On Sunday, November 15 Iran and Iraq held talks to strengthen military cooperation between both countries who fought a bitter war in the 1980s.

The Recent Iran-Iraq Meeting

Iraqi Defense Minister, Jouma Anad, made a two-day visit to Tehran on Saturday, November 14 to meet with Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces Major General Mohammad Hossein Baqeri. Both worked to prepare a document on military cooperation which they will sign next week.

Anad and Bageri discussed several defense-related issues, such as a planned military exercise and enhancing security at common borders. Baqeri is optimistic the cooperation will strengthen Iraq’s military capability in combating terrorism, claiming that the US is sparking terrorism in the country that has long been Iran’s geopolitical enemy. 

Such an agreement will likely increase Iran’s influence in Iraq. Tehran’s Iraqi role already rose in importance when a Shi’ite leader took over in Iraq after toppling Saddam Hussein in 2003.

Understanding the Iran-Iraq War

On September 22, 1980, the war erupted when Iraqi troops invaded Iran’s oil-producing province of Khuzestan. The attack occurred one year after Iran ousted their US-backed monarch the Shah, marking the birth of Islamic revolution.

It is estimated the Iran-Iraq war claimed around 1.5 million lives. Even though many analysts argued that the contested Shatt Al-Arab River boundary triggered the war between both nations, other experts have different opinions about the war’s roots, since it involves several aspects, including the US and other parties’ intervention.

The war also cannot be separated from the regime change which occurred in both countries, as Williamson Murray and Kevin M. Woods in the book entitled the Iran-Iraq War: A Military and Strategic History (2014). In Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini came to power to overthrow the Shah Reza Pahlevi regime. In the same year, Saddam Hussein and the Baath Party succeeded in forcing then-President Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr to resign.

A truce ended the war without a winner in 1988 and both countries normalized diplomatic ties on August 16, 1990, when the peace accord was signed.

Post-War Iran-Iraq Relations

The US invasion of Iraq in 2003 pushed the Iraqi government further into the arms of Iran as it began to rely on cheap Iran construction materials. Under Saddam Hussein, Iran’s goods were widely smuggled through the border, a Euronews report revealed.

Iran also needs Iraq since it is a key export destination due to the US sanctions that have crippled Iran’s economy.

“Iranian companies are looking for somewhere full of consumers, as you can’t grow your sales in Iran now because things are tough,” explained Esfandyar Batmanghelidj of Bourse & Bazaar, a news and analysis website supporting business diplomacy with Iran.

Iran’s Influence in Iraq Politics

In November of last year, a US-based media published cables from Iranian intelligence showing Iran’s sizable influence in Iraq politics. In 2019, mass demonstrations in Iraq sparked by corruption and economic hardship ­turned into anti-Iran protests as rioters targeted Iran-related buildings.

No Iraqi politicians can be a prime minister without Tehran’s approval one of the cables revealed. Adil Abdul Mahdi— former Iraqi Prime Minister who resigned last May — was then considered a figure both Tehran and Washington accepted.

“According to one of the leaked Iranian intelligence cables, Mr. Mahdi, who in exile worked closely with Iran while Saddam Hussein was in power in Iraq, had a “special relationship with the I.R.I.” — the Islamic Republic of Iran — when he was Iraq’s oil minister in 2014,” the document stated.

What are Tehran’s Plans for Iraq?

This year’s military cooperation deal comes amid the UN decision to lift the arms embargo on Iran — which the US opposes. Previously in 2017, Iran and Iraq also inked a military accord, raising Washington’s concern given Iran’s role in Syria and Yemen.

This deal will pave the way for Iran’s defense equipment sale to Iraq, given that Iran continues to build up its weaponry despite the sanctions.

Iraq has been Iran’s main customer of Iran’s weapons. In 2014, Iraq’s procurement of Iran’s arms reached US$ 10 million, including anti-tank missiles, communication systems, sniper refiles, and many more, as Business Insider reported.

