Archive for February 25, 2015

David Ignatius Reveals More Disturbing Details of Obama’s Nuclear Sell-Out to Iran

February 25, 2015

David Ignatius Reveals More Disturbing Details of Obama’s Nuclear Sell-Out to Iran, Center for Security PolicyFred Fleitz, February 25, 2015

In an article published today, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, a notorious Obama administration apologist, provided his latest endorsement of the president’s deeply flawed nuclear diplomacy with Iran.  Ignatius also discussed some worrisome U.S. concessions to Iran that have not been previously disclosed.

During testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday, Secretary of State John Kerry denied that the United States has proposed a final nuclear deal with Iran last only ten years.  Although the ten-year limit has been leaked to many journalists, Ignatius confirmed that Obama officials want a deal with a “double-digit” duration of 10 to 15 years.

Ignatius also confirmed that a final deal will likely allow Iran to operate about 6,000 uranium centrifuges.  He noted the Obama administration’s justification for allowing this: strict monitoring and intrusive inspections of Iranian nuclear facilities that will limit the “break-out time” – the time for Iran to make enough nuclear fuel for one weapon – to a year or more.   (Click HERE to read the Center for Security Policy’s analysis of this issue.)

Ignatius failed to mention that the Iranian government has never fully cooperated with IAEA inspectors, refuses to answer the IAEA’s questions about weapons-treated nuclear activity, and did not allow IAEA inspectors to inspect all of its nuclear facilities during the nuclear talks.  Ignatius also was strangely silent on yesterday’s revelations by the NCRI, an Iranian dissident group, that Iran has been operating a secret facility where it has been developing advanced uranium centrifuges and may be enriching uranium.

Ignatius’ column revealed some shocking new Obama administration concessions to Iran.  According to Ignatius, although Iran will not be permitted to install more advanced centrifuges in a final agreement, it will be permitted to conduct “limited” research on advanced designs.  Existing operational “non-permitted” centrifuges would be “dismantled,” either by pulverizing them or simply unplugging them.

So according to Ignatius, the Obama administration has proposed allowing Iran to continue to enrich uranium with thousands of centrifuges, ‘non-permitted’ centrifuges may only be turned off, and Iran will be permitted to continue to develop new centrifuge designs.  Ignatius does not explain the purpose of Iran’s uranium enrichment.  It can’t be to make nuclear fuel for Iran’s Bushehr power reactor since that would take about 200,000 centrifuges (Iran currently has about 19,000).  As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has explained, there is only one purpose for Iran’s uranium enrichment program: to make nuclear bombs.

Ignatius also revealed the latest Obama administration concession to address Iran’s Arak heavy-water reactor which will be a source of about two weapons-worth of plutonium per year when completed in about a year to 18 months.  Iran constructed this reactor in defiance of UN Security Council resolutions.  U.S. and European government previously demanded this reactor be dismantled.  The U.S. and its European allies reportedly backed away from this position over the last year by offering to let Iran operate the Arak reactor if steps were taken to ensure that it produced little plutonium either by a redesign (an irreversible approach) or fueling the reactor with enriched uranium.

According to Ignatius, “negotiators seem to have agreed on a compromise that will halt construction well before Arak becomes ‘hot’ with potential bomb fuel.”  This appears to mean that construction of the Arak reactor will proceed without any alterations to its design or fueling and Iran will be trusted to halt construction just before the reactor is operational.

Ignatius fails to answer two crucial questions about the Arak reactor.  Why does Iran need a plutonium-producing heavy-water reactor?  Why has the United States proposed to let Iran to continue construction of this reactor?

As we learn more about the outline of a possible nuclear agreement with Iran, it is becoming more obvious that the Obama administration has made dangerous concessions that will not prevent or slow Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons out of its desperation to get a nuclear agreement with Tehran.  Ignatius’ column also suggests the Obama administration is kicking several difficult issues down the road for a future president to deal with such as Iran’s uranium centrifuges and its plutonium-producing Arak reactor.

Charles Krauthammer said on Fox News last night that the Iranian nuclear negotiations are “simply catastrophic.”  I agree.  Congress needs to respond to President Obama’s nuclear sell-out to Iran by demanding an end to the nuclear talks and passing new sanctions requiring Tehran to comply with all UN Security Council resolutions on its nuclear program.

