Mediaboss Marketing

While much of Washingtoncelebrates the deathof Iranian generalQassem Soleimani, there is a growing movement by various anti-American groups in the Middle East to threaten revenge attacks against our troops. Because we have a solemn duty to safeguard American livesand to avoid unnecessary warwe must withdraw from Iraq and Syria before one more service member is needlessly killed.

The general consensus in the United States has been that Soleimani deserved to die for the many atrocities he has committed in the past., Americans aresharply divided,largely along partisan lines, over whether taking him out at this time was wise or not.

Regardless of where one comes down on the decision to kill Soleimani, every American should support the twin goals of ensuring American national security and preserving of our service members lives. The first goal is already assured because of our global and unrivaled ability to project power. What many dont realize, however, is that the second faces an increasingand unnecessaryrisk.

By taking out such a high-ranking figure, Americas killing of Soleimani created the risk that Iran might retaliate by killing American troops in the region. Trump had been outspoken in his determination to launch apunishing barrageagainst Tehran if they killed any Americans in response.

Thankfully, Iran appears to have blinked by firing largely face-saving strikes againstempty buildingson two American bases in Iraq. The danger to American troops, however, is far from over as numerous groups and militias in the region are vowing to strike U.S. targets in the weeks and months ahead.

Earlier this month, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallahtold mournersat a Soleimani memorial service in Lebanon that, the U.S. bases, the U.S. warships, every American soldier and officer in the Middle East was a legitimate target and that his forces had no choice but to enter a conflict with the United States. More worrisome, however, is the evolving strategy of a constellation of Shia militia joining forces to resist Americas presence in the region

At the request of Iranian leaders, Nasrallah met on Monday in the Iranian city of Qom with multiple key pro-Iranian armed factions, including Kataib Hezbollah, which the U.S. bombed on 29 December, killing 25 members. Nasrallahs purpose was to unify the otherwise fractious militias and ask them to set aside differences so they could focus on forming a unified front to challenge U.S. forces.

One of the Shia militia leaderstold regional mediaoutletMiddle East Eyethat while Iran tries to recover from the leadership vacuum created by Soleimanis killing, Tehran may allow the militias to practice their hobbies from time to time by striking a blow here or there against the American forces, but that all the warring parties will adopt a policy of exchanging slaps for the next two or three months.

After this two or three month period ends, the Shia militias in Lebanon, Iraq, and Iran will have replaced the lost leaders and decided on a unified course of action. Attacks on American troops could become more regular, sophisticatedand lethal. Adding to this threat, Iranian President Hassan Rouhanisaid on Wednesdaythat, today, the American soldier is in danger, tomorrow the European soldier could be in danger."

Dismissing these many and increasing threats as bluster is effectively playing Russian roulette with the lives of our troops. It is also entirely possible that some of the still-active ISIS cells in either Iraq or Syria could stage attacks against American troops in the hopes of blaming it on Shia militias or Iran, which could prompt Trumpregardless of who actually did itto launch a punishing reprisal against Iran.

We dodged a bullet with the Iranian response on 8 January that didnt kill any Americans. The next time we may not be so lucky and the results could spark the all-out war we have thus far avoided.

We should not wait for the Shia militias to recover from their losses and make good on their threats to kill American troops. We should immediately, withdraw our troops from the region on our terms and on our timelines.

Doing so preserves our ability to defend American interests throughout the regionwithout the daily risk to our troops. American ability to project power worldwide is unrivaled. We dont need a handful of troops on the ground in Iraq and Syria to defend our interests anywhere in the region.

Denying easy access for Iran and its proxies to U.S targets should be the guiding principle. Trump was elected in 2016 by promising no more stupid wars. Thats a promise he would be wise to keep..

Daniel L. Davis is a senior fellow for Defense Priorities and a former Lt. Col. in the U.S. Army who retired in 2015 after 21 years, including four combat deployments. Follow him @DanielLDavis1.

Go here to see the original:
Retired U.S. Army Officer: America Needs to Leave Iraq (Now) - The National Interest Online

Backed into a corner and influence waning, the United States has in recent weeks been promoting a plan to create an autonomous Sunni region in western Iraq, officials from both countries told Middle East Eye.

The US efforts, the officials say, come in response to Shia Iraqi parties attempts to expel American troops from their country.

Iraq represents a strategic land bridge between Iran and its allies in Syria, Lebanon and Palestine.

Establishing a US-controlled Sunni buffer zone in western Iraq would deprive Iran of using land routes into Syria and prevent it from reaching the eastern shores of the Mediterranean.

For Washington, the idea of carving out a Sunni region dates back to a 2007 proposition by Joe Biden, who is now vying to be the Democratic Partys presidential candidate.

'The creation of a Sunni region has always been an option for the US. The Iranians cannot be allowed to reach the Mediterranean Sea or benefit from the land bridge connecting them to Hezbollah'

- Former US official

It was hoped that the scheme could tighten US control over Iraq and provide protection for Sunnis during the 2006-08 sectarian civil conflict, in which tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis from both the Sunni and Shia communities were slaughtered.

But opposition to Iraq being divided along sectarian and ethnic lines, as well as Americans insistence on keeping the country united, has postponed attempts at its implementation.

Now efforts to expel US troops have breathed new life into the project, and the creation of a Sunni region is just one of the options being considered by Washington to counter Iranian pressure, a top Iraqi Shia official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told MEE.

Iraqi unity is no longer a priority now for the US, the Shia official said.

If the Americans reach a dead-end in terms of the presence of their forces in Iraq, they will work to implement this project vigorously.

A former US official familiar with the project confirmed that the Americans have worked on "taking this project out of the drawer and putting it on the table".

The creation of a Sunni region has always been an option for the US. The Iranians cannot be allowed to reach the Mediterranean Sea or benefit from the land bridge connecting them to Hezbollah in Lebanon, the former US official told MEE.

"The project is American, not Sunni. The presence of the American forces has been the guarantor for the Sunnis and the Kurds, so if the US has to leave Iraq, then establishing a Sunni region in western Iraq is its plan to curb Iran and its arms in the Middle East, he added.

We are talking about establishing a country, not an administrative region.

Since the 2003 US invasion, Iraq has been one of the largest arenas of conflict between Washington and Tehran.

But tension between the two enemies climaxed on 3 January, when a US drone strike in Baghdad killed top Iranian general Qassem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, deputy head of Iraqs Hashd al-Shaabi paramilitary.

The assassination of Soleimani, who was in charge of Iranian field operations in the Middle East, and Muhandis, who established most of his countrys Shia armed factions and acted as a kind of spiritual father to the fighters, sent shockwaves through Iraq.

It forced Iraqi Shia politicians and a number of their allies to respond to pressure from the armed factions by heading to parliament and voting to end the 17-year US military presence in the country.

Tracked, targeted, killed: Qassem Soleimani's final hours

Though it was non-binding, the 5 January vote to expel foreign forces sent a powerful message.

The absence of Sunni and Kurdish MPs in parliament highlighted the fragile relationship between Sunni leaders and their Iran-backed Shia allies. Most abstaining MPs left Baghdad toward either Erbil in northern Iraq or Jordans Amman for fear of retaliation.

The latest developments in Iraq have prompted them to search for other options, foremost among which was an autonomous Sunni region, Sunni lawmakers told MEE.

As soon as some Sunni politicians arrived in Erbil and Amman, they met US officials there to "discuss options for both sides, sources said.

In the early hours of 8 January, Iran targeted two Iraqi military bases hosting US forces, one in western Iraq and the other in the north, with ballistic missiles that left no casualties.

Less than 24 hours later, US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs David Schenker flew to Erbil, without going through Baghdad, to meet key US ally and former president of the Kurdistan Regional Government, Masoud Barzani, in addition to a number of other Kurdish officials.