Furthermore, Iran plans to build its helicopters and sell them to Iraq, Islamic Republic of Iran Army Aviation (IRIAA) Commander Brig.-Gen. Yousef Ghorbani stated earlier this month.

“The Iraqi side was very willing to buy our parts and install night-vision systems on helicopters,” Ghorbani said after the meeting with the Iraqi Air Force.

Interestingly, Iran has also maintained a fleet of US-made helicopters since the 1970s. Now, Tehran has ambitions to produce its own, aiming to become one of the region’s military powerhouses and reduce imports from other countries.

The Iran-Iraq military deal is likely to mark a further strengthening of Iran’s influence in Iraq, which has been waning for some time. It should also serve as a caution of Iran’s resurgence into a regional military power despite sanctions pressure.  

L'articolo New Iran-Iraq Military Agreement Strengthens Tehran’s Influence proviene da InsideOver.

New US Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller has announced that US troop strength will be reduced in Afghanistan and Iraq. The decision from President Donald Trump has been met with criticism and concern — even among some Republicans.

How Many Troops are Being Pulled from Afghanistan and Iraq?

On Trump’s orders, the US will reduce its troop strength in Afghanistan from around 4,500 soldiers to 2,500 soldiers by mid-January, while the number of soldiers in Iraq is set to be reduced by around 500 to 2,500 by January 15. Miller announced the reductions on Tuesday evening.

The decision marks an accelerated partial withdrawal of US troops before the inauguration of President-elect Joe Biden on January 20.

Over the past few days, several media had reported about ongoing preparations for withdrawals. The Pentagon has  kept a low profile on the number of troops currently stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, according to CNN, there are currently 4,500 American military members still in Afghanistan and 3,000 in Iraq.

Trump’s Firing of Sec Def Esper and Appointment of High-Ranking Loyalists

The partial withdrawal follows Trump’s electoral defeat against Biden. Shortly thereafter, Trump released Secretary of Defense Mark Esper of his duties, which initiated the replacement of several high-ranking positions in the Pentagon with Trump supporters.

For example, former Army officer Douglas MacGregor was appointed senior advisor to Miller. MacGregor is known as a critic of the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Esper, however, had insisted on maintaining a troop strength of 4,500 soldiers in Afghanistan.

Trump’s Promises to Bring the Troops Home

Trump had already promised to bring troops home in the 2016 election campaign. In particular, he pushed for the withdrawal from Afghanistan.The plans had led to criticism and concern from NATO and even among Trump’s Republican colleagues. It is feared that the extremist Islamic Taliban — who are currently holding peace talks with the Afghan government — will regain strength as a result of the troop reduction. According to US media reports, the President was recently increasingly frustrated with the pace of the withdrawal. 

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said he expected all allies to keep their pledge to leave Afghanistan in a coordinated and orderly manner only when the time is right.

“We have been in Afghanistan for almost 20 years, and no NATO ally wants to stay longer than necessary,” stressed Stoltenberg. The price for leaving the country too quickly or in an uncoordinated manner could be very high, he added.

The Danger of Afghanistan Regaining its Role as a Terrorist Haven

Afghanistan threatens to become a haven for international terrorists planning attacks on NATO countries. In addition, the Islamic State (ISIS) group may be able to establish territory for their terror caliphate in the country to make up for what it lost in Syria and Iraq.

Leading Republicans in Congress have also warned against a premature withdrawal from the country.

“There is no American who does not wish that the war in Afghanistan against terrorists and their helpers had already been finally won,” said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.  “But that does not change the actual decision that lies ahead of us.” A swift withdrawal of US forces “would harm our allies and please those who wish us harm,” McConnell added.

The Longest War in American History

The war in Afghanistan is the longest in US history. American soldiers have been deployed in the country since 2001. After the September 11 of that year, US-led troops were sent to the Asian nation as part of Operation Enduring Freedom, with operations beginning in October.

