Dinar Daily
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Get Daily Updates of the NEWS & GURUS in your EMAIL

Enter your email address:

Scenarios of the upcoming dialogue between Washington and Baghdad under the Al-Kazemi government: conditions or sanctions? DinarDailyUpdates?bg=330099&fg=FFFFFF&anim=1

Scenarios of the upcoming dialogue between Washington and Baghdad under the Al-Kazemi government: conditions or sanctions?

Go down

Scenarios of the upcoming dialogue between Washington and Baghdad under the Al-Kazemi government: conditions or sanctions? Empty Scenarios of the upcoming dialogue between Washington and Baghdad under the Al-Kazemi government: conditions or sanctions?

Post by claud39 Wed May 13, 2020 1:33 pm

[size=30]Scenarios of the upcoming dialogue between Washington and Baghdad under the Al-Kazemi government: conditions or sanctions?[/size]


Scenarios of the upcoming dialogue between Washington and Baghdad under the Al-Kazemi government: conditions or sanctions? 4929b01e4-30640-202005130319

[size=20][size=20]People - Baghdad
On Wednesday, a lengthy report addressed the forthcoming dialogue between the United States of America and Iraq, in light of the presence of the government of Prime Minister Mustafa Al-Kazemi.
The report, published by "The Independent Arabia" and followed by "Nass" (May 13, 2020), saw the upcoming dialogue as a last chance, perhaps to address the outstanding issues, especially as "Washington's patience is beginning to be implemented."
The following is the text of the report:  
On June 1, 2020, the United States and Iraq launch a strategic dialogue that is seen as the last opportunity to address outstanding bilateral issues, including the presence of US forces in Iraq. 
Will the administration of President Donald Trump take a firm stance obliging the new government in Baghdad to resist Iranian interference under the pressure of American economic and security aid, or will Washington be quieter and wiser in dealing with an acceptable Iraqi government than its predecessors, making it recalculate accurately with the fear of losing Iraq To backfire harmful to America's strategic interests in the region? Could Iraq be a neutral country between Tehran and Washington?  
Late evaluation 
In the US capital, many view the reassessment of US-Iraqi relations as too late. It has been more than a decade since the two countries agreed to the Agreement on the Status of American Forces and the Strategic Framework Agreement. The impetus for the new strategic dialogue, however, appears to stem from a growing sense in Washington of impatience. Relations have been severely damaged during the past months, and the US administration felt that previous governments were unable to fulfill their demands to preserve Iraq's national sovereignty from Iran's growing influence. What posed a threat to US forces in Iraqi territory.
However, the new government headed by Mustafa Al-Kazemi gave the American administration some hope to change the course of relations between Baghdad and Washington. As the sixth prime minister of Iraq since 2004 remained Washington's preferred option because he was a liberal-minded, writer and human rights activist before engaging in politics and suddenly appointing him as head of the Iraqi intelligence service and his commitment to his professionalism and respect for the rule of law.  
Reasons for optimism  

