Mediaboss Marketing

A senior Iraqi politician says the United States supports six armed terrorist groups and organizations operating near Iraqs border with Iran.

Jabbar Odeh, one of the leaders of Iraq's Coordination Framework Alliance, was cited by al-Maloumah news agency as making the statement in an interview on Saturday night.

The US foreign policy is based on creating sedition and international conflicts and disputes, because Washington is the heir and follower of the British policy, which is the policy of divide and rule, Odeh said.

Pointing to the various kinds of support the United States provides to the groups near the border in the Kurdistan region, the Iraqi politician said Washington is using the terrorist groups as leverage to turn the area into a scene of regional conflict.

We consider the presence and activity of these groups around the Iraqi borders with neighboring countries as illegal since Iraqs Constitution has emphasized the prohibition of any activity against neighboring countries bordering Iraq, Odeh said.

Through the financial support of armed groups, the United States is jeopardizing the security of the Iraqi Kurdistan region and pushing the region towards a dangerous direction.

Odeh said the terrorist groups, which are hiding in the heights of the Kurdistan region of Iraq, are tools at the disposal of the American intelligence services.

While the United States claims it has ended its combat mission in Iraq, some 2,500 troops still remain in the country. Under pressure from Iraqi people, US President Joe Biden and Iraqs then Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi declared in July 2021 that the US mission in Iraq would transition from combat to an advisory role by the end of that year.

Back in February, the head of the Iraqi resistance group Harakat Hezbollah Nujaba, Akram al-Kaabi, stated there is no friendship between Baghdad and Washington, and the American occupation forces cannot stay in the Arab country under any pretext.

There is no friendship with America, he said. The US is an enemy and will remain an enemy. We do not accept the staying of American forces, including advisers, technicians and combat forces. The resistance has no other position and will never change it.

On March 19, 2003, the US and Britain invaded Iraq in blatant violation of international law and under the pretext of finding Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). No such weapons were ever discovered in Iraq.

More than one million Iraqis were killed as a result of the US-led invasion, and occupation of the country, according to the California-based investigative organization Project Censored.

More:
US supports six armed terrorist groups on Iraq-Iran border: Politician - Press TV

Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States which occurred over 20 years ago, democracy within the country eroded. A week after the terrorist atrocities, on 18 September 2001 President George W. Bush signed into law the Authorization for Use of Military Force, which was promptly approved by the US Congress. This legislation granted President Bush the power to use the necessary and appropriate force against Americas perceived enemies.

Bush said his government will not only deal with those who dare attack America, but we will also deal with those who harbor them and feed them and house them. On 7 October 2001 the US, with the participation of Britain, Canada and Australia, started bombing Afghanistan, and US ground forces were landing in Afghanistan on 18 October.

Read more: US lawmakers officially end Iraq wars

There was a period of only 26 days, between the 9/11 attacks and when the US bombing of Afghanistan commenced on 7 October. It takes significantly longer than 26 days to prepare a military offensive against a sizable country like Afghanistan. By 26 September, just 15 days after 9/11, operatives from the CIA werepresenton Afghan soil.

Niaz Naik, an experienced diplomat and Pakistans former Foreign Secretary (198286), revealed he had been told by senior American officials in mid-July 2001 that Washington, by then, haddecidedto take military action against Afghanistan. We can assume the actual planning of a military campaign in Afghanistan would have preceded July 2001 by some weeks or months, very soon after Bush entered office on 20 January 2001.

Bush signed into law the Patriot Act on 26 October 2001, which enlarged the governments powers for the electronic surveillance of citizens by the US National Security Agency (NSA); the Patriot Act further established the new crime of domestic terrorism in broad terms, relating to acts of civil disobedience regardless of the political motivation. This was a violation of the US Constitution and which undermined the countrys domestic legal structure.

Nearly a year later, Bush declared the National Security Strategy of the United States on 17 September 2002, in which he stated the battle against the anti-American insurgency could not be won by defensive methods; and that Washington had the right to launch pre-emptive wars unilaterally.Bush further implemented his foreign policy goals, by launching a military offensive against Iraq beginning on 20 March 2003. Bushs government was supported in the attack by the British, Australians and Poles. Washingtons NATO allies France and Germany refused to partake in it.