At the end of February 2020, Washington signed an agreement with the Taliban which promises the gradual withdrawal of all US and NATO armed forces by the end of April 2021. The Taliban went on to commit to peace talks with the government in Kabul, which began in September. However, the process stalled because of a dispute over procedural issues.

Iraqi Rocket Attacks Greet Withdrawal Announcement

Shortly after the announcement of the withdrawal of troops, several rocket attacks near the US embassy were reported from the Iraqi capital Baghdad. The four rockets were reportedly fired from the east of the capital. The rockets reportedly hit the Green Zone, a highly secure government district which also houses the embassy of the United States and various other nations in Iraq.

Since October last year, almost 90 deadly rocket and bomb attacks have been carried out on foreign embassies, troops, and facilities in Iraq.

L'articolo US Announces Further Withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq proviene da InsideOver.

Fox News reports that US President Donald Trump and the Pentagon intend to cut the number of American troops in Iraq from 5,200 to about 3,500. A US official confirmed that the Iraqi government supports Washington’s troop reduction.

Trump informed reporters that he “looks forward to the day when we don’t have to be there.” The remarks came during an Oval Office meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi.

Trump is Withdrawing the Troops for Electoral Reasons

The announcement comes at a critical time for the Trump administration and it could have a significant domestic impact. There is a presidential election fast approaching and the US President’s latest decision regarding troop reductions in Iraq has come alongside many other significant foreign policy successes. These include the UAE-Israeli agreement and the recent pact between Kosovo and Serbia.

Yet the upcoming US presidential election means that the timing of these decisions is no coincidence, as they help reinforce the image that Trump is a ‘peaceful president.’ Also, if Trump does lose the election as so many opinion polls predict, he has a limited amount of time to achieve many of his aims.

The US President is not withdrawing American troops from Iraq altogether, and he would be wise to do so for now. Obama made the mistake of completely withdrawing US troops from Iraq in 2011, only to return years later to tackle the threat that the Islamic State (IS) posed to the country’s stability. The New York Times discovered that ISIS has mobilized as many as 18,000 fighters in Iraq and Syria. These sleeper cells have carried out sniper attacks, ambushes, kidnappings and assassinations against community leaders and security forces.

ISIS Remains a Threat to Iraq

ISIS has a substantial war chest of as much as $400 million and the terrorist group uses extortion to finance clandestine operations. Farmers in northern Iraq who refuse to pay have their crops burned. Therefore, Trump has managed to balance the need to reduce troop numbers for electoral purposes whilst preserving Iraq’s security.

There are other threats to Iraqi sovereignty beyond ISIS. The US wants to preserve its hegemony in Iraq to counter the threat that Iran and Turkey pose to the Middle East in general. In September 2019, a drone and missile attack targeted an Aramco oil facility in Saudi Arabia. Houthi rebels, known to be supported by Iran, claimed responsibility for the attack.

Michael Rubin, scholar at the Middle East Institute and author of Dancing with the Devil, told Al-Ahram Weekly that attacks by Iranian-sponsored militias will ensure the US remains in the Middle East.

The Iraq War is Adding Trillions to US Debt

A recent online presidential meeting between Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan reaffirmed both leaders’ commitment to preserving Iraq’s sovereignty. It will be harder for them to interfere in Iraq’s affairs if the US remains there.

Regardless, the US cannot remain in Iraq forever due to the impact the Iraq War has had on America’s finances. The Balance found as of August 2020 that the conflict added $1 trillion to the US’s debt, which included increases to the base budgets of the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Veterans Administration (VA). The DOD base budget grew by $193 billion and the VA budget expanded by $47.7 billion.

Successive US presidents will find it difficult to justify spending billions of dollars on overseas operations if the results do not match the funding required for them. At what stage does the US say enough is enough?

Until the threat that ISIS, Iran and Turkey pose to Iraq has been tackled, the presence of US troops in Iraq will continue to have a positive impact. Trump is right to suggest that America cannot fight endless wars, but Iraq must be able to defend itself in the future. It is clear that the day when US soldiers can leave Iraq forever has not yet arrived.