Although statements later issued by the US did not mention any meetings that took place with Sunni leaders in Erbil, many sources confirmed that both the assistant secretary of state and Stephen Fagin, the US consul in Erbil, met a number of Sunni politicians to discuss the implications of the parliaments decision, the threats that Sunnis face and options for facing the two issues.

On the same day, Schenker flew to the UAE. There, he later said, he met "by chance" with the speaker of the Iraqi parliament, Muhammad al-Halbousi, who happened to be there.

After meeting with Schenker, Halbousi held a series of meetings in the UAE on 9 and 10 January with several prominent Sunni leaders.

'The talks on this topic are uninterrupted and increase in frequency over time'

-Abdullah al-Khirbeit,Sunni lawmaker

The idea of establishing a Sunni region came as a reaction to Shia forces attempts to make crucial decisions without the approval of Sunnis, a lawmaker who participated in the UAE meetings told MEE on condition of anonymity.

"Claims for our own region do not come on a sectarian basis, but on an administrative basis to develop our provinces, the lawmaker said.

The attendees agreed on the idea and said that they will present it to our audience at an appropriate time.

Halbousi, who is currently the strongest Sunni ally of the Iranian-backed al-Binnaa parliamentary alliance, and who secured his office thanks to this support, has denied that such a plan was even discussed, let alone agreed upon.

However, a number of leaders in Halbousis coalition have said they are subject to pressure from political partners keen to pursue the plan, and are presented with various temptations.

The talks on this topic are uninterrupted and increase in frequency over time, Abdullah al-Khirbeit, a prominent Sunni lawmaker and a close ally of Halbousi, told MEE.

When we say we want decentralisation in Iraq, this can be discussed. But federalism and confederation is not acceptable to us because it means dividing Iraq.

None of the Sunni and Shialeaders and officials spoken to by MEE have any clear idea of the projects details.

They all say that it is still just ideas and no clear information has been provided regarding the regions prospective borders, the number of provinces it would contain and mechanisms to solve the problems that it will face.

It is perfectly clear, however, that the project will be launched from Anbar province, to later include the provinces of Nineveh and Salah al-Din, and part of Diyala.

The proposed Sunni region will be created first in accordance with the articles of the Iraqi constitution, which allows for administrative regions to be established alongside Kurdistan.

Later, the region will be temporarily annexed to Kurdistan in a federal or confederal form, "to avoid the conflict between Sunnis and Kurds over Kirkuk and the disputed areas", according to a prominent Sunni leader.

The last step, MEE understands, will be to have this region recognised internationally.

The Arab Gulf states allied to US, led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, support and finance this project, Sunni and Shia leaders and officials told MEE.

Funding is in place, international pressure is in place, and the necessary military strength is in place to create this region, a prominent Sunni leader familiar with the talks said.

'Neither Iran nor the Shia forces will be able to stand against the project because the US and Gulf states back it'

- Sunni leader

Neither Iran nor the Shia forces will be able to stand against the project because the US and Gulf states back it, the leader added.

A huge amount of money and investment offered by the Sunni states is at stake, and these will turn the Anbar desert into green oases and rebuild the destroyed areas in Mosul and Salah al-Din. Who will care about oil?

Since 1 October, Baghdad and nine predominantly Shia provinces have been rocked by anti-government demonstrations, which have demanded an end to corruption, the governments downfall and early elections based on a new electoral law that will limit Irans influence.

Iraqi security forces and some Iran-backed armed groups have led a bloody crackdown on demonstrators, activists and journalists in response, killing some 500 people.

The Sunni-dominated governorates have not participated in the demonstrations, however, fearing it could be used by Shia factions to justify violent repression.

'No to America, no to Iran': Thousands protest against foreign influence across Iraq

And while the majority of Sunni politicians have remained silent over the protests, in general Sunnis have shown sympathy for the Shia protesters cause.

