Earlier this month, the international anti-ISIS coalition in Iraq led by the United States suspended its operations against the terrorist group as a result of protests that had sparked after Soleimani’s death.

The Iraqi parliament subsequently passed a bill that seeks to expel all remaining US troops. However, while a final decision is still pending, thousands of international soldiers remain in Iraq, from 60 nations in total, ready to advance operation Inherent Resolve. Meanwhile, the second operation currently conducted in Iraq, a NATO training mission, will depend on whether or not the US leaves the country. For now, however, the main actors remain dedicated and present in Iraq.

The entire anti-IS operation is led by the United States, which currently still has between 5,000 and 6,000 soldiers stationed in Iraq and is spread across several bases such as Union III Base, Camp Victory, Balad, and Ain al-Assad. Alongside the Iraqis and Americans, the bases are also used by other western armed forces. The airport near the Kurdish city of Erbil in northeastern Iraq is the base camp for the United States and other nations.

Germany, for example, maintains “Camp Stephan” here. Berlin had deployed 152 soldiers who were involved in training the Iraqi and Kurdish military. After the suspension, the 32 Bundeswehr soldiers stationed in central Iraqi Taji were all relocated to Jordan. Meanwhile, 117 Bundeswehr soldiers remain in the northern Iraqi military base near the Kurdish city of Erbil.

Britain has approximately 400 soldiers and 1,000 civilians as instructors in Iraq, most of whom are based in Taji, some in Erbil. During January, London moved around 50 British from Baghdad to Taji. However, Britain has not yet planned to withdraw its troops from Iraq.

Meanwhile, Paris will also keep its 200 troops in Iraq, of whom 160 are military instructors. Italy has stationed between 600 and 1,000 soldiers in Iraq who are to remain. However, around 50 Carabinieri, who trained Iraqi security forces as part of the NATO mission in Union III Base, were transferred in light of the mission’s temporary suspension.

Poland also has around 150 soldiers working in the anti-IS coalition in Iraq, and a further 60 are on the NATO training mission. So far, Warsaw has stated it would only withdraw its troops if the government in Baghdad requests it. Meanwhile, Canada has 500 soldiers in Iraq, partly as part of the anti-IS coalition and partly for the NATO training mission. In the Soleimani aftermath, parts of the troops have been temporarily transferred to Kuwait.

Denmark has deployed around 130 soldiers to the Al-Assad military base as part of the anti-IS coalition. Another ten were instructors for NATO in Baghdad. Spain, on the other hand, has stationed around 500 soldiers in Iraq, 70 of whom are part of the NATO training mission. Large troops are stationed in Besmaya in the region around Baghdad. Some of the Spaniards have since been relocated to Kuwait in the meantime.

As so often, Australia also plays its part in the mission and has approximately 300 soldiers in Iraq with no intention of opting out at this point. The Australian military is primarily tasked with training Iraqi military personnel. The Netherlands is also on a training mission that includes the training of Iraqi and Kurdish soldiers in Baghdad, but especially in Erbil. The approximately 60 Dutch soldiers are said to remain in Iraq for the foreseeable future.

Hungary has 160 to 200 soldiers stationed in Erbil, most of them also as trainers. The government has not yet planned to withdraw the soldiers. Norway employs around 60 soldiers as instructors out of the al-Assad base, while 10 soldiers are part of the NATO training mission.

Finland deployed 78 military trainers who have been affected by the operation’s suspension but are said to remain in the country. New Zealand’s approximately 100 soldiers and are also said to remain in the country. Meanwhile, Slovenia, Slovakia, Croatia, Lithuania, and Romania, each with only a few soldiers stationed in Iraq, have temporarily withdrawn them from the country.

While the international commitment in the operations is noble, these figures nonetheless indicate how crucial the US’ presence and leadership in these missions are. If the US troops were to leave Iraq, whether voluntarily or based on Iraq’s decision, the mission would de facto fail.

While NATO is currently reviewing its training mission, the faith of the anti-IS coalition will depend on Iraq’s future path, either towards Iran – and subsequently the Islamic State – or the international community.

L'articolo The International Community and its Commitment Towards Iraq proviene da InsideOver.

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.