Custom Search

By Steven A. Cook, for Foreign Policy. Any opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Iraq Business News.

There Is Nothing Left for Americans to Do in Iraq

Qassem Suleimani and Tehran have won the battle for Baghdad.

U.S. policymakers should understand that—and leave.

Click here to read the full story.

From Al Jazeera. Any opinions expressed are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Iraq Business News.

US President Donald Trump ratcheted up his rhetoric with Iran and Iraq late on Sunday, warning of a "major retaliation" if Iran strikes back to avenge the US assassination of one of its top military commanders and threatening sanctions on Iraq after its parliament called on American troops to leave the country.

Asked on Air Force One about potential retaliation by Iran, Trump said: "If it happens, it happens. If they do anything, there will be major retaliation."

Al Jazeera's Gabriel Elizondo reports live from Washington, DC:

Press Briefing by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo And Secretary of Defense Mark Esper

SECRETARY POMPEO:

Good evening. Myself, with Secretary Esper, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Milley, came here to Florida today to brief the President on the activities that have taken place in the Middle East over the course of the last 72 hours.

I will leave to Secretary Esper to talk about the military activity, but I want to put it in the context of our policy with respect to the Islamic Republic of Iran. The attacks that took place against an Iraqi facility threatened American forces. This has been going on now for weeks and weeks and weeks. This wasn’t the first set of attacks against this particular Iraqi facility and others where there were American lives at risk.

And today, what we did was take a decisive response that makes clear what President Trump has said for months and months and months, which is that we will not stand for the Islamic Republic of Iran to take actions that put American men and women in jeopardy.

We will — we will always honor that commitment to take decisive action when that takes place, and we continue to demand that the Islamic Republic of Iran act in a way that is consistent with what I laid out, back in May of 2018, for what it is that we expect Iran to do so that it can rejoin the community of nations.And with that, I’ll turn it over to the Secretary of Defense.

SECRETARY ESPER:

Thank you. As we reported earlier today, the Department of Defense took offensive actions in defense of our personnel and interests in Iraq by launching F-15 Strike Eagles against five targets associated with Kata’ib Hezbollah, which is an Iranian-sponsored Shiite militia group. The targets we attacked included three targets in Western Iraq and two targets in Eastern Syria that were either command and control facilities or weapons caches for Kata’ib Hezbollah.

The strikes were successful. The pilots and aircraft returned back to base safely. I would add that, in our discussion today with the President, we discussed with him other options that are available. And I would note also that we will take additional actions as necessary to ensure that we act in our own self-defense and we deter further bad behavior from militia groups or from Iran. Thank you.

(Source: US State Dept)

By Robbie Gramer, for Foreign Policy. Any opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Iraq Business News.

The U.S. State Department sent Congress this month detailed plans to dramatically and permanently reduce the number of U.S. diplomats in Iraq, a measure that critics say runs directly against the Trump administration’s stated goals of countering Iranian influence in the country and undercuts Washington’s efforts to stabilize the Iraqi government.

Documents sent from the State Department to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and obtained by Foreign Policy shed new light on the department’s decision earlier this year to draw down the number of diplomats and other U.S. personnel in Iraq.

Click here to read the full story.

By Yassir Khudayri, for Open Society Foundations (OSF).

In early October 2019, in Baghdad’s Tahrir Square and in many of Iraq’s other major cities, young Iraqis took the streets, chanting slogans such as “with life and blood we defend you, Iraq.” To those unfamiliar with the specifics of political and social life in the Middle East, where sectarian divisions often trump national identities, this may not have seemed like a big deal.

It may have seemed, in fact, like just one more of the countless mass protests that have engulfed the region over the past decade.

In both respects, however, these observers would be wrong. The chants were a big deal. And the protests, while not entirely unprecedented, were nevertheless a sharp break from the norm. Because, for the first time in recent memory, Iraqis weren’t demanding their rights under the banner of any specific religious or ethnic group, but their rights as Iraqi citizens.

And they weren’t demanding privileges—they were demanding the fall of a system that has worked to keep them apart, and that has been feeding into the pockets of corrupt elites to the detriment of ordinary citizens.

To understand why this embrace of nationality is so important, however, a look into the recent past is necessary. Under Iraq’s current model of ethno-sectarian balancing [paywall], established after the United States-led invasion of 2003, coalition governments hand out ministerial positions and budgets according to the proportion of the country’s sectarian populations—Shiite or Sunni Muslim Arabs, and Kurds.

