Iraq has become a pawn on the chessboard of global politics and as such, the parliament’s vote on the withdrawal of US troops has put the country in a severe dilemma and opens the door for more chaos ahead.

After the killing of Iran’s Soleimani, many Iraqis were furious. Not necessarily due to the killing per se, but what they consider a violation of Iraq’s sovereignty and thus international law. The image of the liberating uber-power USA, a friend in keeping the country safe and stable, transformed into one of the old cliché imperialistic power, present solely for its own agenda.

As a result, the Iraqi parliament conducted a vote on Prime Minister Mahdi’s plan to expel the US. While the parliament agreed and voted in the motion’s favor, it was far from a united effort. While some members of parliament utilized the vote to express their resentment against the US, others see the risk a withdrawal produces, both militarily and economically.

Militarily because, so far, the 5,200 troops currently stationed in Iraq have protected the country against IS. A withdrawal would result in another security vacuum, similar to the one that had created IS in the first place. To this day, the terror group is conducting attacks in Iraq. It is a virtual certainty that these would significantly increase. Particularly as the US’ withdrawal could trigger a domino effect, as with their withdrawal, European and other coalition forces may have to follow since they are dependent on US logistical and technical support.

Economically, the options for the US to punish Iran exist in abundance, and most importantly, any punishment would also affect Iran, as its economy has strong ties with Iraq’s, which makes it thus even more worthwhile for Washington to be rather adamant.

President Trump has already threatened that a forced withdrawal could require Iraq to be held accountable to make debt payments to the US, while also potentially being sanctioned severely. Moreover, Iraq could risk the freeze of its accounts at the Federal Reserve Bank in New York, into which it deposits oil sales proceeds.

As preposterous as it may sound, President Trump had already eluded to this option when he announced, “right now we have their money.” Another option would be to cease Iraq’s exemptions that allow it to purchase Iranian gas to power its southern electricity producers. These are responsible for at least 35 percent of the electricity supplied to Iraq.

Despite the dilemma Iraq finds itself in, Prime Minister Mahdi currently appears to proceed with the plan of a troop withdrawal. Meanwhile, Secretary of State Pompeo promptly refused and accused Mahdi of being under Iranian pressure, while the Iraqis wanted the US to continue its mission, Pompeo said.

Pompeo is accurate when he refers to the pressure applied to Mahdi, however. The country still appears to have mixed feelings about US troops, despite the overthrow of dictator and mass murderer Saddam Hussein and the subsequent fight against IS. Moreover, with the withdrawal of the US, the Shiite majority in the country is supposed to be appeased. However, this majority also cultivates relations to Tehran, which has also sought a US removal.

Realpolitik in the country is meanwhile left to the Sunnis, of whom many boycotted parliaments vote. In fact, only 170 out of 328 members participated in the process. The Sunnis are cognizant that a US withdrawal does not only play into the hands of Iran but begs the opportunity for Iraq to become Tehran’s satellite state. Furthermore, despite PM Mahdi’s pledge that a withdrawal would improve the relations with the neighbor, reality suggests that Iraq could become just as isolated from the international community as Iran, once Tehran begins to control Baghdad’s politics and agendas.

Despite all, Prime Minister Mahdi appears to be ready to face these possible consequences for now. All that gives hope for Mahdi’s inclination to compromise is his request to the National Security Council to provide options on how to proceed.

These options consisted of a as soon as possible withdrawal and a successive withdrawal that would negate an immediate vacuum for IS. However, the Security Council also proposed a third option, which it explicitly recommended: a road map for renegotiation of the current agreement under which the US is present and the ultimately go-ahead for the US to remain.

Regardless of how the Iraqi government will ultimately decide, there will be consequences from one side or the other. Both Iran and the US have geopolitical interests in Iraq, which is not inclined to become dependent on Washington nor Tehran. However, the current situation has left Iraq with little to no choice but to make the utmost best of its position as a pawn on a chessboard, with its next move being crucial.

L'articolo A Political Pawn: Iraq’s Military and Monetary Dilemmas proviene da InsideOver.

In the aftermath of the Soleimani killing, the Iraqi parliament passed a resolution on the weekend that ought to send home the approximately 5,000 US soldiers stationed in the country (from 160,000 previously). It would be the beginning of a major withdrawal of all foreign troops that are part of the US-led alliance to fight the Islamic State in the region.

Moreover, the Iraqi parliament also concluded that foreign troops should no longer be able to use Iraqi airspace in the future. These decisions oblige the government of Prime Minister Adel Abdel Mahdi, who initiated the resolution over the weekend. Mahdi had previously pushed for the withdrawal of the US and other foreign troops.

However, the urgency had been increased after what he called a “political murder” on Iranian general Kassem Soleimani and the head of the Shiite militia Kataib Hezbollah, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis. The end of the deployment of foreign troops in Iraq would be in the interests of both Iraq and the United States, Mahdi also stated during a special session in parliament. At the same time, a quick withdrawal was “fundamentally and for practical reasons,” the best for Iraq, and despite all the difficulties and instabilities that such a step would bring with it. Mahdi eluded to the years 2011 to 2014 when no foreign combat troops had a presence in the country, which, according to Mahdi, did not harm relations with the United States.

The US’ response, however, did not take long. On Sunday morning, Secretary of State Pompeo appeared on CNN, ABC, Fox, and other programs to justify the events of the past few days. Most importantly, however, Pompeo rebuffed Mahdi’s request for a departure schedule of all foreign troops categorically. He was confident that the Iraqi people wanted the United States in the country so that the fight against terrorism could continue.

Moreover, Mahdi was only the acting Prime Minister of Iraq, who, according to Pompeo, was under pressure from Iran and thus was catering to the demands for the regime in Tehran: “He is under enormous threats from the very Iranian leadership that it is that we are pushing back against,” Pompeo said on “Fox News Sunday” with Chris Wallace.

Meanwhile, President Trump’s reaction was unexpectedly more direct. According to reports, Trump has threatened massive sanctions in the event that the Iraqi government expels US troops. If Iraq did not meet the US conditions for a withdrawal, the US government would impose sanctions “like never before,” Trump said on Sunday evening.

Besides the sanctions, the government in Baghdad would have to reimburse the cost of specific US-built infrastructure in Iraq, including a modern airbase worth a billion-dollar. “We will not deduct unless they refund us,” said Trump. If no amicable solution between the two could be found, sanctions to which “the Iran sanctions will appear somewhat harmless,” will be imposed on Iraq. At this point, the Iraqi government has not yet decided to confirm the parliament’s bill. However, it only seems to be a matter of time.

What makes it so straight forward to demand the troops’ withdrawal is that the current assignment is not part of a conventional Status of Forces agreement, but part of a less formal agreement from 2014, and ultimately relies on the Iraqi government’s approval. Accordingly, if the executive obeyed parliament’s will and the United States did not leave, it may violate international law, as the US could be considered an illegal occupying force. Apart from the symbolic effect, however, Iraq has no means of forcing the United States and its partners to leave even if the government, despite the US’ warnings, confirmed parliament’s bill.

Meanwhile, the US-led international coalition to fight IS has suspended its operations in Iraq over security concerns. The suspension affected both the training of Iraqi security forces and the direct fight against IS, the coalition communicated on Sunday. The 81-country coalition began its mission in June 2014, when ISIS expanded in the region and committed genocide against the Yazidi in Iraq.

L'articolo Iraq Demands Withdrawal Of All US Troops proviene da InsideOver.

To the victor belong the spoils – so goes the old adage. Iraq’s Kurdish community would surely disagree. Instrumental in the military victory over the Islamic State (IS), Kurdistan has fared poorly since the caliphate’s destruction. An abortive independence referendum, spiralling economic fortunes, and international abandonment followed their triumph over extremism – but now, tentatively, things seem to be looking up for the fiercely proud Middle Eastern region.

At the cost of 2,000 military lives – and countless more civilians – the Kurds fought back IS’ brutal three-year onslaught, clearing the group of Iraq’s borders in 2017. Baghdad-controlled Iraqi forces had largely melted away in the face of the extremists’ assault, leaving Kurdistan’s military – the Peshmerga – to pick up the pieces. A feeling of betrayal entrenched itself among the Kurds, which – coupled with the elation of victory – breathed fresh life into shelved independence plans.

A referendum on secession, held in September 2017, passed with a staggering 93% support. But it proved a hasty and ill-thought-out move by the Kurds. Iraq’s federal government had not endorsed the vote and was swift to reject its legitimacy. An international flight ban was imposed on Kurdistan’s main airports, and budgetary support for regional authorities severed. As the crisis deepened, Baghdad dispatched troops to the oil-rich city of Kirkuk, which had been under Peshmerga protection since the fall of IS.

Amid the escalation, Kurdistan’s foreign allies turned their backs on the region. The US expressed support for a “unified, stable and a federal Iraq”, and Turkey – the Kurds’ foremost regional partner – branded the referendum a “grave mistake”. The situation soon became untenable for Kurdish president Masoud Barzani, who promptly annulled the vote and resigned from office.

His legacy was one of power vacuum and economic crisis. Nearly nine-in-ten Kurdish households were bringing in less than $850 per month, data from 2018 showed, with some 20% of young people out of work. Tumbling oil prices and Baghdad’s punitive financial measures ripped through the impoverished and war weary nation.

A change of government in both Baghdad and Erbil has marked a shift in fortunes for the Kurds, however. The recent appointment of Adil Abdul-Mahdi, Iraq’s prime minister, has eased tensions between the neighbours. He is a long-standing friend of Kurdistan, and has already negotiated a new budget for the region. Peshmerga troops are now entitled to a salary, and Kurdish civil servants – all 1.2 million of them – have started to receive their first full pay packet in years.

Nechirvan Barzani, Kurdistan’s new president, looks to be a unifying force in the region’s fractured politically landscape. Power-sharing negotiations between the leading Kurdish parties have resumed, with Barzani winning the backing of two key players – the KDP and Goran – in recent weeks.

International flights have been restored and the economy is on the rise. The exodus of foreign investors has tailed off, with global businesses once again taking an interest in the oil-rich province. Almost $4 billion was injected into the Kurdish economy by foreign companies in 2018, figures show, a five-fold increase on the year before – and “we expect the investment to grow [even] more in the coming months,” said Sarbast Khidr of the region’s investment board.

As state coffers are replenished, authorities are keen to reinvigorate public spending projects. Over 60% of investment schemes in education, health, transport and public services have now resumed, reports suggest. In Erbil, a huge road infrastructure project has been revived, with work recommencing on a major section of the city’s main highway. The region’s oil and gas industry is also recovering well, with aspirations to begin supplying other areas of Iraq by next year – and then Europe, via Turkey, by 2022.

The resurgent Kurds are not without their challenges, however. A steady increase in IS activity in and around Kirkuk has been observed in recent months. Just last week, three civilians were reportedly murdered by the Islamist militants – a reminder that the broken caliphate still poses a deadly threat. And then there’s the issue of IS prisoners. Kurdish officials say they hold more than 5,000 fighters – captured during the war – and warn that they can’t detain them indefinitely.

International tribunals should be established, the regional government has said, allowing suspects to be tried and sentenced in their own countries. Western nations have responded coldly to such suggestions though – most want nothing more to do with terror-minded former citizens. “We’re not looking at that right now,” said a decisive James Jeffrey, the USA’s special representative on IS.

Kurdistan is also wrestling with endemic political corruption. While lower than in Iraq as a whole, levels of malfeasance are “relatively high compared to other countries in the region,” according to the Anti-Corruption Resource Centre. In the last year alone, 198 corruption cases have been submitted to courts by the region’s ‘Integrity Commission’. But progress is slow, says the commission’s boss Ahmad Anwar. He has just 13 officials looking into 800,000 public sector employees. “Without necessary investigators, the commission is like a university without teachers,” he said.

The Peshmerga’s political integration also hinders democratic progress, experts warn. The KDP and PUK – major political parties – both control units within the Kurdish military – and though there have been moves to break these ties, reform is slow.

But Kurdistan has faced off greater challenges in recent years. A potent mix of war, economic collapse and international abandonment might’ve destroyed another state, but the Kurds have proven themselves a resilient people. Dreams of independence have been shelved for now – and perhaps indefinitely – but the grit and determination displayed in the fight against IS has won the region powerful backers. The path ahead may be rocky, but the Kurds’ potential is clear to see.

L'articolo At Last, a Bright Future for the Kurds proviene da InsideOver.