However, Angela Merkelthe then Leader of the Opposition in Berlinprovided strong public support for the US-led invasion of Iraq, despite doubts from within her own party, the Christian Democratic Union. Shortly before the attack on Iraq began Merkel said war was unavoidable and Not acting would have caused more damage. Merkel tried to cover this up in 2016 when shesaid, I never support war.I did not support the war in Iraq. I was very upset that it was not possible to come up with a common position between the Europeans and the United States.

Read more: US lawmakers officially end Iraq wars

In June 2003 the US Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, was asked during a trip to Singapore why the Americans had not chosen a military solution regarding North Korea, as with Iraq. Wolfowitzreplied, Lets look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil.

Moreover, North Korea has for many years boasted a large army and a formidable arsenal of weapons, which may well be the main reason the US has not launched a military intervention in North Korea since the Korean War ended in 1953. For whatever problems there are within North Korean society, Pyongyangs policy of building a strong military has been a shrewd undertaking. In the event of war between the US and North Korea, the North Koreans would be left with little alternative but to direct the full weight of their military power against South Korea, as the Americans are aware of. Washington had no such issues with Iraq, the country poorly armed in comparison.

A German geologist who explored Iraq and the surrounding area, before the First World War, estimated the region contained the largest undeveloped resources of oil on earth, and he predicted the power that controls the oil lands of Persia [Iran] and Mesopotamia [Iraq] will control the source of supply of the majority liquid fuel of the future.

After World War I, the British seized the Iraqi capital Baghdad, and Basra in the south of the country. The French took control of northern Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. The Kurdish population were kept in a separate region under British rule, and when they revolted the Colonial Secretary Winston Churchillsaid, I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes.

The US has for decades been more reliant on oil consumption than any other country, and a key foreign policy goal is to safeguard raw materials to sustain the economy and American lifestyle. To provide an example, the American population is massively dependent on petroleum-run automobiles. There arecurrentlyjust over 290 million vehicles in the US for a population of around 335 million, meaning there is nearly a vehicle for every person in the country, and less than 1% of these are electric models. China is considered the worlds biggest manufacturing power, but there is less than 1 vehicle for every 4 people in China, 319 millionvehiclesfor a population of 1.4 billion.

Bushs vice-president Dick Cheney acknowledged that the Gulf War (199091)was concerned, in part, with maintaining Washingtons access to the Persian Gulfs natural resources. On 28 May 2003 Cheneys colleague, Wolfowitz, said the pretext of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) was chosen for bureaucratic reasons by Washington to justify the invasion of Iraq, because it was the only topic which everyone could agree on as a reason for intervening militarily in the country.

Iraqs leader Saddam Hussein must have been irritated, when he was accused of possessing deadly weapons of which he had none. His irritation would have grown, as he was incorrectly blamed for having some sort of involvement in the 9/11 attacks, and of having ties to Al Qaeda.

Rubens Barbosa, former Brazilian ambassador to the US (19992004), wrote in his memoirs that the decision to attack Iraq had been taken before the September 11 attacks. The BBC show Newsnight outlined in March 2005 that the Bush administration had developedplansfor invading Iraq months prior to 9/11, and political infighting had been taking place between the White Houses neo-conservatives and American oil firms, about how to exploit Iraqs wealth.

Bush and his British counterpart, Tony Blair, discussed what to do with the Iraqi oil assets before 2003. Blairs government (19972007) was being lobbied by British oil companies, who wanted assurances they would be able to access Iraqs petroleum reserves after Saddam Hussein was overthrown. Fossil fuel corporations from America and Europe, including Chevron and Shell, had already developed projects pertaining to Iraq before the invasion commenced.

Read more: TikTokers jailed as Iraq targets decadent content

Afterward, geologists from Western multinational firms analyzed the unexplored desert regions of western and southern Iraq. The US Department of Energy surmised that the areas in question couldholdbetween 45 billion to 100 billion barrels of oil. Bush, who had an extensive history of working in the US oil industry, was also interested in ensuring access to raw materials. Bush said in his 2006 State of the Union address, America is addicted to oil which is often imported from unstable parts of the world.