Susan Rice: Netanyahu Visit ‘Destructive’ To U.S.-Israel Relationship

February 25, 2015

Susan Rice: Netanyahu Visit ‘Destructive’ To U.S.-Israel Relationship
The Huffington Post By Paige Lavender 02/25/2015 8:56 am EST


(Two things to remember when reading this article…first, if it suits the Democrats, it’s a bipartisan issue and second, it’s considered political suicide to meet with or be seen with President Obama before election time. The Democrats are especially cognizant of that fact as evidenced in the last election. – LS)

Susan Rice, President Barack Obama’s national security adviser, said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s planned speech in front of a joint session of Congress will be “destructive” to U.S.-Israel relations.

“What has happened over the last several weeks, by virtue of the invitation that was issued by the Speaker [John Boehner] and the acceptance of it by Prime Minister Netanyahu two weeks in advance of his election, is that on both sides, there has now been injected a degree of partisanship, which is not only unfortunate, I think it’s destructive of the fabric of the relationship,” Rice told PBS’ Charlie Rose.

(Last time I looked, the legislative branch of the US government is equal to the executive branch, as is the judicial. So why can they not invite heads of state to speak? – LS)

“It’s always been bipartisan,” Rice added. “We need to keep it that way. We want it that way. I think Israel wants it that way. The American people want it that way. When it becomes injected or infused with politics, that’s a problem.”

(Our little friend Pinocchio would be having serious nasal problems about now. – LS)

Obama has said he will not meet with Netanyahu ahead of his speech in March, saying it would be “inappropriate” to meet with the leader two weeks before the Israeli elections. Netanyahu was invited to speak in front of a joint session of Congress by House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who did not seek approval from the White House before sending the invitation.

(When has Obama asked Boehner’s approval for anything? – LS)

Several lawmakers have spoken out against the speech, saying it could cause additional strain on international talks over Iran’s nuclear plans. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) called Netanyahu’s speech “a tawdry and high-handed stunt” in a statement earlier this month.

(Well, there you go. Israel’s leader is tawdry and high-handed. Electing someone like this is almost as bad as electing Obama….well maybe not. – LS)

Iran attacks replica US ship in military drill

February 25, 2015

Iran attacks replica US ship in military drill
By David Blair, and Robert Midgley, video source APTN 3:40PM GMT 25 Feb 2015 Via The Telegraph


(It’s fun to pretend, especially when no one actually shoots back. – LS)

Iran’s Revolutionary Guard launches a large-scale naval and air defence drill near a strategic Gulf waterway, during which a replica of a US aircraft carrier is used as a target

(Replicas can be deadly….right? -LS)

Iran’s armed forces launched a speedboat attack on a giant model of a US aircraft carrier on Wednesday as the Revolutionary Guard staged military exercises in the Gulf.

(The Iranians used the element of surprise. – LS)

The aim of the drill was to practise how to sink an American carrier, at least two of which patrol the Gulf at any given time.

(Two for now, but more can and will be rerouted if necessary and I doubt they’ll be replicas. – LS)

Exercise “Great Prophet Nine” showed how the naval wing of the Revolutionary Guard would launch a “swarm” attack, seeking to overwhelm the carrier’s defences by dispatching numerous speedboats to converge on the vessel from all directions.

(Meanwhile, the carrier group would return fire in all directs, put assets in the air and destroy their home bases. – LS)

“American aircraft carriers are very big ammunition depots housing a lot of missiles, rockets, torpedoes and everything else,” said Admiral Ali Fadavi, the naval commander of the Revolutionary Guard. He told state television that hitting a carrier with just one missile could trigger a “large secondary explosion”.

(Yep, a large secondary explosion…in Iran. – LS)

The exercise was carried out near the Strait of Hormuz, a vital waterway at the entrance to the Gulf. The US Navy’s Fifth Fleet is based in the nearby kingdom of Bahrain.
However, American forces believe they have little to fear from the Revolutionary Guard. The US deploys 10 nuclear-powered carriers, each one of which can embark about 80 aircraft with more striking power than the entire Iranian air force.

(We like to call it ‘overwhelming force’. – LS)

Commander Kevin Stephens, the spokesman for the Fifth Fleet, said the exercise had not disrupted maritime traffic. “We’re quite confident of our naval forces’ ability to defend themselves,” he told Associated Press news agency. “It seems they’ve attempted to destroy the equivalent of a Hollywood movie set.”

