Angesichts der zunehmenden Spannungen zwischen den USA und dem Iran und zuletzt dem damit begründeten Abzug von US-Botschaftspersonal aus dem Irak hat die Bundeswehr ihre Ausbildungsunterstützung im Irak vorerst ausgesetzt. Das bestätigte der Sprecher des Verteidigungsministeriums, Jens Flosdorff, am (heutigen) Mittwoch in Berlin. Grund sei die Sicherheitslage vor Ort, konkrete Hinweise auf geplante Angriffe gebe es jedoch nicht. Die Soldaten blieben bis auf Weiteres in ihren Camps und würden nicht unbedingt notwendige Fahrten außerhalb des Feldlagers vermeiden.

Die USA hatten am Vortag vor einer zunehmenden Gefährdung ihrer Soldaten und der Truppen in der Anti-ISIS-Koalition im Irak durch Iran oder in seinem Auftrag handelnde Gruppierungen gewarnt. Am Mittwoch erklärte die US-Botschaft in Bagdad, non-emergency U.S. government employees, also faktisch alles nicht aus militärischen Gründen nötige Personal in der Botschaft sowie im Konsulat in der kurdischen Region in Erbil würden abgezogen.

Allerdings zeigte sich dabei auch ein Dissens zwischen der US-Militärführung und anderen Nationen in der so genannten Counter-Daesh-Allianz. So hatte der Deputy Commander Stability der Combined Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve (CJTF-OIR), der britische Generalmajor Christopher Ghika, bei einem Video-Briefing für US-Journalisten keine gezielte Bedrohung durch den Iran ausgemacht*:

20190514_CJTF-OIR_Ghika_Briefing_Iran

Dem wiederum, ein ungewöhnlicher Vorgang, widersprach das U.S. Central Command öffentlich:

Recent comments from OIR’s Deputy Commander run counter to the identified credible threats available to intelligence from U.S. and allies regarding Iranian backed forces in the region. U.S. Central Command, in coordination with Operation Inherent Resolve, has increased the force posture level for all service members assigned to OIR in Iraq and Syria. As a result, OIR is now at a high level of alert as we continue to closely monitor credible and possibly imminent threats to U.S. forces in Iraq.

… und das britische Verteidigungsministerium versucht zu vermitteln:

MOD statement following Major General Chris Ghika’s Pentagon press briefing. Full briefing can be watched here: https://t.co/U64v2E9BvU pic.twitter.com/4tZrD9zN1D — Ministry of Defence 🇬🇧 (@DefenceHQ) 15. Mai 2019

Das ist nicht der einzige Punkt, in dem die USA und ihre Verbündeten in dieser Region derzeit unterschiedlicher Meinung sind. Spanien hatte im Hinblick auf eine mögliche Konfrontation mit dem Iran seine Fregatte Méndez Núñez aus dem Verband des US-Trägerverbandes der Abraham Lincoln abgezogen, als der Flugzeugträger Kurs auf den Persischen Golf nahm – weil ein so genanntes Caveat der Regierung in Madrid eine Beteiligung an einem möglichen Iran-Krieg ausschließt.

Der Einsatz sowohl von Aufklärungs- und Tankflugzeugen der Luftwaffe als auch die Ausbildung im Irak sind Teil der deutschen Beteiligung an der Anti-ISIS-Koalition, die der Bundestag zuletzt im Oktober vergangenen Jahres gebilligt hatte. Aktuell bilden rund 60 deutsche Soldaten in Taji im Zentralirak irakische Soldaten im Feldlagerbetrieb und in der ABC-Abwehr aus. In Erbil in der autonomen Kurdenregion im Norden des Landes sind rund 100 Soldaten an verschiedenen Lehrgängen für die Ausbildung von Führungspersonal und Ausbildern beteiligt.

Nach Angaben der Bundeswehr kann die Ausbildung abhängig von der Sicherheitslage auch kurzfristig wieder aufgenommen werden. Derzeit seien die deutschen Soldaten auf ihre Feldlager beschränkt und sollten nicht unbedingt notwendige Fahrten aus den Camps unterlassen.´

Nach Meldungen aus der Region hat nicht allein die Bundeswehr ihre Ausbildungsaktivitäten gestoppt:

Zu den Spannungen zwischen den USA und dem Iran aus einem Bericht der New York Times:

One American official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss confidential internal planning, said the new intelligence of an increased Iranian threat was “small stuff” and did not merit the military planning being driven by [US-Sicherheitsberater] Mr. Bolton. The official also said the ultimate goal of the yearlong economic sanctions campaign by the Trump administration was to draw Iran into an armed conflict with the United States.

