Mediaboss Marketing

BAGHDAD (AP) A push led by pro-Iran factions to oust U.S. troops from Iraq following the U.S. airstrike that killed a top Iranian general is gaining momentum, bolstered by a Parliament vote calling on the government to remove them.

But the path forward is unclear, and in Iraqs deeply divided terrain, with a resigned prime minister and raging proxy war between Iran and the U.S., ending Americas 17-year military presence in Iraq is a risky undertaking.

Iraq was barely starting to recover from a devastating four-year war against the Islamic State group when a mass uprising against the countrys ruling elite erupted on Oct. 1, forcing the resignation of Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi two months later. He hasnt been replaced.

A pullout of U.S. troops could cripple the fight against Islamic State militants and allow the extremists to make a comeback. Militants affiliated with IS routinely carry out attacks in northern and western Iraq, hiding out in rugged desert and mountainous areas. Iraqi forces rely on the U.S. for logistics and weapons in pursuing them.

An American withdrawal could also enable Iran to deepen its influence in Iraq, which like Iran is a majority Shiite country.

It is not that simple, Lebanese political analyst Ibrahim Bayram said of any withdrawal. This will increase the complications inside Iraq, the conflicts and contradictions ... and the clash, both political and non-political, between the Iranians and Americans.

U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper, meanwhile, said Monday the United States has made no decision whatsoever to leave Iraq, adding that the U.S. remains committed to the campaign to defeat the Islamic State group in Iraq and the region.

The Iraqi parliamentary vote Sunday calling for the ouster of the 5,200 American troops in Iraq requires Iraqi government approval. But it highlights the sharp deterioration in relations between Washington and Baghdad amid soaring tensions between the U.S. and Iran following the U.S. airstrike that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani at Baghdad airport .

American forces withdrew from Iraq in 2011 but returned in 2014 at the invitation of the government to help battle the Islamic State group. The extremists had seized vast areas in the north and west of the country after Iraqs armed forces collapsed, including the second-largest city, Mosul. A U.S.-led coalition provided crucial air support as Iraqi forces, including Iran-backed militias, regrouped and drove IS out in a costly three-year campaign.

Unlike the previous U.S. deployment, which was governed by the Status of Forces agreement that clearly spelled out the rules of termination, American troops in Iraq are now in the country based on a less formal request by the then prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki.

Pressure has been escalating for a U.S. troop withdrawal since the defeat of IS in 2017, particularly among factions loyal to Iran. But calls for their removal grew louder amid outrage over the U.S. strike last week that killed Soleimani along with senior Iraqi militia leaders.

Abdul-Mahdi asked parliament on Sunday to take urgent measures to ensure the removal of foreign forces from the country. In a sign of the divisions, the parliament session was boycotted by many Sunni and Kurdish legislators who oppose abolishing the deal with the Americans, and most of the lawmakers who voted were Shiite.

It was not clear what steps Abdul-Mahdi would take following the parliamentary vote. Experts were split on whether, as a resigned prime minister, he has the authority to request the termination of the U.S. presence.

Thafer al-Aani, a Sunni lawmaker, said Abdul-Mahdi doesnt want to risk aggravating the Americans too much by acting alone, which is why he turned to Parliament for backing, adding that the vote was mostly for a domestic audience.

He feels that America isolated his government by siding with the protesters. ... He decided to side completely with the Iranians after the killing of Soleimani and because of the U.S. position toward the protests, he said.

The U.S. government repeatedly called on the Iraqi government to stop using excessive force on peaceful protesters. Nearly 500 people were killed by security forces in three months of protests against the countrys top political and religious leaders. The protests have also turned into a revolt by the countrys Shiites against Iranian influence in the country, with protesters burning Iranian interests in the southern provinces.

On Monday, Abdul-Mahdi met with U.S. Ambassador Matthew H. Tueller and stressed the need for the two countries to work together to execute the withdrawal of foreign troops from Iraq, according to a statement from his office.

In their meeting, Abdul-Mahdi said relations with Washington must be built on a sound basis. He didnt elaborate, but said the situation in Iraq was critical and that all efforts were being exerted to prevent sliding towards an open war.

Speaking in Washington, Esper said the U.S. was not pulling troops out of Iraq.

Theres no decision to leave, nor did we issue any plans to leave or prepare to leave, the defense secretary said. He spoke to reporters in response to a letter from a senior U.S. commander that seemed to suggest a withdrawal was underway.