(Ha….attempted to destroy a Hollywood movie set. Now that’s funny. – LS)

Is Obama stirring up anti-Semitism?

February 25, 2015

Obama has been dispatching his minions to deride, denounce and disparage Netanyahu’s Congress speech.

Barack Obama is running scared.

In advance of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to Congress next week about the growing threat of a nuclear Iran, the normally placid president of the United States is suddenly breaking out into a political sweat.

One by one, Obama has been dispatching his minions to deride, denounce and disparage a speech that hasn’t even been given yet. Indeed, President Obama is doing everything in his power to attack the message and the messenger in an attempt to salvage a possible deal with the Iranian ayatollahs.

But in doing so, he runs the risk of stirring up a menace no less frightful: the demon of anti-Semitism. After all, the harshness of Obama’s response could very well lead some Americans down the well-trod path of anti-Zionism and Jew-hatred.

Take for example the remarks made by National Security Advisor Susan Rice. Speaking to journalist Charlie Rose on Tuesday night, Rice declared that Netanyahu’s acceptance of the invitation to Congress is “destructive of the fabric of the relationship” between Israel and the US. Rice’s comment is far more revealing than perhaps she intended, for by employing such extreme language, she inadvertently disclosed just how nervous the White House is about the possible impact of the premier’s speech.

Moreover, Rice’s remarks are in direct contradiction to those made just one month ago by White House chief of staff Denis McDonough, who told NBC’s Meet the Press on January 25 that the US relationship with Israel is “focused on a shared series of threats, but also on a shared series of values that one particular incident is not going to inform overwhelmingly.”

This is a sure sign that not only does the Obama administration lack message discipline, but can barely conceal its unmitigated hostility toward the Jewish state and the man who leads it. Indeed, to decry a speech by a close US ally to the elected representatives of the American people as “destructive” is not only offensive, but it crosses the lines of diplomatic decency. It is the kind of remark that Israel’s enemies will be more than happy to exploit in an effort to paint the Jewish state, and Jews themselves, as undermining America.

The administration’s enmity was further on display when Secretary of State John Kerry took part in a congressional hearing on Tuesday regarding the State Department budget, where he made some thinly-veiled remarks that were sharply critical of Netanyahu.

“Anyone running around right now,” Kerry said, “jumping to say we don’t like the deal, or this or that, doesn’t know what the deal is. There is no deal yet.” Even for someone who once boasted that “I actually did vote for the $87 billion [in funding for US troops] before I voted against it,” this latest statement is remarkably obtuse. In effect, Kerry is saying that Netanyahu shouldn’t criticize a deal with Iran until it is complete, neglecting to mention that at that point it would be too late.

But the comment also has a potentially chilling undertone to it. Does Kerry mean to suggest that American Jewry and pro-Israel organizations should keep silent and not decry the reported terms of the potential nuclear deal with Iran?

Fortunately, the Obama administration’s full-court press against Netanyahu’s appearance in Congress doesn’t seem to be working, at least for now. In a poll conducted last week by McLaughlin & Associates, 59 percent of Americans surveyed said they support Netanyahu speaking to Congress, while just 23% oppose it. This demonstrates that a vast majority of the American public is not taking Obama’s bait, and wants to hear what the Israeli premier has to say.

Nonetheless, it is heartbreaking to see an American administration that is more concerned about silencing Israel than protecting it. Heartbreaking, but also deeply worrisome, because the tactics that Obama has been employing, from leaking information to embarrass Israel to bitterly censuring the head of government of the Jewish state, could easily open the door to a resurgence of anti-Semitism.

If Obama is miffed that Netanyahu will be speaking to Congress, then why not first listen to what the premier has to say and then respond to it? Why turn up the heat now, exacerbate bilateral tensions and deploy such sharp rhetoric?

To be sure, anti-Semitism in the United States has been steadily declining over the past decade, with just 9% of Americans reportedly holding anti-Semitic views according to the ADL. But their surveys also show that 31% of American adults believe that “Jews are more loyal to Israel” than to America or the countries in which they live. By heightening the fuss and worsening the rift with Israel over a crucial, existential issue such as Iran’s nuclear program, Obama is fanning some flames that may prove difficult to extinguish. And that, most assuredly, is in nobody’s interest.

via Fundamentally Freund: Is Obama stirring up anti-Semitism? – Opinion – Jerusalem Post.