* wegen der Länge hier am Ende des Eintrags das Transkript der entsprechenden Passagen aus dem Briefing Ghikas (bei dem das Pentagon die oben genannte Distanzierung als redaktionelle Vorbemerkung angefügt hat):

Q: Lucas Tomlinson from Fox News. General, do you agree with the U.S. assessment that there’s an increased risk by attack on U.S. and coalition forces by Iran or Iranian proxy forces?

GEN. GHIKA: So I’m gonna say the same as I said at the start, which is that we monitor a range of threats to the coalition and American forces here, because there are a range of threats from a number of different actors. They go up and down according to various (inaudible) range of force protection measures to — to protect us against those threats which we raise and reduce according to (inaudible). And I’m not going to go into more detail because we — Iran is not a part of our mission. We are here to defeat (inaudible), and that is what we focus on.

Q: General, there just appears to be a disconnect between what you’re saying and what the U.S. government is saying. You’re saying you don’t see any, quote, „increased threat“ from Iranian-backed forces to the coalition, but the White House and the U.S. government is saying there is an increased threat. We’re just trying to figure out who’s right here.

GEN. GHIKA: Yeah, sure, and that’s not what I said. I said there are a range of threats to the American and coalition forces in this part of the world. There always have been, and I — the — you know, and we — that is why we have a very robust range of force protection measures. The threat comes from a range of different groups. We monitor them carefully. We raise and reduce our force protection levels accordingly.

More than that, I’m not going to go into. I can say, as my main focus is on countering Daesh, but I don’t think we’re out of step with the White House at all.

Q: And would you say the threat is increasing, decreasing or staying the same from Iran or its proxy forces?

GEN. GHIKA: I’m saying that we monitor the threats to the American and coalition forces in Iraq and Syria very carefully, and we adjust our force protection measures accordingly.

(…)

Q: Hi. Ashley Roque with Jane. General, I wanted to clarify a point. I believe it was to Carla’s question. You said that you had not seen an increase in Iranian threats. But then there was to Lucas, you said that it’s up and down. Can you square those two answers? Are we misunderstanding?

GEN. GHIKA: So I’ll say it again. I mean, to be really clear, we monitor a range of threats to the CJTF and to the coalition forces in Iraq and Syria. We monitor them carefully. There are a range of them, as you would expect in this part of the world. And we have an appropriate response depending on the threat.

I’m not going to go into where the increases and decreases are and what our force protection measures are because that would compromise the safety of our force. But we monitor a range of threats and we respond appropriately.

Q: But I’m going to jump in here, General. Sorry. This is Carla Babb. I asked you about that question, and you said there was no increased threat against the coalition by Iranian-backed forces. „We are aware of their presence. We are monitoring the Shia militia groups carefully and if the threat goes up, we will monitor accordingly.“

And I know that wasn’t exact. That’s just from my notes, sir. But you did say that there was no increased threat. And now you’re saying you can’t say whether or not. So did you misspeak when you were answering my question? How should we interpret that, sir?

GEN. GHIKA: So I mean, we are monitoring the situation here. We monitor a range of different threats from a range of different groups. And we set a force protection measure for our force according to the threats from — which we monitor.

So I’m not going to go into the detail of where the threats have increased and decreased. But I’m just going to say that we monitor them all very carefully. We’re clearly aware of the — of the context. And we’ll keep it under review.

Q: So is that statement not accurate? „There are no — there is no increased threat against coalition by Iranian-backed forces.“ Is that threat — is that statement that you said at 11:08, is that inaccurate? I just want to know for reporting purposes.

GEN. GHIKA: Well, there are a range of Iranian-backed forces. There are a range of — of forces. I think you’re talking about the PMF. There are a range of groups in the PMF. At last count, there are dozens. So it’s very difficult to start to delineate between them.

But if I just said to you that there are plenty of Iranian-backed forces in the PMF who do not present any threat whatsoever to the coalition, and we are monitoring the range of them very carefully.

(Foto: Verteidigungsministerin Ursula von der Leyen bei ihrem Besuch in Taji im Irak Mitte September 2018 – Bundeswehr)