L'articolo What Impact Could Trump’s Reduction of US Troops in Iraq Have? proviene da InsideOver.

The 2003 American invasion of Iraq was always surrounded by dubious justifications. Notwithstanding the obvious lies then President George W. Bush told the American people about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, paving the way for the invasion by US and coalition forces. Life under Saddam Hussein had been belligerent, oppressive, and stagnant. Iraq then was politically stable by brute force only, which was no stability at all.

Playing on the obvious downsides of the Hussein regime, the Bush Administration seized an opportunity to expand US oil and military interests by convincing ordinary Americans that Saddam Hussein was complicit in 9/11. Failing to prove this, Iraq was alleged to possess “weapons of mass destruction,” something Bush knowingly used to sanction a war, in spite of clear shortfalls in intelligence reports at the time that were at best manipulated, or at worst falsified.

Ba’athism And Coups: Iraq’s Troubled History

The greater backdrop to the invasion, however, was a country ill at ease with itself, its neighbors, and its role on the world stage. After Hussein seized the reins from former Ba’ath Party leader Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, a series of badly miscalculated wars with neighbors⁠ – started by Hussein⁠ – as well as failed internal policies, created hardship and discontent for the Iraqi people.

Although the Ba’ath Party had been in power since 1963, the leader Hassan al-Bakr staged a coup upon being ousted, retaking the reins of power. A 1968 bloodless coup saw al-Bakr take complete control of the country, ousting Colonel Abdel Salam Aref whom he had previously helped to install. Over the next decade, Hussein rose from being chief of intelligence services in al-Bakr’s regime, to succeeding his former leader in 1979.

Life was initially good for common Iraqis under al-Bakr, notwithstanding his chosen route to ascension, and Iraq’s image in the Arab world was shifting to one of enhanced standing. Internal tensions within the country’s majority Shia community were persistent, however, and in fact Hussein rose to the presidency on the back of his oppression of a bout of anti-government social unrest, something he crushed in a power grab marked by the brutal oppression of protesters as well as a purging of the Ba’ath Party.

Dreams of Syrian Union Dashed by Hussein

At the time of Hussein taking power, President Al-Bakr had been close to concluding negotiations with Syria to merge the two countries. Such a development would have seen Hussein politically sidelined. Then Syrian president Hafez al-Assad would have become deputy leader of the union under al-Bakr. Instead, under threat of force, the ailing al-Bakr ceded the presidency to Hussein, whereupon Hussein staged a purge, executing opposing voices in his own party in short order. Citizens’ protests were violently suppressed, and all dissenting voices within the party were silenced.

Although Hussein’s Ba’ath regime was officially secular, Iraq’s Sunni Muslim community felt entitled under the new dispensation, Hussein himself being a Sunni Muslim. While actually more nuanced, political upheaval became delineated along that fault line, and Hussein’s belligerence towards largely Shia Muslim Iran also eventually led to the devastating Iraq⁠—Iran war starting in 1980. Iran had experienced a revolution in 1979, at the same time as Hussein was still crushing street protests and executing rivals, and this led to the belief that Iran would be a weak target.

Trading on this assumption, and with the ancient Shia-Sunni factionalism having now become the broad backdrop to conflict in the region, the war between the neighboring states was anything but swift, persisting for eight brutal years.

Iran-Iraq War Ceasefire

A ceasefire was reached in 1988, and a stalemate became the final outcome of hostilities between the two countries. Hussein had failed to demonstrate Iraq’s ability to quash its far larger eastern neighbor, while at the same time he entrenched a pattern of brutal suppression of dissent on the home front. Iraq’s prosperity had evaporated, to be replaced by politics of fear and simmering tension. Hussein’s mismanagement of the economy and regional belligerence had taken its toll.