Benjamin Netanyahu accuses West of forsaking pledge to prevent nuclear-armed Iran

February 25, 2015

Benjamin Netanyahu accuses West of forsaking pledge to prevent nuclear-armed Iran – Israel News – Jerusalem Post.

PM says from the emerging nuclear agreement “it appears [world powers] have given up” on their commitment regarding Iran.

As criticism both in Israel and the US of his planned speech to Congress continues to mount, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu framed the debate over Iran in stark life-and-death terms on Wednesday.

“I respect the White House and the US President,” he said of the friction his decision to address Congress has triggered, “but on a matter so fateful that it could determine whether we exist or not, my obligation is do everything to prevent such a great danger to the State of Israel.

Speaking to a a Likud gathering in Ma’ale Adumim, Netanyahu – after addressing the comptroller’s report about housing – said that the biggest threat to life in Israel and to the state is an Iran armed with nuclear weapons.

“We have many reasons to worry about the agreement that is being formulated now,” he said. “The world powers committed themselves to preventing Iran from getting a nuclear bomb, but from the emerging accord it appears that they have given up on that commitment and have come to accept the idea of Iran — gradually over the years — developing the ability to make the fissile material needed for many nuclear bombs.”

While the world may have come to accept this notion, he said, “We have not.”

Netanyahu said it was his responsibility as Israel’s leader to do everything he could to warn of the dangers and to oppose the deal.

Meanwhile, the Prime Minister’s Office declined to comment on a number of issues related to the speech, including US National Security Advisor Susan Rice’s comment Tuesday that the speech was “destructive” to the Israel-US relationship, as well as Virginia Senator Tim Kaine announcing that he won’t the address.

The PMO also did not relate to the report that Ambassador Ron Dermer asked the ambassadors of Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates to attend the address, and that they declined.

Regarding reports that Netanyahu’s own National Security Advisor Yossi Cohen was opposed to the speech, Cohen issued a rare statement saying, “In total contrast to what was published I am not opposed to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s Congressional speech. In my opinion, the speech is imperative at this time in order to explain why the emerging deal between Iran and the P5+1 is dangerous for Israel and the world.” Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman, meanwhile, said that Iran was standing behind all those who fight Israel – Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad – and “therefore the agreement emerging now is not good for us.”

On a tour of the northern border, Liberman called for the security cabinet to be convened and for Israel to make decisions regarding the agreement. He did not elaborate.

Without relating directly to Netanyahu’s address, he said that Israel needed to oppose the agreement, but do so in a way that would not harm the relationship with Washington.

Special Report: How Iran’s military chiefs operate in Iraq

February 25, 2015

Special Report: How Iran’s military chiefs operate in Iraq, Reuters, February 24, 2015

File photo of a tank belonging to the Shi'ite Badr Brigade militia taking position in front of a gas station in Suleiman Beg, northern IraqA tank belonging to the Shi’ite Badr Brigade militia takes position in front of a gas station in Suleiman Beg, northern Iraq in this September 9, 2014 file photo. CREDIT: REUTERS/AHMED JADALLAH/FILES

The face stares out from multiple billboards in central Baghdad, a grey-haired general casting a watchful eye across the Iraqi capital. This military commander is not Iraqi, though. He’s Iranian.

*********************

(Reuters) – The face stares out from multiple billboards in central Baghdad, a grey-haired general casting a watchful eye across the Iraqi capital. This military commander is not Iraqi, though. He’s Iranian.

The posters are a recent arrival, reflecting the influence Iran now wields in Baghdad.

Iraq is a mainly Arab country. Its citizens, Shi’ite and Sunni Muslims alike, have long mistrusted Iran, the Persian nation to the east. But as Baghdad struggles to fight the Sunni extremist group Islamic State, many Shi’ite Iraqis now look to Iran, a Shi’ite theocracy, as their main ally.

In particular, Iraqi Shi’ites have grown to trust the powerful Iranian-backed militias that have taken charge since the Iraqi army deserted en masse last summer. Dozens of paramilitary groups have united under a secretive branch of the Iraqi government called the Popular Mobilisation Committee, or Hashid Shaabi. Created by Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi’s predecessor Nuri al-Maliki, the official body now takes the lead role in many of Iraq’s security operations. From its position at the nexus between Tehran, the Iraqi government, and the militias, it is increasingly influential in determining the country’s future.