Not only that, but the Al-Kazemi government represents a dream-like team. The new defense minister was a former commander of the ground forces. The Minister of the Interior was Chief of Staff of the Army. Barham Saleh, who previously lived in Washington, has a liberal outlook. 
Therefore, many were not surprised by the welcome that the new Iraqi government enjoyed, and the recent call by President Trump to Al-Kazemi, expressing his desire to provide economic aid to Iraq days before the launch of the strategic dialogue. At a time when Iraq is suffering an economic crisis due to the collapse of oil prices, which constitute 90 percent Of the country's economic returns.
That was not the first indication of the United States' desire to change the turbulent course in relations with Baghdad. The State Department announced hours after Al-Kazimi's inauguration of granting Iraq exemptions that allow continued import of gas and electricity from Iran for a period of 120 days, after the previous exemptions were no more than 30 days.  
Challenging challenges 
Although Al-Kazemi was the ideal man to head the Iraqi government, at a time when the confidence of Iraqis in the political elite declined, he faces difficult challenges represented in how to strike a balance between the growing discontent among Iraqi legislators regarding the American presence in Iraq, and between maintaining economic aid and strategic support The American government of the Iraqi government, as well as the difficulty of implementing reforms and conducting elections, because true reform requires the approval of the powerful mediators inside and outside the authority whose authority is supposed to diminish by these reforms.  
Michael Robin, a researcher at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, says that the stability of Iraq depends on Al-Kazemi’s success in dealing with these challenges and successfully addressing them before Washington turns the vehicle through or after the strategic dialogue due to the growing feelings of impatience. The United States has spent $ 25 billion on training the Iraqi army, as President Trump continues to ask why the exercises will last forever if they are successful, and what is bothering the Pentagon if the training fails? And Trump previously expressed his desire to withdraw from Iraq, declaring that the United States spent 6 trillion on wars in the Middle East, and it was better to invest them in improving the internal situation in the United States. 
The US State Department followed the same line, which expresses frustration and impatience when Secretary of State Mike Pompeo issued a decision to close the American consulate after the Iranian-backed militias launched a missile towards the consulate.
Fearing the opposite results 
Despite the impatience of the American administration, observers warn that abandoning Iraq will backfire not only for Iraq, but also for American strategic interests, because the best defense against Iranian ambitions in the region is an Iraq that is proud of its nationality, self-sufficient, and able to defend itself Against all regional powers. 
For this, Robin believes that the American bases will be on the table of discussions in the strategic dialogue, but merging all American forces to be stationed in Iraqi Kurdistan, as some think, would be a grave mistake. From a logistical point of view, this will be a nightmare, as the Pentagon will have to rely on Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to resupply the forces, a mercurial president who is fluctuating in attitudes and trends. 
Abandoning Baghdad to Tehran would snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, at a time when Iraqis regularly protest against attempts to dominate Iran and repeatedly burn Tehran's consulates. It would also be a mistake to underestimate how close the Iraqi Kurdish leaders are to Iran.  
Economic support 
Trump may be right that the time has come to move forward. But, to save Iraq from the abyss, the US president must focus on supporting the Iraqi economy, not just the military.
 It is true that many foreign services companies left the Iraqi oil sector because of the low prices and fears of the Corona virus, but the prices will rise again, and American companies can invest again in Iraq, not in their interest or to give Washington non-military influence only, but because the commercial presence The American will deprive Iran of the same opportunities as well. Also, the US investment in the gas sector now will help Iraq obtain electricity without relying on Iran.
And US support for banking and finance in Iraq could provide an important basis for investment. This helps create the necessary jobs in a country whose population is close to 50 million. 
Observers believe that over the next decade, the US presence in Iraq should not be confined to the US Special Forces and operators of the American forces, but rather include investors and businessmen.  