When the US and coalition forces invaded Iraq in March 2003, they found a weakened and divided nation. In a war now considered one of the larger deceits of the American public (no “weapons of mass destruction” were ever found⁠—the premise upon which Bush had insisted on the immediate need to topple Hussein), Iraq fell within a month. Since then, life in Iraq has been a constant, violent political conflict with diverse armed combatants sporadically detonating bombs that have claimed thousands of lives. Iraq has become a truly fragmented nation and another ugly quagmire for the US, much like Afghanistan.

Iraq Remains a Fractured Nation

Although a government of “national unity” has been in place since the US toppled the Ba’ath regime upon invasion, national unity is an elusive animal in Iraq. Over a dozen armed factions are currently vying for various kinds of control, from territorial to national, while loyalties and allegiances often chop and change too, making attempted solutions and likely outcomes unpredictable. A clear line towards national unity, and political and economic stability remains elusive.

Iraq’s current turmoil is but another moment of social upheaval in a broken country, one bedeviled by foreign interests and acts of aggression, as well as internal fractures that involve religious, cultural, geographic and historical grievances. The latest unrest has an elevated pitch, however, as common Muslims rarely defy clerical dictates on behavior. The last few weeks in Iraq have seen anti-government protesters defy a Shiite cleric and take to the streets, something indicative of the level of discontent common Iraqis are feeling.

Iraq is a country of many armed and adamant factions. Quite apart from opportunistic aggression by smaller groups or coalitions seeking local dominance or other benefits from their belligerence, the current Iraqi army was assembled and trained under American and other foreign oversight. It lacks legitimacy for many, as well as its own genuine sense of identity and purpose at times. Sunni militias allied to Ba’athist loyalists habitually attack the Iraqi Army, and there is also a history of aggression between Islamic State (IS) and the army that reaches back decades. IS is now a major force in the region, still holding onto the desire to establish a caliphate, and populated by many of Hussein’s former military commanders.

Former Hussein strongmen make IS a formidable and persistent force, although the movement itself gives rise to internal tensions of varying degrees, while also prompting citizens’ flight from IS territory towards less politicised regions – something extremely hard to come by in Iraq. Also, up to 35 million Kurds occupy the rugged mountainous region that straddles several borders – Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Armenia and Syria. Kurdish people are in fact the Middle East’s fourth-largest ethnic group, and local and national loyalties play out within the region against the difficulties for Kurds of marrying both their cultural and national identities.

While both the Iraqi army and Kurdish forces had collaborated to combat IS, fighting started between the army and Kurdish fighters in 2017, further fracturing tenuous alliances. Previous conflicts between Turkmen and Kurdish fighters that have been manifest since 2015 add to the fragmentation, as varying objectives coexist within Turkmen politics, some aligned to national (Iraqi) unity, while others seek greater autonomy. The coalition forces on the ground in Iraq are supporting both the Iraqi government and Kurdish forces to repel IS, but are walking a minefield through the two groups’ conflict with each another. Calls for a peaceful resolution between the two warring parties seldom gain traction.

Adding to Iraq’s state of constant conflict are neighboring countries like Turkey, which previously supported Kurdish fighters against IS until around 2017, where after Turkey began systematically attacking Kurdish forces, supporting Iraq’s army in their fight against the Kurds. Ceasefires and truces are as often employed as smokescreens for various and expediently varying political aims. Iraq, weakened by years of oppressive belligerence under Hussein and blasted by the US invasion, has never been able to recover a sense of genteel politics to resolve its innumerable armed conflicts.

Hopes for Future Stability in Iraq

The current unrest in the streets of Baghdad stems from accumulated dissatisfaction with government inability and corruption, economic intransigence, and the seemingly constant stress levels the average Iraqi lives under. The economic immobility, particularly, weighs heavily upon the populace. In an unnatural situation, where a country is so bitterly fragmented and warring because of it, meaningful change is hard to effect. Glimpses of political corruption, and glimpses of the future unchanged all severely tax the collective psyche of a people who have had no rest for decades.