He started to replace the dollar with the euro as the currency for oil transactions, and he had been in negotiations for contracts with foreign energy companies such as Total from France. This insubordination on Saddams part was a major factor in his demise.

When he was a more pliable client, Saddam had been granted considerable support from Washington, including military aid, such as during the Iran-Iraq War (198088). John Kelly, the US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, visited Baghdad shortly after the conclusion of the Iran-Iraq War and told Saddam, You are a force for moderation in the region, and the United States wants to broaden her relationship with Iraq.

When evidence was provided by human rights activists, that Saddams forces had used nerve gas and mustard gas against Iranian soldiers and Kurdish civilians, the US State Department would not condemn him. In the early years of Saddams reign Washington viewed him as a bulwark against Iran, a country which had gained independence from Western control with the 1979 revolution.

President Bush may have truly believed he was going to introduce a free and open society to Iraq by removing Saddam, however misguided such a view was. Yet many Iraqis believe their lives were better off under Saddam, rather than what followed from 2003. In a survey conducted in February 2023, almost 20 years after the US invasion began, 59% of Iraqi respondents said the situation in their country isworsein 2023 compared to life under Saddam, with 40% saying it is better; 66% of Iraqis said the invasion had negative consequences for them.

Read more: TikTokers jailed as Iraq targets decadent content

Following Saddams taking of power in 1979, regardless of some of his notorious actions, he had managed to maintain the structure of the Iraqi state. He was not ultimately responsible for the crippling financial measures which the Western powers had enacted against Iraq, in the decade before 2003.

It had amounted to 90% of government revenues and 58% of the countrys Gross Domestic Product (GDP). During the opening phase of Saddams rule, he used much of the profits gathered from the states oil production in order to modernise the civilian infrastructure, building first-rate hospitals, schools and universities, journalist John Pilger wrote. Pilger noted too that Saddam undertook these policies more than any other Arab leader at the time.

Though Iraq was not a haven under Saddams regime, he had successfully created a fairly large and well-educated middle class. The adult literacy rate in Iraq, those who could read and write, was among the highest in the world under Saddam at about 95%. The adult literacy rate has sincedroppedto just under 80%. Whereas in 1990 the average daily calorie intake for an Iraqi citizen amounted to over 3,000 calories, near the end of the US occupation of Iraq in 2010 this hadfallento 2,580 calories.

Living conditions in Iraq deteriorated since Saddams toppling by the Americans, and sectarian violence greatly worsened from 2003 between the nations Sunni and Shia communities. These problems were also less severe during Saddams reign when Iraq had been a more stable country.

Shane Quinn has contributed on a regular basis to Global Research for almost two years and has had articles published with American news outlets Peoples World and MintPress News, Morning Star in Britain, and Venezuelas Orinoco Tribune. The views expressed in the article are the authors own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Global Village Space.

Read more from the original source:
Discontent in Iraq 20 years after US-led invasion - Global Village space

Baghdad (IraqiNews.com) The International Monetary Fund (IMF) issued a statement about the prospects of the Iraqi economy in terms of the suspension of the Kirkuk-Ceyhan oil pipeline, in addition to the decline in oil production and fluctuations in the currency exchange rate.

The statement explained that a team from the IMF met recently with Iraqi officials in the Jordanian capital, Amman, to discuss recent economic developments and policy plans for the period ahead.

The Iraqi economys growth momentum has slowed in recent months. After returning to its pre-pandemic level last year, oil production is set to contract by five percent in 2023 owing to the OPEC+ production cut and the outage of the Kirkuk-Ceyhan oil pipeline, the statement clarified.

The foreign exchange market volatility in the wake of tighter anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism controls by the Central Bank of Iraq (CBI) on foreign exchange market sales has adversely affected import-dependent non-oil sectors, the statement elaborated.

The real non-oil gross domestic product (GDP) is estimated to have contracted by nine percent in the last quarter of 2022, negating its growth during the previous three quarters, the statement explained.

With the foreign exchange market appearing to be stabilizing, helped by CBIs actions, the growth of real non-oil GDP is expected to resume and reach 3.7 percent in 2023, the statement illustrated.

After inflation spiked to seven percent in January, it began to moderate and is projected to average 5.6 percent in 2023, the statement added.

Continued here:
IMF: Growth rate in Iraq is slowing down - Iraqi News

The Security Council extended the mandate of the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) today for another year until 31May 2024, retaining its core tasks.

Unanimously adopting resolution 2682 (2023) (to be issued as document S/RES/2682(2023)) the Council requested that the SecretaryGenerals Special Representative for Iraq and UNAMI prioritize the provision of advice, support, and assistance to the Government and people of Iraq on advancing inclusive, political dialogue and national and community-level reconciliation, considering civil society input, with the full, equal and meaningful participation of women.

The 15-nation organ also requested the Special Representative and UNAMI to further advise and assist the Government of Iraq in strengthening electoral preparation and processes to ensure free and fair elections; the implementation of constitutional provisions, as well as on the development of processes acceptable to the Government of Iraq to resolve disputed internal boundaries; and progress on security sector reform.

The Council also requested the Special Representative and UNAMI to promote, support, and facilitate, in coordination with the Government of Iraq, the timely, voluntary and dignified return or local integration of internally displaced persons and displaced Iraqis in Syria; the coordination of programmes to improve Iraqs capacity to provide effective essential civil and social services; and efforts on economic reform and capacity-building.

The Mission was also asked to promote accountability and the protection of human rights, and judicial and legal reform; approach gender mainstreaming as a cross-cutting issue throughout its mandate, including by consulting with diverse womens civil society groups; and note the importance of treating children affected by armed conflict primarily as victims.

Further terms of the text requested the Secretary-General to conduct and provide the Security Council, no later than 31March 2024, with an independent strategic review of UNAMI, in consultation with the Government of Iraq, assessing current threats to Iraqs peace and security, as well as the continued relevance of UNAMIs tasks and priorities.

The meeting began at 10:09a.m. and ended at 10:11a.m.

Go here to see the original:
Security Council Authorizes One-Year Mandate Extension of United ... - United Nations

ANKARA: Turkiyes President Recep Tayyip Erdogan unveiled his new Cabinet on Saturday night during his inauguration ceremony, with the appointments providing some indication on the direction the new government is heading on the economy and foreign policy.

The fact that the new vice-president, Cevdet Yilmaz, has a background in economic governance may be an indication that the economy will be a priority as Erdogan embarks on his third decade at the helm of the nation.

Mehmet Simsek, an advocate of investor-friendly and orthodox economic policies, and viewed positively by the financial markets, was named as treasury and finance minister.

Simsek, a former economy chief and deputy prime minister between 2009 and 2018, will be responsible for restoring the confidence of the markets post-elections.

In his previous post, he urged for tighter monetary policy but was replaced by Berat Albayrak, Erdogans son-in-law.

Whether his presence in the cabinet will see a departure from the current unorthodox economic policies, with its low interest rates, remains to be seen. But his appointment is already an important signal to the markets that there will be some changes.

Rather than an abrupt shift in economic policy, gradual steps are expected to be taken in an environment where the lira is sliding to record lows against the dollar.

In his post-election speech, Erdogan said: We are designing an economy focused on investment and employment, with a finance management team that has a global reputation.

Turkiyes economy expanded 4 percent in the first quarter of the year, remaining just above expectations.

Soner Cagaptay, senior fellow at The Washington Institute, told Arab News: If he is also given some independence to adjust ultra-low interest rates, the Turkish economy can make a comeback. But I expect first a devaluation of the lira, which will make Turkiye very cheap for the tourists and affordable for the exports.

If Simsek is given enough flexibility, the markets will believe that he has the mandate to (do) what he has to do for restoring the Turkish economy, said Cagaptay.

With reserves diminishing, some changes in economic governance in the short term are inevitable.

But how substantial and sustainable these changes will be in a centralized decision-making structure remain uncertain and depends on the new roadmap announced.

Experts believe that if Erdogan insists on keeping interest rates low rather than taking austerity measures ahead of local elections that are 10 months away, Simseks appointment would not result in much change to economic policy.

According to Wolfango Piccoli, co-president of London-based Teneo Intelligence, Simseks return would result in a partial re-adjustment of Turkiyes current economic policy, while a dramatic U-turn embracing an outright conventional monetary policy approach remains unlikely.

