and has continued its military campaign, following Russian President Vladimir Putin’s announcement of a partial withdrawal on March 14 and subsequent reports of continued Russian drawdown. Russia has rather begun to reshape its military deployment in Syria, withdrawing certain airframes from the Bassel al Assad airbase while deploying additional rotary wing aircraft, developing new basing near Palmyra, and maintaining “several thousand” Russian ground forces in the country. “Dozens” of Russia’s fixed wing aircraft reportedly remain at its airbase in Latakia and continue air operations against both the armed opposition and ISIS across Syria.

Russian air operations seek to preserve strategic regime-held terrain and Russia’s military basing in Syria. Russian airstrikes escalated against ISIS’s positions throughout Syria to include areas in Homs, Deir ez-Zour, and Raqqa, following ISIS’s resumption of large-scale operations against pro-regime forces in central Homs on May 3. These operations have been primarily focused on seizing strategic gas fields that serve as the regime’s primary source of natural gas for areas in western Syria. ISIS seized the Sha’er Gas Field from pro-regime forces on May 5 and subsequently severed the primary regime ground line of communication (GLOC) between Homs City and Palmyra on May 10, inhibiting the ability of pro-regime forces to redeploy to critical frontlines with ISIS in the area. Russian airstrikes responded to this threat, targeting ISIS’s positions in the Sha’er Gas Field and the nearby Mahr Gas Field. ISIS’s operations also pose a threat to Russian’s own military contingent in central Homs, which includes its newest military base near Palmyra as well as its reported rotary wing deployment in the regime’s T4 and Shayrat airbases. Western journalists brought to Palmyra by Russia as well as local activists reported that Russia established a new military base in Palmyra, following the regime’s recapture of the ancient city on March 27. The base reportedly facilitates Russian demining operations and is guarded by air defense systems and armored vehicles. Russian advisors are likely deployed near active frontlines, as indicated by the death of a Russian soldier in Homs Province on May 11 in addition to ISIS’s claims to kill at least five Russian Spetnaz personnel during regime operations to seize Palmyra in late March.

Russia is using the series of strained and intermittent ceasefires in Aleppo to reset its operations against opposition forces in the area. Russian air operations have continued in Aleppo, which was once the primary focus of Russia’s air campaign, albeit at decreased and sporadic rates. The Syrian regime has in turn barraged Aleppo with intense airstrikes beginning on April 22, making Russian airstrikes in the area difficult to discern. Regime and Russian strikes in Aleppo from April 22 – 30 killed and injured over 145, including a strike on a Doctors Without Borders hospital that killed over 60. ISW was not able to assess any Russian strikes with low confidence in Aleppo from April 30 – May 4, but airstrikes resumed targeting the Syrian opposition in the city on May 5. Russia has also reportedly begun to deploy additional assets to Aleppo, including ground forces to the Efrin Canton in northwestern Aleppo to support the Syrian Kurdish YPG and artillery units north of Aleppo City. The opposition meanwhile launched major operations against regime forces south of Aleppo City, securing the town of Al Eis on April 1 as well as Khan Touman on May 5 - 6. Delayed and limited Russian airpower was unable to reverse gains made during the opposition’s offensive against the town of Khan Touman south of Aleppo led by al-Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate Jabhat al Nusra and Salafi-Jihadist group Ahrar al Sham. The offensive was timed alongside a Russian-organized concert in the ancient ruins of Palmyra, which required a significant number of Russian attack helicopters and armored vehicles to secure the guests in attendance. Iranian forces, without the support of major Russian airstrikes, suffered heavy losses in the Khan Touman offensive. Pro-regime forces, however, resumed operations to encircle opposition forces in Aleppo City through its northern industrial outskirts on May 12 as the as the temporary 48-hour ceasefire expired. Opposition forces reportedly prevented pro-regime advances in the area despite Russian airstrikes. 

The following graphic depicts ISW's assessment of Russian airstrike locations based on reports from local Syrian activist networks, Syrian state-run media, and statements by Russian and Western officials. This map represents locations targeted by Russia's air campaign, rather than the number of individual strikes or sorties.  