Leaders familiar with the ongoing talks on partitioning Iraq said that Sunni politicians are seriously involved in the discussions and are waiting to see the demonstrations outcome before deciding on their path.

"The meetings are taking place in full swing, and all the Sunni leaders are attending. But they deny this publicly, waiting for the conditions that protect them, a prominent Sunni leader familiar with the talks told MEE.

If the protesters are able to force through a national government that takes care of all Iraqi communities, then the Sunnis will reject any planned autonomous area, the leader said.

Failure to achieve this, he warned, would see Sunnis supporting the partition project en masse.

"Sunnis do not want to be part of the Shia crescent, and refuse to submit to Iranian control. So they will offer the Americans permission to build military bases in their lands, in exchange for the necessary support to establish the desired region.

This article is available in French on Middle East Eye French edition.

Read more:
US seeking to carve out Sunni state as its influence in Iraq wanes - Middle East Eye

Donald Trumps impeachment trial is already unfolding as a Mitch McConnell-coordinated farce. This week on Intercepted: The charges against Trump are serious, but theyraise the question of why Congress has never impeached a president for war crimes. None of the three Senate trials of a president was for imperial crimes committed in plain sight, despite a long history of presidents invading countries, killing civilians, and torturing prisoners. Constitutional and international law scholar Marjorie Cohn discusses the trial of Trump, the refusal of lawmakers to prosecute war crimes, and presents the case that Trump should be impeached for assassinating Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani in Baghdad. This month marks 29 straight years that the U.S. has been bombing Iraq. Joe Biden, who proactively aided and abetted the Bush administrations drive for war, has been openly lying about his record, but Bernie Sanders also has some serious questions he needs to answer about his own support for regime change, missile strikes and deadly economic sanctions. Jeremy Scahill and Sam Husseini, of the Institute for Public Accuracy, present a thorough history of both candidates records on Iraq over the past three decades.

Transcript coming soon.

Go here to read the rest:
Sanders, Biden, and the Rewriting of Iraq War History - The Intercept

As the United States is entering its 19th year of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, the presence of our troops in the respective regions can be out of sight and out of mind. All it takes is some attention, such as a breaking news story, for eyes and hearts to turn back to remembering the dangers our men and women in uniform continue to face. The attacks on U.S. military bases this month reminded the nation we still have troops on the ground and their lives were in imminent danger.

In the last couple of weeks, our U.S. Embassy in Iraq was under attack, Iran-backed militias were responsible for the death of an American contractor, and most recently, more than a dozen missiles attacked Iraqi-U.S. bases housing our troops. Out of the roughly 5,000 U.S. troops deployed in Iraq, more than 2,000 are from Alaska. Between the Stryker Brigade out of Fort Wainwright and the Alaska Guard Rescue Squadron from Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, our Alaska troops have a large presence in the region and are key contributors in supporting Operation Inherent Resolve in an effort to eliminate the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

Alaska soldiers were in charge of fence and base exterior security at Al-Asad. The night before the missile attacks, the base commander ordered troops to bunker and lock down the bases. Some units were able to evacuate with their aircraft while others sought shelter in hardened buildings or bunkers. However, many of the Alaska soldiers were to remain on the fence to ensure base security during the attack and sheltered in their vehicles.

After the attacks, commanders sought accountability of their troops and checked for casualties. The Explosive Ordnance Disposal, or EOD, teams conducted sweeps to ensure no units remained unexploded. Afterward, they began the clean-up process to remove rubble, destroyed buildings and equipment.

Ive spoken to several of our Alaska-based military members and expressed my admiration for their strength under fire as well as relief that they sustained no casualties. Their matter-of-fact attitude of we were just doing our job is inspirational. It hasnt taken long for news reports to shift to the next hot-button issue, and most have already stopped talking about the strikes and the status of our U.S. troops. Its important as the reports of whats happening in the Middle East are less frequent, we remember our troops are still there. As Ive learned, sometimes the best thing we can do to help is simply be supportive to them and their families back home. To let them know while they are far in distance, they are near at heart.

