Iraq Tue, 17 Oct 2017 02:07:34 +0000 en-gb US cannot hide its joy at ISIL success

Concurrent with the unprecedented tirade of the American defence secretary against the Iraqi army, Ashton Carter met with the Saudi crown prince and defence minister in Washington. Carter said in an interview with the CNN that capturing Ramadi in west of Baghdad showed that as if the Iraqi army doesn't have the will to fight. These remarks were uttered while the US official met and conferred Sunday with the defence minister of Saudi Arabia, the regime which is one of the main sympathizers and financiers of the ISIL terrorist group in various parts of the Middle East region.


The recent moves of the ISIL terrorist outfit in parts of Iraq and Syria have gladdened the US though it is trying to point the finger of blame to Baghdad. This as the unflinching supports of the United States and Europe for extremist groups for the first two years of the Syrian war helped the bloodiest terrorist group of the current era emerge in the Middle East. This group grew by the petrodollars of a few Arab regimes such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar and the political-logistic assistance of Turkey. This trend led to the terrorist outfit's dominance over parts of Iraq and Syria. Thanks to the Arab-western complicity, ISIL has gained so much power that it can occupy cities in Iraq and Syria and has threatened the capitals of these two countries.

Under such circumstances, the United States has just contented itself with aerial bombardment of what it claims to be the ISIL positions and has avoided entering ground conflict with the group. Eye witnesses and undeniable documents prove that many of these bombs do not fall on the ISIL positions as the US claims.

The US lambasting of the Iraqi army comes as the current army had been organized by the Americans after it was dissolved for a while in the aftermath of overthrowing the former Iraqi dictator Saddam in 2003.

Thus, if there is any deficiency in countering the Arab-Western-fabricated monster it is the United States that should be blamed as the initiator of security crisis and bloodshed in the region. This comes as a couple of weeks  ago the Unites States, in a bid to win the support of the Arab financiers of ISIL like the Saudi regime, put the Iraqi officials under pressure to rescind application of the Shia volunteers' capability against ISIL terrorists. This measure caused Ramadi to fall in the hands of the terrorists while dismissing the US request and inviting the popular forces has helped the army gain successes on the ground.

As along as the United States persists in its double standard policies vis-à-vis Islamic countries the campaign against terrorist groups such as ISIL will be very difficult



Iraq Mon, 25 May 2015 09:52:05 +0000
Iraqi premier leaves for the US

The Iraqi Premier Haider al-Abadi is leaving for the US at the head of a high-ranking delegation. This trip is going to be taken upon an invitation by the US President Barack Obama. He is due to meet and confer with the US president on Tuesday under critical conditions, for; not only Iraq is engaged in serious war with ISIL terrorists but also the Middle East region is undergoing an imbroglio. Thus, it seems that the security issues, equipping the Iraqi army with advanced weapons and above all pursuing the arms treaty concluded between Baghdad and Washington will be the issues to be discussed by the two leaders.


Iraq and the US had already signed several military agreements which Washington has rescinded to put them into effect. These agreements include the sale of 34 F-16 fighter jets, Apache helicopters, RADAR systems and other strategic weapons which the US has refrained from living up to his commitments due to being at loggerheads with the former Iraqi prime minister.

Presently, Iraq is faced with serious security threats and terrorism of ISIL outfit. Haider al-Abadi, in his first Washington visit, is going to convince the White House officials to fulfill their obligations stipulated in the military agreements inked by the two sides and that with the conditions of special repayment by Iraq.

According to the reports of the news sources the Iraqi government has faced with a deficit of 21 billion dollars due to the global plummeting of oil prices. Therefore, Al-Abadi is intent to convince the Americans to accept reimbursement of the debts by installment. It is not clear what will be White House's reaction to the request.

The Americans have shown double stances on the issues pertaining to cooperation with Iraq in its combat against terrorism. On the one hand Washington has sent its military consultants to train the Iraqi armed forces while on the other hand it doesn’t live up to its commitments to strengthen the Iraqi army and has even come short of arming the army as per the agreements concluded between the two countries.

This has stirred resentment and even suspicion among the Iraqi officials. They doubt if the US is going to cooperate with Iraq in its campaign against ISIL terrorists or it should rely on another country's assistance for this endeavor. For sure, the Iraqi premier's White House visit will be beyond an ordinary diplomatic visit as the regional circumstances after the breakthroughs of the Syrian forces and the Saudi regime's invasion of Yemen have raised requirements that have made Iraqi officials more sensitive. Since the US has been involved in the formation of some of these security upheavals, being aware of Washington's new stances vis-à-vis the current issues of the Middle East is of paramount importance for the Iraqi officials and Prime Minister Haider Al-Abadi in person.   