High-Confidence reporting. ISW places high confidence in reports corroborated both by official government statements reported through credible channels and documentation from rebel factions or activist networks on the ground in Syria deemed to be credible.

Low-Confidence reporting. ISW places low confidence in secondary sources that have not been confirmed or sources deemed likely to contain disinformation.

ISIS's Explosive Attacks in the Greater Baghdad Area: April 4-May 11, 2016

By Sarah Crockett, Emily Anagnostos, and Caitlin Forrest

ISIS carried out explosive attacks in Baghdad and its environs to undermine an increasingly fragile Iraqi government through April and early May. The group exploited a security system both distracted by ongoing political upheaval caused by a stalled reform and burdened with protecting thousands of Shi’a pilgrims travelling to northern Baghdad for a major Shi’a holiday. ISIS has generally used suicide vests (SVEST) in 2016 due to the ISF’s increasing ability to spot and thwart its vehicle borne improvised explosive devices (VBIED) and suicide VBIEDs (SVBIED).  ISIS last executed a VBIED attack on January 11. It since refrained from VBIED and SVBIED attacks in favor of SVESTs due to the ISF’s increasing ability to spot and destroy such attacks. The resurgence of successful VBIEDs and SVBIEDs attacks suggests the weakening ability of the ISF to adequately and consistently protect the greater Baghdad area. They also show ISIS reverting to its core expertise as a terrorist organization as it loses its capability to project force from its decreasing terrain. These explosive attacks will play a major factor in the ongoing political dynamics in Baghdad and aggravate already tense relations between the government and protesters if the government fails to guarantee basic security in the city.   

Iraq Situation Report: April 26 - May 10, 2016

By Patrick Martin, Hannah Werman, and ISW Iraq Team

Key Take-Away: Iraq’s political crisis has degenerated further as a majority of Iraqi parties, including the Kurdish parties and the Sunni Etihad bloc, have boycotted parliament sessions following the April 30 breach of the Green Zone by Sadrist demonstrators. Prime Minister Haidar al-Abadi’s cabinet reshuffle process has not only resulted in a major disruption of government, but the Kurdish parties’ boycott has increased the stakes. A quorum is not attainable without the Kurds, who are leveraging the crisis by increasing their rhetoric regarding independence. The political crisis comes amid a series of ISIS spectacular attacks, particularly in Baghdad, during the Kadhimiyah pilgrimage. ISIS is also resurgent in the south, where it launched several spectacular attacks far from the front lines. The Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) have, however, made significant gains in Anbar, recapturing the southern bank of the Euphrates River between Ramadi and Haditha and beginning clearing operations south of Fallujah. However, explosive attacks in Diyala, central Salah al-Din, and Baghdad – areas that are suffering from political crises or public instability – demonstrate that ISIS will attempt to use its attack capabilities to exacerbate the political situation. ISIS can also increase instability and provoke further political backlash by boosting its attack capabilities in southern Iraq, where the security forces are not present in large numbers. The political situation bodes ill for the stability of the country, especially as ISIS sees opportunities to further divide Iraq along sectarian lines through targeted violence and as it ramps up its capabilities in Iraq in preparation for a likely Ramadan campaign for June 2016.

Iraq Council of Representatives Graphic: May 9, 2016

By Emily Anagnostos

May 9 Update: Multiple political parties announced that they would boycott any upcoming session of the Council of Representatives (CoR). The Sunni Etihad bloc announced on May 9 that it would not attend any parliamentary session until those responsible for the April 30 protests were held accountable. A member of the Reform Front, the opposition bloc formed by rump CoR members, also reaffirmed that it would not attend any CoR session as long as Salim al-Juburi remained CoR Speaker. A member from the Islamic Dawa Party in Iraq, within the State of Law Alliance (SLA), revealed his participation in the Reform Front, further reducing the size of the SLA in the CoR. This graphic is updated from its May 6 version to reflect these additional boycotting parties and the new Reform Front member.