I thank these men and women for their service and remind Alaskans and the nation that we must never forget their sacrifices. Our thank you needs to be continuous, not just when the news is on the front page.

I encourage Alaskans to think about ways we can show our support for those who serve our country, their families and loved ones, and to let them know through our actions that they are appreciated from how we remember them while afar to welcoming them when they come back home.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, first elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004, is Alaskas senior U.S. senator.

Read the original post:
Alaskans are in harm's way in Iraq. We should remember they're there. - Anchorage Daily News

KUWAIT (Reuters) - Qatar Airways, Emirates and several other Gulf airlines still fly in Iraqi and Iranian airspace and to cities in both countries, even as other international carriers have rerouted planes since the United States and Iran traded military strikes.

FILE PHOTO: An Emirates Airbus A380-800 airliner prepares to land at Nice international airport, France, January 18, 2018. REUTERS/Eric Gaillard

Executives and analysts said carriers in the Gulf, a major transit stop between European and Asian destinations, have few alternative routes to choose from in an area where much of the airspace is kept clear of civilian aircraft for military use.

In the latest flare up, a U.S. drone strike killed a top general in Iraq on Jan. 3 and Iran fired missiles at U.S. targets in Iraq on Jan. 8. In the tense aftermath, Irans air defenses accidentally shot down a Ukrainian airliner.

Gulf carriers have grown into major airlines even as regional tensions in recent decades erupted into conflict. Rerouting flights hurts profits, they say, although they also insist that they take every precaution to keep passengers safe.

Iranian airspace is important for all carriers in this region, said Adil al-Ghaith, Emirates senior vice president, commercial operations, Gulf, Middle East and Iran.

Dubai-based Emirates and sister carrier flydubai together serve 10 cities in Iran and Iraq, and have continued to use the airspace of both countries for other flights.

Kuwait Airways and Abu Dhabi-based Etihad Airways have continued using Iranian and Iraqi airspace.

We will continue to fly to Iran because Iran is an important country to us and it is our neighbor and we want to serve the people of Iran, Qatar Airways Chief Executive Akbar al-Baker said on the sidelines of a Kuwait air show.

Qatar has forged closer economic ties with Iran since 2017 when neighboring Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and other Arab states cut relations with Doha in a diplomatic row.

The Qatari state carrier turned to Iranian airspace to keep its network that flies through its Doha hub operating.

At the same time, many other international carriers have rerouted flights to avoid Iraq and Iran since the military strikes this month, including Lufthansa (LHAG.DE), Air France (AIRF.PA), Singapore Airlines (SIAL.SI) and Qantas (QAN.AX).

Some regional carriers have also changed their routes. Bahrains Gulf Air has redirected European flights away from Iraqi airspace and now flies longer, more fuel consuming routes over Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

We want to take the safest option even if it costs us a little bit more for a period of time. We can live with that, Gulf Air Deputy Chief Executive Waleed Abdulhameed al-Alawi told Reuters.

The UAE regulator told its carriers Emirates, Etihad, flydubai and Air Arabia (AIRA.DU) this month to evaluate flight path risks although it said it was up to the airlines to make the final decision on the routes they chose.

Gulf carriers face a big challenge but that doesnt mean that risks can be taken - even if that inflicts damage on the business model, independent aviation consultant John Strickland said.

Ukrainian International Airlines flight 752, bound for Kiev, was shot down in error after taking off from Tehran on Jan. 8, killing all 176 people aboard. Iran said on Saturday it was sending the black boxes to Ukraine.

(This story was refiled to remove extraneous word in paragraph 13)

Reporting by Alexander Cornwell; Editing by Edmund Blair

Read the original here:
Gulf carriers fly over Iraq, Iran after military action deters others - Reuters