Until now, little has been known about the body. But in a series of interviews with Reuters, key Iraqi figures inside Hashid Shaabi have detailed the ways the paramilitary groups, Baghdad and Iran collaborate, and the role Iranian advisers play both inside the group and on the frontlines.

Those who spoke to Reuters include two senior figures in the Badr Organisation, perhaps the single most powerful Shi’ite paramilitary group, and the commander of a relatively new militia called Saraya al-Khorasani.

In all, Hashid Shaabi oversees and coordinates several dozen factions. The insiders say most of the groups followed a call to arms by Iraq’s leading Shi’ite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. But they also cite the religious guidance of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran, as a key factor in their decision to fight and – as they see it – defend Iraq.

Hadi al-Amiri, the leader of the Badr Organisation, told Reuters: “The majority of us believe that … Khamenei has all the qualifications as an Islamic leader. He is the leader not only for Iranians but the Islamic nation. I believe so and I take pride in it.”

He insisted there was no conflict between his role as an Iraqi political and military leader and his fealty to Khamenei.

“Khamenei would place the interests of the Iraqi people above all else,” Amiri said.

FROM BATTLEFIELD TO HOSPITAL

Hashid Shaabi is headed by Jamal Jaafar Mohammed, better known by his nom de guerre Abu Mahdi al-Mohandis, a former Badr commander who once plotted against Saddam Hussein and whom American officials have accused of bombing the U.S. embassy in Kuwait in 1983.

Iraqi officials say Mohandis is the right-hand man of Qassem Soleimani, head of the Quds Force, part of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. Mohandis is praised by some militia fighters as “the commander of all troops” whose “word is like a sword above all groups.”

The body he heads helps coordinate everything from logistics to military operations against Islamic State. Its members say Mohandis’ close friendships with both Soleimani and Amiri helps anchor the collaboration.

The men have known each other for more than 20 years, according to Muen al-Kadhimi, a Badr Organisation leader in western Baghdad. “If we look at this history,” Kadhimi said, “it helped significantly in organizing the Hashid Shaabi and creating a force that achieved a victory that 250,000 (Iraqi) soldiers and 600,000 interior ministry police failed to do.”

Kadhimi said the main leadership team usually consulted for three to four weeks before major military campaigns. “We look at the battle from all directions, from first determining the field … how to distribute assignments within the Hashid Shaabi battalions, consult battalion commanders and the logistics,” he said.

Soleimani, he said, “participates in the operation command center from the start of the battle to the end, and the last thing (he) does is visit the battle’s wounded in the hospital.”

Iraqi and Kurdish officials put the number of Iranian advisers in Iraq between 100 and several hundred – fewer than the nearly 3,000 American officers training Iraqi forces. In many ways, though, the Iranians are a far more influential force.

Iraqi officials say Tehran’s involvement is driven by its belief that Islamic State is an immediate danger to Shi’ite religious shrines not just in Iraq but also in Iran. Shrines in both nations, but especially in Iraq, rank among the sect’s most sacred.

The Iranians, the Iraqi officials say, helped organize the Shi’ite volunteers and militia forces after Grand Ayatollah Sistani called on Iraqis to defend their country days after Islamic State seized control of the northern city of Mosul last June.

Prime Minister Abadi has said Iran has provided Iraqi forces and militia volunteers with weapons and ammunition from the first days of the war with Islamic State.

They have also provided troops. Several Kurdish officials said that when Islamic State fighters pushed close to the Iraq-Iran border in late summer, Iran dispatched artillery units to Iraq to fight them. Farid Asarsad, a senior official from the semi-autonomous Iraqi region of Kurdistan, said Iranian troops often work with Iraqi forces. In northern Iraq, Kurdish peshmerga soldiers “dealt with the technical issues like identifying targets in battle, but the launching of rockets and artillery – the Iranians were the ones who did that.”

Kadhimi, the senior Badr official, said Iranian advisers in Iraq have helped with everything from tactics to providing paramilitary groups with drone and signals capabilities, including electronic surveillance and radio communications.

“The U.S. stayed all these years with the Iraqi army and never taught them to use drones or how to operate a very sophisticated communication network, or how to intercept the enemy’s communication,” he said. “The Hashid Shaabi, with the help of (Iranian) advisers, now knows how to operate and manufacture drones.”

A MAGICAL FIGHTER

One of the Shi’ite militia groups that best shows Iran’s influence in Iraq is Saraya al-Khorasani. It was formed in 2013 in response to Khamenei’s call to fight Sunni jihadists, initially in Syria and later Iraq.

The group is responsible for the Baghdad billboards that feature Iranian General Hamid Taghavi, a member of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Known to militia members as Abu Mariam, Taghavi was killed in northern Iraq in December. He has become a hero for many of Iraq’s Shi’ite fighters.

Taghavi “was an expert at guerrilla war,” said Ali al-Yasiri, the commander of Saraya al-Khorasani. “People looked at him as magical.”

In a video posted online by the Khorasani group soon after Taghavi’s death, the Iranian general squats on the battlefield, giving orders as bullets snap overhead. Around him, young Iraqi fighters with AK-47s press themselves tightly against the ground. The general wears rumpled fatigues and has a calm, grandfatherly demeanor. Later in the video, he rallies his fighters, encouraging them to run forward to attack positions.

Within two days of Mosul’s fall on June 10 last year, Taghavi, a member of Iran’s minority Arab population, traveled to Iraq with members of Iran’s regular military and the Revolutionary Guard. Soon, he was helping map out a way to outflank Islamic State outside Balad, 50 miles (80 km) north of Baghdad.

Taghavi’s time with Saraya al-Khorasani proved a boon for the group. Its numbers swelled from 1,500 to 3,000. It now boasts artillery, heavy machine guns, and 23 military Humvees, many of them captured from Islamic State.

“Of course, they are good,” Yasiri said with a grin. “They are American made.”

In November, Taghavi was back in Iraq for a Shi’ite militia offensive near the Iranian border. Yasiri said Taghavi formulated a plan to “encircle and besiege” Islamic State in the towns of Jalawala and Saadiya. After success with that, he began to plot the next battle. Yasiri urged him to be more cautious, but Taghavi was killed by a sniper in December.

At Taghavi’s funeral, the head of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, Ali Shamkhani, eulogized the slain commander. He was, said Shamkhani, one of those Iranians in Iraq”defending Samarra and giving their blood so we don’t have to give our blood in Tehran.” Both Soleimani and the Badr Organisation’s Amiri were among the mourners.

A NEW IRAQI SOUL

Saraya al-Khorasani’s headquarters sit in eastern Baghdad, inside an exclusive government complex that houses ministers and members of parliament. Giant pictures of Taghavi and other slain al-Khorasani fighters hang from the exterior walls of the group’s villa.

Commander Yasiri walks with a cane after he was wounded in his left leg during a battle in eastern Diyala in November. On his desk sits a small framed drawing of Iran’s Khamenei.

He describes Saraya al-Khorasani, along with Badr and several other groups, as “the soul” of Iraq’s Hashid Shaabi committee.

Not everyone agrees. A senior Shi’ite official in the Iraqi government took a more critical view, saying Saraya al-Khorasani and the other militias were tools of Tehran. “They are an Iranian-made group that was established by Taghavi. Because of their close ties with Iranians for weapons and ammunition, they are so effective,” the official said.

Asarsad, the senior Kurdish official, predicts Iraq’s Shi’ite militias will evolve into a permanent force that resembles the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. That sectarian force, he believes, will one day operate in tandem with Iraq’s regular military.

“There will be two armies in Iraq,” he said.

That could have big implications for the country’s future. Human rights groups have accused the Shi’ite militias of displacing and killing Sunnis in areas they liberate — a charge the paramilitary commanders vigorously deny. The militias blame any excesses on locals and accuse Sunni politicians of spreading rumors to sully the name of Hashid Shaabi.

The senior Shi’ite official critical of Saraya al-Khorasani said the militia groups, which have the freedom to operate without directly consulting the army or the prime minister, could yet undermine Iraq’s stability. The official described Badr as by far the most powerful force in the country, even stronger than Prime Minister Abadi.

Amiri, the Badr leader, rejected such claims. He said he presents his military plans directly to Abadi for approval.

His deputy Kadhimi was in no doubt, though, that the Hashid Shaabi was more powerful than the Iraqi military.

“A Hashid Shaabi (soldier) sees his commander … or Haji Hadi Amiri or Haji Mohandis or even Haji Qassem Soleimani in the battle, eating with them, sitting with them on the ground, joking with them. This is why they are ready to fight,” said Kadhimi. “This is why it is an invincible force.”