Speaker Juburi had set May 10 as the next CoR session when it last adjourned on April 30.  Currently, there are at least 209 members boycotting the session, making it impossible for the CoR to meet the 165 member requirement to reach quorum. The certainty of failure to convene likely encouraged Juburi to instead call for only CoR committees to meet on May 10, as opposed to a full CoR session. A date for a full CoR session has yet to be determined, which Juburi attributed to ongoing repairs to the parliamentary building. Several political figures and parties have called for a quick resumption of CoR sessions. However, political parties have each issued conditions for their return to Baghdad, making a continued political stalemate likely to drag on.

Iraq Council of Representatives Graphic May 6, 2016

By Emily Anagnostos

Iraq’s “rump” Council of Representatives (CoR) formed on April 14, 2016 when some members of Parliament staged a sit in after months of stalled reforms. The rump CoR, at its zenith, was supported by multiple prominent political parties, including the Sadrist al-Ahrar Bloc and the Badr Organization. These parties largely walked out of the rump CoR by April 20. The rump CoR could not reach a quorum as a result and failed to gain recognition as a legal entity.  Most of its members have refocused their efforts on forming a new opposition bloc, the “Reform Front,” first reported on April 27. The Reform Front claims to have at least 98 members, consisting of 42 pro-Maliki Dawa Party members, all of the members from Iyad Allawi’s Wataniya Bloc, and an unverifiable number of members who defected from their parties. If the claim is accurate, then the Reform Front will become the largest bloc in the CoR, surpassing the State of Law Alliance which stands to lose substantial numbers to the Front.

The Reform Front is likely steered by former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, though several members have denied his involvement. Maliki has contested Abadi’s leadership of the Dawa Party since he lost the premiership in 2014 amidst growing domestic and international pressure for political change. The recent resignation of Hassan al-Sinid on April 28, the placeholder for Maliki’s seat in the CoR during his tenure as Vice President, could indicate that Maliki looks to resume his seat in the CoR.  [Note: In our May 6 post, we said that holding a seat in the CoR was a prerequisite for becoming Prime Minister.  It is not.]  Maliki has denied the rumors of his return.

The largest bloc in Iraq’s parliament constitutionally has the right to select the Prime Minister and form the Council of Ministers after general elections or after a no-confidence vote in the Prime Minister.  Maliki formed a government in 2010 even though he did not win the elections outright by creating a legal challenge about how to define the “largest bloc.”  The Front’s emergence could facilitate Maliki’s return as prime minister if the parliament ousts Abadi.

The withdrawal of confidence from Abadi is also not likely imminent over the next few weeks barring an unexpected event that creates a further state of emergency. Many of Iraq’s political leaders are engaged in intense behind the scenes meetings to help break the deadlock without a vote of no-confidence. There is no clear coalition emerging within the CoR that can achieve an absolute majority of 165 members to vote no-confidence or select a successor. Anti-Maliki sentiment remains strong among elite politicians, undercutting the likelihood that he will be able to generate sufficient support for a no-confidence vote and government formation himself. The Reform Front’s tenuous position as a coalition of convenience may collapse. Both Maliki and Allawi seek power, and they cannot both have it.

Maliki, therefore, is most likely to try to ride the political wave by positioning himself as a potential unifier who can bridge the gap between the Reform Front and other blocs – a gap that he has helped create and maintain.  He issued a statement on May 6 calling for all CoR blocs to reconvene a session to find a solution to the political crisis.  He is likely to try to rally Abadi’s Dawa Party supporters to his side along with other consensus-minded political blocs while aligning temporarily with Allawi, his rival for the premiership in 2010, with the ultimate intent of acquiring the 165 votes necessary to achieve an absolute majority in the CoR. It is not even clear whether the CoR will even be able to resume sessions soon. It is next scheduled to meet on May 10, and it can only make decisions if a quorum of 165 members is reached. The 34 members of the Sadrist al-Ahrar Bloc, however, withdrew from the CoR on April 30 and at least 60 members of the Kurdistan Alliance agreed on May 6 to not return to the CoR. The absence of as many as 94 members will make it more difficult for Speaker Salim al-Juburi to achieve quorum. The Kurds have likely presented a set of political demands regarding the cabinet reshuffle and the size of their representation in government to other Shi’a parties as a condition for their return and may return to the CoR before the Sadrists if the other blocs agree to their demands. Other political blocs may also boycott the CoR, less ostentatiously, as the cabinet reshuffle drags on. Political impasse will therefore likely persist.

This graphic is an approximate depiction of the current state of the Council of Representatives. It shows the number and party affiliation of CoR members who have boycotted future parliamentary sessions. It also shows the number and party affiliation of CoR members whom ISW assesses may be part of the Reform Front based on the Reform Front's unconfirmed claim that it is at least 98-members strong. The graphic demonstrates the tumultuous current state of the CoR and the difficulty for a session to achieve quorum.

Sadr Attempts a De-facto Coup in Iraq

By Patrick Martin, Emily Anagnostos, and Rachel Bessette

Key Take-Away: Sadrist Trend leader Muqtada al-Sadr is attempting to launch a de-facto coup against Iraqi Prime Minister Haidar al-Abadi. The Sadrist Trend’s protests in the Green Zone constitute an attempt to seize control of the government process and limit the ability of the government to physically access the Green Zone. Supporters of Muqtada al-Sadr have stormed the Green Zone and the parliament building and they are refusing to leave. Some members are setting up tents, indicating that Sadrists will attempt a sit-in in the Green Zone itself. The Sadrists have not mobilized formal military forces. They have, however, prevented Iraqi leaders from accessing government buildings and forced members of the Council of Representatives (CoR) to leave the Green Zone, attacking several of them as they left. Sadrist demonstrators in the predominantly Shi’a southern provinces have also stormed offices of the rival Dawa Party, to which PM Abadi and former PM Nouri al-Maliki belong. There is potential for intra-Shi’a violence; security forces and Iranian proxy militias, rivals to the Sadrist Trend, deployed to Baghdad’s southern belts to secure the area during the commemoration of the death of the Imam al-Kadhim, a major Shi’a holiday. Meanwhile, security forces could clash with demonstrators or attempt to forcibly evict them from public spaces. This could also lead to further instability, while the possibility of an attempted ISIS attack against either pilgrims or demonstrators remains high.

ISW has tracked developments leading up to this state of affairs. Additional source materials can be accessed here.

[Above: Supporters of Muqtada al-Sadr clamber over and collapse blast walls around the Green Zone on April 30 during the Sadrist riot.]

The April 30 CoR Session Fails to Reach Quorum

The Council of Representatives (CoR) was scheduled to convene on April 30 in the presence of PM Abadi in order to continue voting on candidates for the cabinet reshuffle. A CoR member from the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq’s (ISCI) political party, Mowatin, stated that PM Abadi would announce the change of five more ministers in the session for the Ministries of Oil, Trade, Industry, Transportation, and Construction. However, the session failed to meet quorum. The Sadrist Trend-affiliated Ahrar Bloc and the Kurdistan Alliance blocs did not attend the session, nor did any of the members of the rump parliament, the opposition bloc within the CoR dominated by supporters of former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, PM Abadi’s rival, and the leader of the Wataniya Bloc, Iyad Allawi. The Sadrist Al-Ahrar Bloc boycotted the session, claiming that the cabinet reforms were being pursued along partisan quota lines. Meanwhile, the Kurdish parties claimed that they supported the reforms but rejected the change of any Kurdish ministers in the Cabinet, as they have demanded throughout the reform process. When the session failed to make quorum, CoR Speaker Salim al-Juburi initially postponed the session for two hours to allow CoR members to arrive. Juburi soon announced that the session would be postponed until May 10, attributing the lack of quorum to the closure of roads in Baghdad due to security protocol surrounding the commemoration of the Imam al-Kadhim, a major Shi’a holiday, in Baghdad.

In response, Sadrist Trend leader Muqtada al-Sadr announced that he and the Sadrist Trend would suspend participating in political action for two months. Sadr has been supportive of PM Abadi’s reforms in the past. Specifically, Sadr and PM Abadi have supported the creation of a technocratic government. PM Abadi has submitted on multiple occasions a list of technocrats as nominations for the new cabinet. Only five out of 22 were selected during the April 26 CoR session.

Sadrists Storm the Green Zone and the CoR Building

Sadr has since raised the stakes. He stated in a televised speech that he was “waiting for the great popular uprising and the major revolution to stop the march of the corrupt.” His followers stormed the Green Zone, prompted by his statement. Shortly before the start of the rioting, Sadr reportedly met with Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the supreme religious authority in Iraq. The details of the meeting are not clear, but Sistani may have sought to restrain Sadr and forestall any outsized response. Alternatively, Sadr may have informed the Najaf religious establishment of his plans. In either case, the meeting, if it did take place, was important, but Sadr likely did not coordinate the Green Zone storming with the religious establishment.

The Sadrist riot devolved into violence. Sadrists stormed the Green Zone and later the parliament building and damaged the main CoR assembly hall. They did not appear to clash with the Kurdish force assigned to protect the CoR. Sadrist demonstrators also attacked the head of the Fadhila Bloc, Ammar Tuamah, as he exited the area, along with Aram Sheikh Muhammad, the Kurdish Deputy CoR Speaker. Kurdish media reported that Kurdish CoR members Ila Talabani, Erez Abdullah, Ribawar Taha, Rankin Abdullah, and two others were trapped inside CoR building by rioters, but were evacuated by senior Sadrist Trend member Hakim al-Zamili, though his presence did not stop Sadrists from assaulting Ila Talabani’s vehicle. CoR Speaker Juburi strongly denounced attacks on CoR members. The violence forced PM Abadi and Speaker Juburi to evacuate temporarily. However, PM Abadi later returned under the heavy protection of his security detail and the Counter-Terrorism Service (CTS) to inspect the damage the rioters caused to the CoR building. 

[Above: Prime Minister Haidar al-Abadi inspects damage done by rioting Sadrists to the Council of Representatives main room on April 30.]

Sadr likely intended for the demonstrators to storm the Green Zone and the CoR building. He had stated this intent in a speech on February 26 in Baghdad’s Tahrir Square, warning that the Iraqi people would storm the Green Zone if reforms failed. On April 29, Kadhim al-Issawi, Sadr’s security chief, ominously warned that “They continue to impose on your will. Tomorrow is the date. If they do not respond, then destiny is in your hands. (Approximate translation)” Pro-Sadr social media also warned on April 29 that they were “off to the Green [Zone], we will depart shortly.” An aspect of the April 30 riot was therefore planned.  

Security Forces Respond

Security forces have made no move to evict the demonstrators. In fact, a source in Sadr’s office stated that Sadr’s militia forces were coordinating with the security forces to control the demonstrations. Although the joint Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) and Sadrist force began moving protesters out of the CoR building, they have not evicted them from the Green Zone. Sadr also appears to be keeping his hundreds of supporters in the Green Zone, where they have amassed in force, particularly around the Grand Celebration Square. Sadr’s supporters also freely collapsed blast walls around the Green Zone as part of the riot. Previously, Baghdad Operations Command (BOC) forces neglected to control Sadrist demonstrators on March 18, allowing large numbers of them to approach the Green Zone for the beginning of the first sit-in in front of the Green Zone gates.

The crisis has sparked panic among the government and political blocs outside of the Sadrist Trend. President Fuad Masoum called for an emergency meeting of the three presidencies – Masoum, Speaker Juburi, and PM Abadi – on May 1 along with the leaders of political blocs to find a solution to the crisis. The leaders of the pan-Shi’a political formation of the National Alliance, meanwhile, met at the home of National Alliance chairman Ibrahim al-Jaafari, a pro-Iranian figure who is a possible candidate for the premiership, to discuss solutions to the crisis. Speaker Juburi has reportedly contacted the heads of political blocs to find a solution. PM Abadi strongly demanded that demonstrators not encroach on public or private property or on the grounds of state institutions, but reaffirmed the right of peaceful demonstrations. He also reassured Iraq that the situation was under the control of the security forces.

Sadrists Riot in the Green Zone

Over the course of Saturday evening, the security forces have attempted to control the situation with mixed success. Prior to the storming of the Green Zone, the security forces closed the entrances to the city and declared a state of emergency. They did not move against the demonstrators. Later in the evening, the situation changed. Security forces completely closed al-Hasnein Square and al-Hasnein Bridge south of the Green Zone in the upscale Jadiriyah neighborhood. Reports also emerged that security forces used tear gas and “heavy gunfire” at demonstrators near the July 14 Suspension Bridge south of the Green Zone. BOC spokesperson Brig. Gen. Saad Maan stated that security forces are authorized to use force to deter attacks on property and civilians.