The American administration must realize that the accelerated withdrawals that the Trump administration made from Syria and Afghanistan, and before withdrawals from Iraq during the era of former President Barack Obama, will strengthen Tehran and undermine the government in Baghdad, which is the highest-quality leadership team in Iraq after the war.  
Strict terms
A report issued by the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies in Washington recommends that the Trump administration add strict conditions to American support, especially with the budgetary pressures that the United States will face in the coming years, due to the effects of the Corona crisis, so that there is no tolerance for foreign aid programs that are not accustomed to Washington is beneficial, as well as the need to ensure that it does not strengthen US enemies like Iran. 
The report notes that the Iraqi government will face difficult choices if it does not show the minimum level of its resistance to Iranian interference and the preservation of Iraqi sovereignty. The Trump administration is seeking to pay more than $ 600 million in the current fiscal year in the form of combat aircraft, intelligence, and transportation equipment, in training and equipping Iraqi security forces to hunt down the remnants of ISIS as part of counter-terrorism operations. The Trump administration has also requested $ 120 million to assist the Iraqi economy and to fund other programs, including a program to remove landmines. 
Moreover, the United States supported Baghdad in obtaining economic aid from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, while the Federal Reserve Board in New York (the American Central Bank) maintains the dollar account of Iraq’s foreign reserves, and transfers billions of dollars of $ 100 annually to Iraq annually. Dollars to keep the Iraqi economy dependent on cash transactions. 
Possible penalties 
Therefore, the absence of American economic support will put the Iraqi economy on the brink of catastrophe, especially with the collapse of oil prices, which constitute 90 percent of government revenues. The United States may resort to imposing sanctions on Iraq that may include preventing the sale of oil, as happened with Iran if the Iraqi government does not take steps to stop the growing Iranian influence inside Iraq. 
This constitutes a significant influence for the United States in strategic dialogue if it is ready to use it, and this influence will be higher if Washington made clear to Baghdad that its increasing acceptance of Iranian hegemony could place Iraq increasingly in the range of US punitive measures from the travel ban and the freezing of assets against senior political leaders to Blows targeting the sanctioned militia leaders. Even the restrictions imposed on Iraq’s ability to sell oil, similar to the sanctions imposed on Iran, can be placed reliably on the table, especially at a time when global markets are witnessing a significant increase in the supply of up to 20 million barrels of oil per day.  
Transferring forces to Kurdistan 
To reinforce the position of the US negotiator, the report recommends the need for a serious contingency plan to assemble American forces in Iraq and transfer them to a region of relative safety in Iraq's semi-autonomous Kurdistan. Unlike the Iraqi political elite, the Kurdish government and security forces generally support the military presence of the United States, and have done their best to combat threats to US forces and the diplomats that host them. 
With a safe foothold in US-backed Iraqi Kurdistan, the United States will still be able to carry out essential counter-terrorism missions against ISIS, including operations in Syria. And as the United States reduces the risk of its forces at risk, it has more flexibility to take action, against the continuing threat posed by Iran and its proxy militia. 
And the United States should keep its demands for the Iraqi government limited and realistic. No matter how much pressure Washington applies.  
Realistic steps 
Iraq will not go to war with Iran. Baghdad will not eradicate the militias overnight, but the US administration can legitimately accept that the Iraqi government begins to take realistic steps, in the interest of protecting Iraq's sovereignty. This would address many of the main American concerns politically, economically and militarily. 
Politically, the violent crackdown on peaceful protests must be ended, and the security forces and militia responsible for the worst atrocities committed against protesters must be held to account through a credible investigation, prosecution, and punishment process. A serious national dialogue with the protest movement must be managed. 
Economically, the Iraqi government needs a partnership with the United States in order to stifle Iran's plans to violate the sanctions imposed on it through the Iraqi portal, especially the export of Iranian oil and Iran's access to US dollars through Iraq, activities that put the Iraqi economy at risk of imposing secondary sanctions on it by United State. 
Militarily, the United States needs to see evidence that the Iraqi government is making efforts to end attacks against US military and diplomatic personnel, even if it does not eliminate them completely. This means not only condemning it as illegal, but also by deploying the Iraqi intelligence and security services firmly to stop the attacks and punish the perpetrators as well.  
A fateful turn 
And because the demand for financial resources in the United States during and after the Corona pandemic will increase, maintaining financial support for Iraq will be an uphill battle, but it will be an impossible task if the Iraqi government appears as an Iranian state or province more than an American partner, especially as time is running out quickly for the government Iraq to change this perception by showing its commitment, at least, to defend the sovereignty of Iraq, as it did with the United States 17 years ago.
The report indicates that this is the stark reality, and the Trump administration needs to present it to Iraqi leaders in the next strategic dialogue, as this difficult and tormented relationship turns towards a crucial point. While the risks are important to American interests, they may be existential to Iraq.  

A neutral Iraq 
While some research centers take solid positions, others see different solutions. Albert Wolf, Dean of the School of International Studies at the American University in Duhok, put forward the idea that the United States and Iran can avoid confrontation in Iraq by agreeing to "Finland" Iraq, meaning that Iraq becomes a neutral country as Finland and Austria were during the Cold War between the Soviet Union And the United States, meaning that Iraq is not an arena for competition for influence.
In an article published by the American magazine "Foreign Policy", Wolf explains that after a three-month war between the Soviet Union and Finland in 1940, the Soviets suffered a lot of casualties, and they were forced to negotiate with the Finns on the principles and principles signed after the Second World War, as the two sides agreed to That Finland not join any alliance with an anti-Moscow power, in exchange for the Soviets respecting Finland's desire for self-rule and democracy. In this way, Finland avoided being a country under Soviet influence, and the Soviets avoided Finland being a neighboring country to them.  

However, the question remains as to whether or at the time the situation in Finland is identical to that of Iraq today? The answer is that Iraq is living in more difficult and complex conditions than Finland, in terms of neighboring countries, demographics, and external ambitions. On Iraq, American forces and militias backed by Iran. However, the neutrality of Iraq may not be impossible if the United States and Iran adhere to the territorial integrity of Iraq, provided that Iraq will decide on its own without external interference, if it would give greater independence to some regions and governorates.  [/size][/size]

VIP NewsHound
VIP NewsHound

Posts : 18083
Join date : 2018-11-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Back to top

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum