If ISIS is viewed as liberators by Iraqi Sunnis, US must refrain from helping Iranian puppet Maliki

WSJ reports:

Radical Sunni fighters, who seized another northern Iraqi city on Monday, are being aided by local tribes who reject the Islamists' extreme ideology but sympathize with their goal of ousting the Shiite-led government in Baghdad. The uneasy alliance helps explain how several hundred insurgents from Islamic State of Iraq and Al Sham, or ISIS, have handily defeated a far larger, better-equipped Iraqi army and come to control about a third of Iraqi territory. Sunni tribal leaders say mistreatment by the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has sparked protests and militancy among their ranks that created fertile ground for the al Qaeda offshoot to emerge victorious. ... Last week, as militants advanced from the northern city of Mosul down the Tigris River toward Baghdad, many local Sunnis greeted them as liberators, feted them and cheered in the streets.

In other words, if the US gives aid to the pro-Shiite, pro-Iranian Maliki government and launches an attack against ISIS, then the US will be viewed as the ally of Shiite Iran and the attack will be perceived by Sunnis worldwide as an attack on Sunnis in general.

The US must refrain from taking the side of Maliki and the Iranians in this conflict. The US installed Maliki in power, but he has forfeited any claim to our support by his sectarian, pro-Shiite, pro-Iranian policies.

At this point, it is impossible to see how the US can provide limited military assistance to either side in Iraq without alienating the other side. The only sensible policy(given that Obama foolishly withdrew all American troops and there seems to be no stomach for mounting a second large-scale intervention) is to refrain from giving aid or military support to either side.