The Sadrist demonstrators stated a variety of demands consistent with their nationalist platform. Some were expectedly anti-American. There were isolated incidents of damaging American flags. Sadr himself called Vice President Joe Biden’s visit on April 28 “suspicious” and requested that the government avoid receiving any similar visits. In addition, many demonstrators called for expelling Iran, chanting “Iran, out, out!” as well as denunciations of Qassim Suleimani, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) – Quds Force and Iran’s foremost powerbroker in the region. Other chants attacked Iranian proxy leader Qais al-Khazali, one of Muqtada’s rivals; former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki; and Hanan al-Fatlawi, one of Maliki’s most vocal allies within the CoR and a prominent leader of the rump parliament movement. These calls indicate frustration with pro-Iranian elements in the government and a rejection of Iranian attempts to mediate a solution. 

[Above: Sadrists mass in the Green Zone’s Grand Celebration Square on the evening of April 30.]

Sadrists Riot in the Southern Provinces

Meanwhile, Sadr’s supporters in smaller numbers began rioting across the southern provinces, specifically targeting the Dawa Party of Nouri al-Maliki. The governor of Karbala, a Dawa Party member, reportedly fled the area following Sadrist demonstrators’ storming of the Karbala government building. Other reports claimed that Sadrists stormed the headquarters of the Dawa Party in al-Nasiriyah in Dhi Qar Province and al-Diwaniyah in al-Qadisiyah Province, removing and smashing pictures of Maliki. Sadrists also stormed the headquarters of the Fadhila Bloc in Diwaniyah and the Diwaniyah government building before heading to the ISCI headquarters. Security forces in Muthanna and Maysan Provinces, meanwhile, went into high alert and emphasized the protection of party facilities. Instability in the south, an area that does not have a strong ISF presence, will stretch the security forces even thinner and provide additional opportunities for instability and violence.

[Above: Sadrist demonstrators attack a Dawa Party headquarters in Diwaniyah and tear down a poster of Dawa Party leader and former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on April 30.]

Security Threats

The security situation in Baghdad could deteriorate further if the demonstrations do not de-escalate, as many Popular Mobilization members were withdrawing to Baghdad to conduct clearing operations in the southern Baghdad Belts area to address a growing ISIS threat in the area. The Defense Ministry had announced, with very poor timing, the start of clearing operations against ISIS cells in areas south of Baghdad led by the 17th Iraqi Army (IA) Division, a formation currently tasked with providing security in Baghdad and the surrounding belts area, with the participation of Popular Mobilization fighters. These areas south of Baghdad, including northern Babil Province, have recently experienced a deteriorated security situation due to ISIS attacks, particularly following the detonation of a massive Vehicle-borne Improvises Explosive Device (VBIED) on March 6 that killed at least 60 people and wounded at least 70 others, and several attempted attacks over the past week. Several Iranian proxy militias, including the Badr Organization and Kata’ib Sayyid al-Shuhada, deployed to the southern Baghdad Belts area for the operation, though Badr Organization political bloc leader Qassim al-Araji stated that the forces were only for the clearing operation and would not enter Baghdad, collide with demonstrators, or involve themselves in intra-Shi’a fighting. However, one unconfirmed report posted pictures and suggested that Federal Police, the Golden Division, and Iranian proxy militia Kata’ib Hezbollah were in the area “in case of an emergency.”

Meanwhile, there is a risk of an ISIS attack on Sadrist demonstrators. Thousands of Shi’a pilgrims have been entering Baghdad to commemorate the death of the Imam al-Kadhim, a major Shi’a holiday falling on May 3. This had already prompted the security forces to restrict access in many areas of Baghdad. ISIS had already taken advantage of the situation by launching a VBIED attack in the predominantly Shi’a Nahrawan area, southeast of Baghdad, on April 30 prior to the start of the demonstrations, killing at least 23 people and wounding at least 48 others. Other attacks included IED attacks on April 29 targeting pilgrims at a railway station south of Baghdad, though the attack was foiled. If security continues to deteriorate, then the demonstrations could stretch the security forces thin and expose the civilian population to an ISIS spectacular attack.

The security operation south of Baghdad appeared to be targeted at clearing ISIS from the area in order to protect pilgrims. However, the concentration of militia and security forces coincides dangerously with the start of the Sadrist demonstrations. The presence of Iraqi Shi’a militias, specifically Iranian proxy rivals of Sadr, in the Baghdad area is extremely dangerous. There is a high potential for violence between Iranian-backed militias and Sadrist security details and protesters if they encounter one another. Iran will likely order its proxies to avoid engaging with Sadrist elements in order to prevent a further escalation of the situation, but violence remains a possibility. Violence could also occur between the Sadrists and party elements, security forces, or militias in the southern provinces if demonstrators continue to attack party facilities and government buildings.

Implications

While the Sadrists dispersed to some extent as the night wore on, some set up tents in the Green Zone, signaling a likely sit-in at Grand Celebration Square. Sadr’s office stated that demonstrations would “wash away” the political quotas system and corruption from the government, and his call for a “popular uprising” is threatening to Iraq’s stability. Sadr could keep his supporters in the Green Zone and further compromise the area’s security while pressuring the political blocs to bend to his will and vote in a technocratic cabinet. However, the political blocs’ resistance to abandoning their control of their cabinet seats is making the political situation untenable. Sadr may continue to obstruct the work of the government until he can secure a full cabinet reshuffle. However, the other political blocs, and Maliki in particular, may try and retaliate. They may try and convince PM Abadi to unleash the security forces on the Sadrist demonstrators in order to re-establish order, a scenario that could see Sadrists clashing violently with the ISF. Worse, party-linked or Iranian proxy militias could begin clashing with Sadrists, particularly if the demonstrators continue to try and attack party headquarters in the southern provinces.

The three presidencies – PM Abadi, Speaker Juburi, and President Masoum – are slated to meet on May 1 with political bloc leaders to find a solution to the crisis. It is unclear if the Sadrist Trend will join, but Sadr is likely to try and use the force of the demonstrations to muscle concessions out of PM Abadi and the political blocs. Sadr will likely call off his supporters for another CoR session at some point, but he is unlikely to withdraw his supporters from the Green Zone without concrete concessions. The political crisis is likely to continue, and security threats remain potent. Meanwhile, the Sadrist opposition to U.S., as well as Iranian, participation in any attempt to mediate the political crisis will limit the U.S.’s ability to influence events, as the Sadrists could become even more agitated if the U.S. conducts high profile outreach against their wishes. Meanwhile, the Sadrists’ fierce opposition to Maliki and the Dawa Party threatens to further undermine the country’s stability; Maliki is unlikely to back down from the challenge that Sadr has issued and may find a way to retaliate, possibly through force or by massing his own, admittedly smaller, cadre of supporters in counter-protests.

It is unclear if Maliki will be able to use a judicial ruling to his advantage; although Maliki has been able to force the judiciary to rule in his favor during crises, it has remained distant during recent events. Notably, the judiciary issued a statement on April 18 that it would not rule on the events of the CoR, including on the constitutionality of CoR sessions. This indicates that it was not willing to expose itself with a controversial statement in favor of Maliki’s supporters within the rump parliament movement. A judicial ruling thus remains a diminished, though still possible, method of retaliation by Maliki against Sadr.

The situation is unstable enough to put the U.S. Embassy on alert, and the U.S. must prepare a contingency plan in case the situation spirals out of control. Iraq’s political crisis has reached dangerous new heights that pose a serious threat to the stability of the government, and in the worst case scenario could also threaten U.S. forces. Negotiations will continue among political leaders and the current unrest is likely to reduce as the initial rioting burns out. Nevertheless, if the political blocs cannot come to an agreement, or if violence or an ISIS spectacular attack against the demonstrators occurs, the situation could collapse even further. The U.S. must be prepared for the worst case scenario that sees the political crisis leading to violence in Baghdad and the potential collapse of PM Abadi’s government and deploy diplomatic or military assets in order to mitigate the possibility of an even more disastrous state of affairs.