That recent protests occurred in spite of a prominent cleric’s admonishments gives everyone outside a glimpse of just how desperately dissatisfied many Iraqis are.

International pledges towards reconstruction of various cities and other infrastructure have been stymied⁠—it’s difficult to effect meaningful public works in such a fractured and hostile environment. There are more than 2 million internally displaced people in Iraq, floating in a homeostasis many find no longer tenable. With both the central and Kurdish governments also lamentably erratic in paying salaries, the knock-on effect in the country is huge. Economic resurgence in Iraq clearly needs stable government employees, instead that workforce is contributing to the national dissatisfaction, and points to a weak, frail state.

Could Protests Improve Conditions in Iraq?

As unpleasant, dangerous and seemingly unfortunate as protest actions might appear, perhaps they will ultimately form the basis of a long-awaited change in Iraq’s demeanor and policies. It seems that Iraq has much goodwill out in the world, with many international parties pledged to assist in rebuilding the country. Perhaps all that is needed is for common people, as they recently have, to protest loudly, until a new ethos is forced upon the current regime, all warring parties, and insidious outside interests. Iraqis have had enough of war.

The Iraqi parliament voted in January 2020 to evict all remaining US troops still in the country. In response, US President Donald Trump has threatened to slash military and other aid to Iraq that Congress has already approved. It seems the honeymoon that never was is over. Iraq always had to get to the point where it threw off the status of US colony and regained its autonomy.

Having had a glimpse of stability and even a taste of the good life over the years, the Iraqi populace’s anger is now more targeted and more urgent. Outside interests have seldom aided common Iraqis in any real sense. The coalition government is struggling for efficacy and control on many fronts. Perhaps it will indeed be common Iraqi citizens that continue to protest for a return to normality who will prove to be the many straws that break the camel’s back. Iraq desperately needs peace, to enable its citizens to regain their economic optimism and vigor.

L'articolo Iraq Descends Once More into Turmoil: is There Any Hope Ahead? proviene da InsideOver.

Iran will sue US President Donald Trump at the International Criminal Court in The Hague following the American drone strike that killed Iranian Gen. Qassim Suleimani. Gholam Hossein Esmaeili announced his state’s intentions to file lawsuits at the ICC, in Iran, and in Iraq where the assassination took place.

“There is no doubt that the US military has done a terrorist act assassinating Guards Commander Lt. Gen. Soleimani and Second-in-Command of Iraq Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis … and Trump has confessed doing the crime,” Esmaeili said Jan. 14. 

The attack on Suleimani caused immediate concern over a possible war with Iran, with some observers even questioning whether it would bring about a Third World War. None of that came to pass, however, as Iran chose to fire missiles at a US military base in Iraq instead. US officials initially downplayed damage reports, declaring no US casualties, but The Pentagon later amended its report to include 11 injured US military personnel.

Trump and Iranian officials both declared the end of armed hostilities and pledged to move toward peace with a return of diplomatic negotiations. However, Washington levied more sanctions on Iranian officials and Tehran is intent on holding American responsible for what was most likely a war crime. 

What is the ICC?

The ICC is a tribunal with 123 member states, including the entirety of South America, most of Europe, a large portion of Africa, Canada, Australia, Mexico, and New Zealand. Compared to other institutions, such as the UN, the ICC is relatively new. It was spearheaded in the 1990s and formally created with the singing of the Rome Statute at a UN General Assembly on July 17, 1998. 

It should not be confused with the International Court of Justice, which is designed to hear inter-state complaints. The ICJ is a formal branch of the UN, dating back to the organization’s creation in 1948 and every member state is subject to it, unlike the ICC which requires member states to ratify the Rome Statute to join it. 

Consequently, the ICC holds significantly less power than the ICJ, which is used as an avenue to punish individuals it convicts of international crimes. Genocide, crimes against humanity such as murder, torture, and rape, war crimes, and crimes of aggression, like military invasions and blockades, are common areas states use the ICC for redress.

Does it hold any power over the US?

The US has not signed the Rome Statute into law, therefore an ICC ruling is essentially non-binding. An American citizen convicted in the court could, in theory, find their travel options restricted and overseas assets frozen by signatories to the Rome Statute. An American citizen has never been investigated by the court, and in its existence, it has only carried out 12 investigations in total. 

The worst likely outcome, as pointed out by Business Insider, is a stain on the US faces a public relations “embarrassment.” Iran’s case, according to some analysts such as Agnes Callamard, UN special rapporteur on extra-judicial executions, is sound. 

“The targeted killings of Qasem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al Muhandi most likely violate international law [including] human rights law,” Callamard wrote. “Lawful justifications for such killings are very narrowly defined and it is hard to imagine how any of these can apply to these killings.” 

Since the beginning of the US war in Afghanistan, it has never faced such an official, black stain on its international reputation. By assassinating Suleimani, Trump placed America in an unprecedented position. Even that war in Iraq, which resulted in the capture and trial by Iraqis of Saddam Hussein, did not prompt an ICC investigation, despite Washington producing no evidence of weapons of mass destruction. 

Other dictators which have allegedly committed crimes worth of international trial, such as Chinese President Xi Jinping and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, have not been investigated, nor have such actions been seriously put forward.

Further complicating Washington’s case, the Trump administration has produced no evidence to justify the attack. Although it claimed “imminent threats” as the reason, briefings before the US Congress yielded no specifics. As such, if Iran follows through with opening an investigation and subsequent trial at the ICC, the odds are stacked against the US. 

L'articolo Iran Will Take Trump to ICC Over Suleimani Assassination proviene da InsideOver.

For two whole hours, six Democratic presidential candidates took to the stage at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa, for the Democratic presidential primary candidates’ last debate before the February 3 caucuses – the first nominating contest in the Democratic Party presidential primaries for the 2020 presidential election. This means the six Democrats – Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar and Tom Steyer – had their last chance to have a game-changing moment to boost their campaigns or solidify a front-runner status.

Among the topics discussed in the capital and the most populous city in the US state of Iowa, healthcare, the question of electability on how and whether a woman could defeat Donald Trump, and foreign policy.

After the Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani was killed in a US drone strike in Baghdad on 3 January, and the escalating tensions between the United States and Iran, the debate was supposed to kick off with foreign policy. And it did: for more than half an hour, candidates fielded a number of questions about why they were best prepared to be commander-in-chief, whether they would withdraw US troops in Iraq, and how they will prevent the spread of Islamic State terrorism and international trade agreements.

However the beginning of the discussion was led by Biden and Sanders, the latter called former vice president out for his support of the Iraq War in 2002.

Only few days ago, Bernie Sander’s campaign unleashed a full–throated attack on Joe Biden over the 2003 American invasion of Iraq: Vermont Senator accused former vice president of “rewriting history” over his vote for the war.

“The war in Iraq turned out to be the worst foreign policy blunder in the modern history of this country,” Sanders said during the debate in Des Moines. “Joe and I listened to what (former Vice President) Dick Cheney and George Bush and (Secretary of Defense Donald) Rumsfeld had to say. I thought they were lying. I didn’t believe them for a moment. I took to the floor. I did everything I could to prevent that war. Joe saw it differently.”

During his campaign, Biden has struggled to give an explanation on his vote for the Iraq war, not only on the stages. “I said 13 years ago it was a mistake to give the President the authority to go to war if, in fact, he couldn’t get inspectors into Iraq to stop what was thought to be the attempt to get a nuclear weapon. It was a mistake,” Biden said Tuesday night. But once Obama was elected, he said, “he turned to me and asked me to end that war.”

Back in July, Biden acknowledged he did make a bad judgment, trusting the president saying he was only doing that to get inspectors in and get the UN to agree to put inspectors in. The same happened in September 2019 when the former senator from Delaware, who is favorite to win Iowa caucus race, explained he was opposed to Bush’s invasion from the get-go.