It is also unclear for how long Erdogan may tolerate a more pragmatic stance on the economic front, given the priority he assigns to the March 2024 local elections, said Piccoli.

In the meantime, former intelligence chief Hakan Fidan joined the cabinet as the new foreign minister. Fidan is known for initiating rapprochement with multiple countries, especially Egypt and those in the Gulf.

He is highly respected in Washington and he is seen as a reliable counterpart, said Cagaptay.

He had been also handling key international portfolios, especially Syria and Russia policies. His appointment is really significant. He is now in the drivers seat.

Cagaptay expects the new cabinet to be friendlier toward Western nations and less antagonistic with regional countries.

In late April, Fidan attended a meeting with his Russian, Iranian and Syrian counterparts in Moscow as part of a rapprochement process with the Bashar Assad regime.

Last year, the handshake between Erdogan and Egypts President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi on the sidelines of the World Cup in Qatar, was also believed to be the result of meetings between the two sides intelligence organizations and foreign ministries.

According to Cagaptay, Erdogan wants top-notch experts on economic and foreign policy, so that he can focus on domestic areas which require almost daily macro-management, including social issues and drafting a new charter.

That he has saved parliamentary seats while forming his cabinet tells us he wants to quickly get to a referendum-triggering legislative majority, he added.

Meanwhile, although Turkiye has already started the process of normalizing ties with Syria and the Assad regime through several high-level meetings under Russian mediation, the Turkish military presence in northern Syria is not expected to end soon.

But new moves for facilitating the safe return of Syrian refugees to their homeland might be taken to fulfil the pledges made by Erdogan during his reelection campaign.

The counterterrorism campaigns in northern Iraq and Syria are also set to continue in the light of the composition of the new cabinet.

Dalia Ziada, director of the Cairo-based MEEM Center for Middle East and Eastern Mediterranean Studies, believes that Fidan is the right man for the job at this particular time with Turkiye rising as a key regional player.

He holds all the important cards and knows by practice the behind-the-scenes issues in Turkiyes foreign policy, she told Arab News.

Fidan enjoys a deep understanding of the situation in the hotspots of the Middle East, ranging from Libya to Sudan and Syria, and he is the only Turkish official to continue to be part of the four-way meetings in Moscow that brought together senior officials from Turkiye, Syria, Russia and Iran in the past few months, Ziada said.

According to Ziada, tangible progress on Turkiyes foreign policy in Syria and the mediating role of Turkiye in the Russia-Ukraine conflict can be expected in the short run with Fidans active role in the foreign policy apparatus.

As Fidan has been the behind-the-curtains architect of the rapprochement in the past two years to fix broken ties with Egypt and Arab Gulf countries, Ziada thinks that his appointment may accelerate the reconciliation process between Turkiye and the North African country.

This will consequently lead to mitigating the civil conflicts in Libya, facilitating the political solution process, and may eventually bring Libya to elections sooner than we think, she said.

El-Sisi and Erdogan have agreed on the immediate start of upgrading diplomatic relations, exchanging ambassadors, Egypts presidency said in a statement last Monday.

Ziada added that Fidans background could enhance Turkiyes relationship with the Arab Gulf countries.

I wont be surprised to see Fidan being involved in talks between Arab Gulf countries and Iran in the near future. In reverse, this will be reflected positively on Turkiye by increasing Gulf countries investments and thus enhancing the struggling Turkish economy, she said.

Fidan is expected to be Turkiyes winning horse on the chessboards of the Middle East, the Eastern Mediterranean, and the Black Sea.

Yasar Guler, the countrys chief of general staff, was appointed as the defense minister in the renewed cabinet.

Although not announced yet, presidential spokesperson Ibrahim Kalin is expected to be named as the new intelligence chief.

The governor of the central bank has not been announced yet but the name of Hafize Gaye Erkan has come up.

Erkan holds a doctorate from Princeton University, worked for many financial institutions in the US, including Goldman Sachs as a financial services executive, and is the former president of First Republic Bank.

Over the past four years, Turkiye has seen four governors at the helm of the central bank.

Read the original:
Iraq and Syria to reopen Semalka border crossing after 3 week closure - Arab News