This has led to staggering corruption in which the elite’s control over government ministries, major enterprises, and media has actively worked to maintain the status quo. Spawned in the aftermath foreign occupation, this form of governance has benefitted few and served as little more than a failed attempt for perpetual ceasefire, rather than a sustainable system of government meeting the needs of the Iraqi people.

Corruption and sectarian favoritism in the public sector have played a major role in entrenching sectarian division among Iraqis and have led to rampant unemployment and lack of access to basic services. Transparency International ranks Iraq as the 18th most corrupt country in the world; according to official figures cited in a report from the Telegraph, since 2004, a remarkable $450 billion in public funds have been unaccounted for. Meanwhile, about a quarter of the country’s young population is unemployed, while access to clean water and electricity is unreliable at best.

This wave of protests—which encompasses multiple sectors of the population—illustrates the rise of a pan-Iraqi movement. Just as importantly, this remains an essentially grassroots-run and leaderless movement. In the same streets that recently staged over a decade of inter-sectarian fighting, Iraqis are now refusing to be torn apart, demanding a universal government for all its citizens, and are willing to face the rain of bullets and tear gas to see it happen. This is unique and its importance should not be understated. It is a rare moment that could build a new bedrock for a country that has been through so much, by the hands of its people.

The international community must acknowledge the magnitude of this movement and rise to its responsibility in ensuring protesters’ rights to call for a better life, and support them in their legitimate demands—but it must tread carefully. States and international groups should learn from past mistakes and refrain from throwing money at the problem or call for new elections in hopes that the country will miraculously jump to its feet and prosper. This has proven to be counterproductive or even disastrous in the past, especially in the Middle East.

What can the international community do, then? As a start, it should use its leverage with the Iraqi government to ensure an immediate halt to the slaughter of peaceful protesters. Since the movement began in October, about 400 protesters have been killed and thousands injured by government forces, and all efforts should prioritize an immediate halt to the onslaught. Further, it should pressure the government to address protesters demands and provide any support in doing so in a way that is consistent with their human rights.

This applies regardless of the resignation of Prime Minister Abdul Mahdi, since this systemic problem transcends who heads the government. The UN Secretary General has uttered harsh words at the Iraqi government’s brutality against its people, while the Arab League’s chief called for “restraint.”

Any systemic change should not be held hostage to constitutional rupture or the loss of any more lives. Change must start now in support of a transition to a new form of governance, which can then build on its own progress. The demands of protesters should be met now, and the international community has a duty to acknowledge them and support the sitting Iraqi government in adopting structural changes for a new system, regardless of who sits in in Baghdad now or in the future.

What is outlined above is necessary, but it will not sufficiently address the matter. There are too many dimensions to resolving this issue than I could possibly explain or understand. But one thing is for certain: The rage that initially drew people to Tahrir Square rapidly turned into a passionate display of popular unity that was once thought impossible, and it does not appear to be slowing down. A generation born into war and ripped apart by tragedy is now rising—and demanding recognition of their common identity.

(Source: The Intercept, under a Creative Commons licence)

By Shelly Kittleson for Al Monitor. Any opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Iraq Business News. 

Dangers persist as Iraqi border crossing opens and IDPs return

US troops started pulling out of northeastern Syrian territory held by the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in late October prior to returning to the Deir al-Zor region along the Iraqi-Syrian border some days later, allegedly to protect oil fields.

US officials have claimed that some troops may be repositioned in Iraq’s westernmost province of Anbar to continue the fight against the Islamic State (IS). Other troops may be left in eastern Syria, but “far away from the Turkish border,” according to a spokesperson in the US-led coalition to fight IS.

It is unclear whether, where and how many of these troops will be authorized to remain in Iraq, with some reports saying they will need to leave Iraq entirely within four weeks. Though Anbar province is currently stable, it remains susceptible to several potentially destabilizing factors.

Al-Monitor spent several days in the Iraqi-Syrian border area near and in Qaim in October and spoke to tribal leaders, local security forces and internally displaced people, or IDPs, who had recently returned to the area.

Click here to read the full story.

Iraq’s intelligence service provided the US-led coalition with the exact coordinates of Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s location, paving the way for the raid that reportedly killed him, an Iraqi intelligence official told Reuters on Sunday.

The agency learned of Baghdadi’s location from documents found at a secret location in Iraq’s western desert after arresting an Iraqi man and woman from within his “inner circle”, the official said.

Baghdadi is believed to have been killed in a US military operation in Syria, sources in Syria, Iraq and Iran said on Sunday ahead of a “major statement” due from US President Donald Trump at the White House.

(Source: Middle East Monitor)