“Joe Biden voted and helped lead the effort for the war in Iraq, the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in the modern history of this country,” Sanders added during an interview with CNN earlier this month; his senior campaign adviser Jeff Weaver also expressed his judgement on Biden, “he tried to distort his record on the Iraq War.”

Meanwhile, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has announced the House she will call a vote on Wednesday to transmit the articles of impeachment to the Senate. In Des Moines, the city in Iowa that hosted the debate, voters are split on the U.S. House of Representatives’ decision to impeach President Donald Trump, but nearly half say the president should not be removed from office. According to the latest Des Moines Register together with CNN and Mediacom Iowa Poll, 45 percent registered Iowa voters disapprove of the House decision to impeach the president, 43 percent approve of it and 12 percent aren’t sure.

L'articolo Biden vs Sanders: War in Iraq Dominates Last Democratic Debate 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.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo defended the US drone strike against Iranian general and leader of the Quds Force (the Iranian military abroad), Qasem Soleimani, in Baghdad in order to prevent him from endangering American lives in the Middle East.

Tensions between both sides had already escalated further following the death of a US civilian contractor in Iraq that prompted violence outside the US embassy in Baghdad, which US President Donald Trump blamed on Iran.

Tehran immediately condemned the attack and warned of consequences while protesters in the country have taken to the streets, burning Israeli and American flags.

Meanwhile, the US President tweeted: ‘Iran never won a war, but never lost a negotiation’, which is a direct attack on Barack Obama’s 2015 Iran Deal. His tweet was also a taunt towards the Iranian Government.

As relations between Washington and Tehran continue to worsen, it seems like war is becoming increasingly inevitable between both sides. Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, said that harsh revenge awaited the “criminals” who killed Soleimani. It is unclear what he means by this, but the US embassy in Baghdad has made a sensible decision by urging US citizens to depart immediately following the Iranian general’s death. They are most at risk if war breaks out between both nations.

However, neither side has anything to gain from war. The Bush administration labelled Iran as part of its ‘axis of evil’, but following the 2003 Iraq War, they retreated from the idea of a full-scale invasion of the country. Both Iraq and Libya have taught US administrations that if they invade a nation, they need an exit strategy and they should ensure that there is a stable government in place when they do eventually leave. Almost twenty years after the War on Terror started in Afghanistan, US soldiers are still there. This shows how complex Middle Eastern conflicts can be.

Vox’s Alex Ward anticipates that a US-Iranian conflict would be ‘one of the worst conflicts in history.’ This is because the US would require overwhelming air and naval power to beat Iran into submission. Iranian forces could destroy an American oil tanker travelling through the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial waterway for the global energy trade. The Trump administration would feel compelled to respond in kind. But with no direct channels between both sides, no red lines are being drawn which means the crisis could continue to deepen until both countries declare war.

It is unlikely Trump would have the support of his NATO allies if he went to war with Iran. Many of them deserted Bush during the Iraq War and Britain, the US’s closest ally, seems unlikely to support America this time. The British Government has consistently disagreed with the President’s decision to scrap the Iran Deal. UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab issued a statement in response to Soleimani’s death, urging all parties to de-escalate. Countries like Germany and France also opposed the Trump administration’s decision to end Obama’s deal, and they are also unlikely to support a war.

Trump was elected on a pledge to avoid ‘unnecessary’ conflicts. With an election looming this year, he must ensure he does not break his promise, otherwise his opponents could use it against him. War could cost him the support he needs in what could be a close election.

Both sides have more to gain from opening a direct channel of communication and from the US cancelling all its sanctions in exchange for Iran ending its nuclear missile programme. This is what French President Emmanuel Macron has urged both Washington and Tehran to do, and both the US and Iranian governments should seriously consider this option.

The consequences of war would be devastating, but it is not too late for the US and Iran to reach a peaceful conclusion.

L'articolo What Would the Consequences of a US-Iranian War be? proviene da InsideOver.