The Iraqi parliament vote angered President Donald Trump, who promptly warned Iraq that he would levy punishing sanctions if the government expelled American troops. He said the U.S. wouldnt leave without being paid for its military investments in Iraq over the years

We will charge them sanctions like theyve never seen before, ever. Itll make Iranian sanctions look somewhat tame, Trump said.

The alarming rhetoric by the two allied nations comes amid a recent series of unclaimed attacks targeting military bases that host U.S. troops in Iraq. One attack killed an American contractor in Kirkuk late last year, and was blamed on an Iran-backed militia. That attack sparked a deadly U.S. airstrike targeting that militia, which in turn led to a New Years Eve assault by militias loyal to Iran on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.

Abbas Kadhim, head of the Washington-based Atlantic Councils Iraq Initiative, said because Abdul-Mahdi has resigned as prime minister, he didnt want to give the impression that he was acting unilaterally and wanted Parliament to be on board, although he has the right to approve the U.S. troop removal himself.

He said there was no reason the Americans should stay now that the mission to defeat IS is over.

The troops are there and its called the coalition to defeat ISIS not the coalition to re-occupy Iraq, Kadhim said. ISIS was defeated and they have no reason to be there now. Kadhim added that an agreement could be worked out whereby some U.S. trainers can stay behind.

Bayram, the Lebanese analyst, said, however, that Trumps reaction shows that the Americans have no intention of exiting smoothly from Iraq.

The United States considers its presence in Iraq fundamental, especially since it rid Iraq in 2003 from Saddam Hussein. America also considers itself an essential partner in Iraq, he said.

___

Karam reported from Beirut. Associated Press writers A.J. Naddaff in Beirut and Lolita C. Baldor in Washington contributed to this report.

See the original post:
Push to oust US troops from Iraq a risky undertaking

The reality on the streets, where antigovernment protests have swelled, with calls for an end to Irans influence, was something else, though, as fear of what may come outweighed any jubilation over the killing of General Suleimani.

Faiq al-Shakhe, a member of Parliament, said the demonstrators showed, no signs of happiness or celebration. Instead, he said, they were worried about a violent response from Iran-aligned militias, who have already killed many protesters and may now, more than ever, see them as agents of the United States.

It was a wrong act from America because America should have coordinated with the Iraqi government, said Ameer Abbas, a protester, who shared the widespread view that the American attack was a violation of Iraqi sovereignty.

Another protester, Mustafa Nader, said, we are all against foreign interventions, whether from Iran, Saudi Arabia or the United States. We do not have a personal problem with Iran, but if America were to intervene at the same level as Iran, you will see as much objection as there has been against Iran, and maybe stronger.

Emma Sky, a former adviser to American forces in Iraq and a senior fellow at Yale, said the American-Iraqi relationship is going to be really damaged by the killing. I think there will be more calls for the U.S. to withdraw troops, she said.

She said Americans will be hard pressed to justify a continued presence in Iraq because of the perception that its objectives are not aimed at promoting a stable Iraq, but containing Iran.

The U.S. doesnt have a policy on Iraq, she said. It has a policy on Iran.

While Iraqs Parliament is sure to take up the issue of the American troop presence, few expect the government to actually expel the Americans. Many Iraqi leaders still view an American presence as vital to its security, and depend on American training of the Iraqi security forces and, for better or worse, as a counterweight to Iranian influence.

See original here:
A Shocked Iraq Reconsiders Its Relationship With the U.S. - The New York Times

Hussein, it turned out, did not have an active WMD program, but was hoping to keep Iran, his regimes longtime foe, guessing as to whether he did have one as a deterrent.

During questioning, Biden mocked Ritter as ol Scotty boy and suggested that his demands that the international community compel Iraq to cooperate with inspectors if met, would give Ritter the unilateral authority to start a war in Iraq. Biden argued that such decisions belonged to higher-level officials. I respectfully suggest they have a responsibility slightly above your pay grade, to decide whether or not to take the nation to war, Biden said. Thats a real tough decision. Thats why they get paid the big bucks. Thats why they get the limos and you dont. I mean this sincerely, Im not trying to be flip.

He ended by redeploying his unusual idiom in thanking Ritter. The reason why Im glad you did what you did: We should come to our milk. We should make a decision, Biden said.

Bidens earlier suggestion that taking Saddam down was the only way to guarantee an end to the WMD program left little doubt where Biden would later come down on the issue.

Bidens grilling of Ritter is important because it gives context to claims Biden later made: First, that when he voted in favor of the invasion of Iraq as a senator, he did not mean to vote for war, but hoped the resolution would empower inspectors to get back into Iraq and monitor the program. And second, that he never believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

On the first claim, Biden told NPR last year that former President George W. Bush looked me in the eye in the Oval Office. He said he needed the vote to be able to get inspectors into Iraq to determine whether or not Saddam Hussein was engaged in dealing with a nuclear program. He got them in and before you know it, we had shock and awe.

But according to Bidens own statements in 1998, he believed that Hussein could never be trusted to eliminate his program, no matter how many inspectors were admitted.

In October 2004, by which time it had become clear there were no WMDs, Biden told an audience at the Council on Foreign Relations, I never believed they had weapons of mass destruction.

In fact, as Biden had said in 1998, he believed not only that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but no amount of inspections or diplomacy could guarantee their removal. That, he told Ritter, could only be done by guys like you in uniform to be back on foot in the desert taking this son of a taking Saddam down.

Bidens thought process puts critical hearings he held in 2002 as chair of the Foreign Relations Committee in sharper context. That summer, as the world was focused on the war in Afghanistan, from where the attacks of September 11, 2001, had been launched, Biden sought to begin a national dialogue on Iraq. During a series of high-profile hearings, he feigned neutrality, but his earlier questioning of Ritter leaves no doubt where he stood: Iraq had WMDs, and the only way to disarm Iraq with confidence was to depose Saddam Hussein. Biden, given his chairmanship, was a leading voice on foreign policy within the party. He had voted against the first Gulf War, waged by Bushs father, and wasnt considered a knee-jerk hawk. His support for the 2003 war made Democratic opposition ultimately untenable even as Ritter, in the run up to it, loudly made the case against war, arguing that the WMD claims were overhyped.

Biden had reason to disbelieve the WMD claims. In a classified hearing on September 24, 2002, at the urging of a staff member, Biden asked then-CIA Director George Tenet what evidence of WMDs the U.S. had technically collected.

None, Senator, Tenet said, according to an account in the book Hubris, by Michael Isikoff and David Corn. Biden, wondering if there was some highly classified evidence, asked Tenet, George, do you want me to clear the staff out of the room? Tenet told him no. Theres no reason to, Senator.

None, Senator that answer will ring in my ears as long as I live, the staffer later told the authors. Later in that same hearing, Biden heard from two government witnesses who rejected the aluminum tubes claim that had been circulating, and would later become a centerpiece of Secretary of State Colin Powells presentation to the United Nations.

Biden, to be sure, was not a full-throated advocate for the war on Bushs terms, and throughout the fall, worked with Republican Sens. Richard Lugar and Chuck Hagel to try to build support for a narrower authorization, that would only allow Bush to attack Iraq for the purpose of dismantling a WMD program. But the effort was undercut by House Democratic leaders, and particularly Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., who pushed ahead with Bushs broader resolution. I was angry, Biden later said, according to Hubris. I was frustrated. But I never second-guess another mans political judgment.

Biden was also aware of the difficulty of invading and occupying Iraq, unlike some of his Republican colleagues. In February 1998, the News Journal of Wilmington reported that Biden saw invasion as unlikely.

Though some Republicans have urged the military to remove Saddam from power entirely, Biden said there was little will for that in Congress. Such a move would require a bloody ground war, the use of 300,000 to 500,000 ground troops, and some kind of continuing presence in Iraq while a new government is installed, he said.

Yet during the summer 2002 hearings, Biden claimed that one thing is clear, these weapons must be dislodged from Saddam Hussein, or Saddam Hussein must be dislodged from power. Given that he was already on record believing that the weapons could never effectively be dislodged from Saddam Hussein, that left only one option: war. Biden voted for the Iraq war resolution on October 11, 2002, three weeks after hearing from Tenet in the classified session.

See original here:
Joe Biden Was Talking Up War With Iraq Years Before Invasion - The Intercept

The US military carried out airstrikes on five sites in Iraq and Syria against the Iranian-backed Kataeb Hezbollah militia, calling it retaliation for last weeks killing of an American contractor in a rocket attack on an Iraqi military base that it blamed on the group.

At least 25 fighters from the Shiite militia were killed and dozens wounded. The targeted group, which is a separate force from the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, operates under the umbrella of the state-sanctioned militias known collectively as the Popular Mobilization Forces, or PMF. Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the deputy commander of the PMF and a founder of Kataeb Hezbollah, was also killed in the strikes Friday that killed Soleimani in Baghdad.

The two were scheduled to meet and were leaving Soleimanis plane at the airport when Fridays attack occurred.

The Iranian-backed Iraqi militia vowed to retaliate for the US airstrikes, the largest targeting an Iraqi state-sanctioned militia in recent years.

A spokesman for Kataeb Hezbollah denied the group was behind last weeks rocket attacks, including the one that killed the American contractor, saying Washington is using them as a pretext to attack his group.

These forces must leave, he said of American troops in Iraq, calling Sundays attack a crime and a massacre.

The Iraqi government said it will reconsider its relationship with the US-led coalition the first time it has said it will do so since an agreement was struck to keep some US troops in the country. It called the attack a flagrant violation of its sovereignty.

Hundreds of Iraqi Shiite militiamen and their supporters broke into the American Embassy compound in Baghdad, smashing a main door and setting fire to a reception area.

The marchers, many of them in militia uniforms, shouted Death to America and Death to Israel outside the compound, hurling water and stones over its walls. The group set up a tent camp overnight in front of the embassy and sprayed graffiti on its walls.

Some commanders of militia factions loyal to Iran joined the protesters outside the embassy in a strikingly bold move. Among them was Qais al-Khizali, the head of one of the most powerful Iranian-backed Shiite militias in Iraq who is on a US terror list, and Hadi al-Amiri, the head of the PMF, the umbrella group for the Iran-backed militias.

President Trump blamed Iran for the breach of the embassy compound in Baghdad and called on Iraq to protect the embassy.

There were no reports of casualties. The State Department said all American personnel were safe and that there were no plans to evacuate the embassy. Following the storming of the compound, Defense Secretary Mark Esper ordered roughly 750 additional American troops to deploy to the region, with another 3,000 placed on standby.

The political influence of the PMF has risen in recent years, and their Shiite allies dominate the parliament and the government. That has made them the target of the anti-government protesters, who set up a sprawling protest camp in central Baghdad, and who for weeks have been trying to enter the Green Zone. Iraqi security forces have beaten them back with tear gas and live ammunition, killing hundreds.

The militiamen and their supporters, however, were able to quickly enter the Green Zone on Tuesday and mass in front of the embassy, with little if any resistance from authorities. Iraqi security forces made no effort to stop the protesters as they marched to the heavily fortified Green Zone after a funeral for those killed in the airstrikes.

The Iran-backed militiamen withdrew from the American Embassy compound after two days of clashes with American security forces.

US Marines had fired tear gas in response to stones thrown by protesters but no one was reported killed and the tent camp dispersed after the PMF called on its supporters to depart, suggesting their message had been received.

We rubbed Americas nose in the dirt," said Fadhil al-Gezzi, a militia supporter.

Embassy workers and diplomats were ultimately holed up for more than 24 hours during the situation at the embassy. Ambassador Matt Tueller, the American ambassador to Iraq, was traveling at the time of the attack but State Department officials told The Hill that he would return to the embassy amid the tensions.

General Qassem Soleimani, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, and six others were killed in the early-morning airstrike at Baghdad International Airport, Iraqi officials said.

A senior Iraqi security official said the airstrike, conducted by an American drone, took place on an access road near the cargo area of the airport after Soleimani left his plane to be greeted by al-Muhandis and others. The official said the plane had arrived from either Lebanon or Syria.

The supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, warned that a harsh retaliation is waiting for the United States following the attack. The US Department of State warned American citizens to leave Iraq immediately and closed the embassy in Baghdad.

Material from the Associated Press was used in this report.

Peter Bailey-Wells can be reached at peter.bailey-wells@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @pbaileywells.

Read the original post:
Heres a timeline of the recent turmoil in Iraq - The Boston Globe

So far, the Trump administration is keen on a show of force, to demonstrate that Tehran wont win this round.

Hundreds of U.S. paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne Division boarded C-17 Globemaster aircraft on January 1. They are part of the 750 sent to the Middle East after an Iran-backed militia fired rockets that killed a U.S. contractor and, in response, U.S. airstrikes killed two dozen militiamen. Then pro-Iranian protesters, guided by Iraqi politicians, attacked the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. This is President Donald Trumps Iraq moment. He said it wont be another Benghazi, where terrorists attacked a U.S. diplomatic compound and a CIA annex, killing U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, causing the U.S. to withdraw from the city.

The Trump administration is now at a crossroads in its Iran policy and in its wider Middle East strategy. Since walking away from the flawed Iran deal, the U.S. has been pushing maximum pressure sanctions against Iran. Iran has been testing American resolve, attacking oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman in May and June 2019, downing a sophisticated U.S. drone, sending a drone swarm to attack Saudi Arabia, and firing rockets at Israel. Iranian-backed groups have also carriedout eleven attackson bases in Iraq where U.S. forces are present. Trump had been reticent to retaliate,calling off strikesin June after the drone downing. But in mid December, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo warned of a decisive response if the rocket attacks continued. The U.S. also sanctioned Iranian-backed groups in Iraq, including Harakat Hezbollah al-Nujaba, and Qais Khazali, leader of Asaib Ahl al-Haq. The message was clear: If its forces are harmed, the U.S. will take action and will pressure Irans proxies in Iraq.

Kataib Hezbollah, led by Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, launched 32 rockets at the K-1 military base on December 27, killing a U.S. contractor and wounding four U.S. personnel. Muhandishas a long history ofattacking Americans, plotting attacks on the U.S. embassy in Kuwait in the 1980s. He has worked with Hezbollah in the past, and in the mid 2000s he opposed the U.S. in Iraq. U.S. airstrikesin December killedtwo dozen Kataib Hezbollah members, including officers of the unit in Syria and Iraq, in contrast to similar airstrikes Israel has carried out against pro-Iranian groups there. Israel prefers precision strikes that usually kill fewer people.Israel allegedlystruck Kataib Hezbollah in June 2018. For the U.S., the decision to strike was about sending a message that Irans proxies will pay for their actions.

On December 30, a senior State Department official said that the U.S. is serious about confronting Irans activities. Pompeo has said that all Iranian-commanded forces must leave Syria. He went to Iraq in May 2019 to warn of credible threatsagainst us by the Iranians and their proxies. Irans regime studies U.S. decision making and has been poking and prodding all year. It strikes at U.S. allies to see how Israel and Saudi Arabia will respond. Riyadh did not respond to the September attack on Abqaiq;Israel has carriedout more than1,000 airstrikeson 250 targets in Syria.

Iran also wants to show the U.S. that it can circumvent sanctions. Indias foreign minister visited Iran in December, and Iranianforeign minister Javad Zarifwent to Qatar, Oman, Russia, and China. Irans president recently went to Malaysia and Japan.Iran, Russia, andChina held a joint naval drill, and Iran is working on an economic port agreement with India in Irans Chabahar, port which is a lifeline for Afghanistan. Unsurprisingly, Iran has hosted the Taliban, in an effort to pressure theU.S. in Afghanistan.

What can the U.S. do next? Senator Lindsey Grahamhas called on alliesin Iraq to stand with the US. Pompeo has calledout senior Iraqipoliticians and militia leaders for their ties to Iran and for their role in attacking the embassy. He has also called on leaders in Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates tobuild support for U.S.responses.

There are several hurdles now in Iraq. This is Americas Iraq 5.0 moment. In August 1990, the U.S. sent forces to Saudi Arabia to confront Iraqs invasion of Kuwait. The U.S. returned to Iraq in 2003 to remove Saddam Hussein. After the 2007 surge to defeat the Iraqi insurgency, American forces left in 2011. President Barack Obama sent troops at the invitation of Baghdad to help defeat ISIS. Now, facing a potential confrontation with Iran, the US. deployment to Iraq to defend the embassy has been a majorfocus for CENTCOM,U.S. special forces, and OperationInherent Resolve, the anti-ISIS campaign. This indicates how serious U.S. forces are in taking the next step. Trump has spoken out against endless wars, but his team wont countenance more attacks on U.S. forces. This could lead to calm, if Tehran appreciates that Washington is serious; toclearer U.S. support for Israels actionsagainst Iran; and to an anchoring of U.S. forces in areas of southern Syria and the autonomous Kurdistan region of Iraq, a stable and safe area where the U.S. is generally welcome.

But Iraq is at a crossroads as well. Three months of Iraqi protests, often against Irans heavy-handed role in the country, means that many Iraqis are disappointed by the abuses of the same militias that target Americans. Iraqs prime minister has resigned because of the protests, and Iraqs president must choose a new leader. Amid a major crises with the U.S. and Iran, Iraqis are caught, held hostage by militias but wanting to avoid another round of fighting.

Iran wants to pressure the U.S. to leave Iraq. So far Trump is keen on a show of force to demonstrate that Iran wont win this round.

View original post here:
Iran Is Testing U.S. Resolve in Iraq - National Review