Iraq Mon, 13 Apr 2015 10:04:10 +0000
Cultural terrorism in Mosul: Libraries burned, museums destoryed,-museums-destoryed,-museums-destoryed

The news coming out of the northern Iraqi city that has been under occupation of Godless Takfiri terrorists over the past few months are alarming. The devilish outfit that mischievously calls itself the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) has trampled on the dignity of humanity and all humanitarian principles. After massacring anyone who differed with its weird satanic beliefs, after enslaving children, after raping and selling women, and after desecrating the holy shrines of Prophet Jonah and Saint Jirjees (St. Georges), the terrorists have made a bonfire of libraries and destroyed museums. Following is an exclusive feature in this regard:


The head of the United Nations agency mandated to protect heritage sites, has expressed “deep shock” by the footage depicting the destruction of statues and other artifacts at the Mosul Museum. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Director-General, Irina Bokova, condemned the “deliberate attack against Iraq's millennial history and culture”, calling it an inflammatory incitement to violence and hatred. She said: “This attack is far more than a cultural tragedy – this is also a security issue as it fuels sectarianism, violent extremism and conflict in Iraq.” She emphasized that the attack was in direct violation to the most recent Security Council Resolution 2199 that condemns the destruction of cultural heritage and adopts legally-binding measures to counter illicit trafficking of antiquities and cultural objects from Iraq and Syria. Large statues from the UNESCO world Heritage site of Hatra, as well as unique artifacts from the archaeological sites of the governorate of Nineveh have been destroyed or defaced in the Mosul Museum, among many other pieces.

Earlier, the Takfiri terrorists destroyed thousands of books and manuscripts in Mosul libraries. Reports indicate that Mosul’s central library has been ransacked and 100,000 books and manuscripts burned. Last Monday Ninewa al-Ghad, a satellite channel broadcasting out of Mosul, reported that the central library had been burned with the reported loss of Iraqi newspapers from the beginning of the 20th century, as well as maps, books and collections from the Ottoman period.

Mona Fadhel writing in the British daily “Guardian said the escalating devastation culminated on last Thursday with the release of a five-minute video purportedly showing militants using sledgehammers to smash ancient artifacts in the city. The video, posted on Twitter and bearing the logo of Isis’s media arm, shows a group of bearded men in a museum using hammers and drills to destroy several large statues, including one depicting a winged-bull Assyrian protective deity that dates back to the 9th century BC. The news saddens but does not surprise Shahla Kamal, who until last summer was a lecturer at Mosul University’s College of Political Science. In June she was overseeing students sitting an end-of-year exam when the dean told everyone to go home because of an immediate curfew. Overnight, the Takfiri terrorists had taken over the city and imposed its weird anti-Islamic laws, ironically in the name of the sharia, with which they have no connection. As a result Shahla lost her job when her college was closed, along with the colleges of law, fine arts, physical education, languages, social sciences and archaeology. The Takfiris looted and vandalised the new multimillion-dollar physics and chemistry laboratories. Each college had its own library and these were looted, too. Some, like the library of Islamic studies, housed priceless ancient manuscripts. But not anymore, as this also has been looted. The classrooms of the closed colleges and departments are now the sleeping quarters for Takfiri fighters, and are used as storage for their weapons cache.

In addition to the college libraries, each of Mosul University’s two campuses, have a central library. Teba used to work in one of them, and visits whenever she can. The library is still intact, but Teba makes sure that squatters – who have now moved on to the campus with their farm animals – don’t use the books and furniture for firewood. She says she’s heartbroken and enraged at the fate of Mosul’s central library, and fears a similar fate for the remaining university libraries. Teba, used a pseudonym and refused to give her real name out of fear of reprisal.

Meanwhile, Mustafa, who as a precaution didn’t give his family name, said he was unable to salvage anything from the College of Physical Education, where he worked. The last time he went there to check on the college he was stunned to find the college’s Olympic-sized pool looking like a green swamp, and Takfiri terrorists – of all hues and colours and coming from various countries to destabilize Iraq – lounging on the furniture, their sleeping mattresses stacked up outside the dean’s office. They demanded that he hand over his keys to the department because whatever their self-styled caliph says is law.

The college of economics and business where Soraya studied was not closed. Isis did make a number of changes, such as segregating students by gender and driving away almost all the female staff. In November 2014, Soraya quit her studies after a female Takfiri terrorist threatened to bite her hand for taking off her regulation gloves during an exam – with the gloves on, Soraya’s pen kept slipping while she tried to write. Biting is common – one of Soraya’s friends needed three stitches on her right hand when she was bitten – and students say female Takfiri terrorists wear a steel fitting in their mouths with jagged fangs to make their bite particularly sharp. Soraya decided at that moment to leave college and stay inside her house where she can wear anything she wants. She said: This is not the Mosul University my family helped create half a century ago. In 1964, my grandfather Abdul Fattah al-Malah, established the College of Pharmacy at Mosul University. He, and the other founders of Mosul University, brought a cadre of academics from Europe, the United States, India, Pakistan and several Arab countries to teach alongside Iraqi academics. That same multinational cadre went on to teach my parents who both went to study there in the 1970s. As a child, my favourite pastime was to listen to my grandfather reading stories to me and my cousins. Each was about the life of a groundbreaking scholar or scientist. “Education, education, education,” he would say to me, shaking his index finger like he was delivering a threat. He passed away in 1996. As much as I miss him, I am glad he is not alive to see Mosul today.

In short, Mosul has borne the brunt of cultural and religious terrorism, and the sooner it is liberated the better for humanity, whose common heritage is under threat of permanent loss.


Iraq Sun, 01 Mar 2015 08:01:45 +0000
Iraq crisis ‘made in Israel’‘made-in-israel’‘made-in-israel’

Despite overwhelming propaganda of the western media horns and their officials' utmost endeavors to portray the Iraqi crisis as a sectarian conflict and infighting between different Islamic denominations, it is crystal clear that the main sponsors and beneficiaries of this crisis are the US, the Zionist regime, Arab reactionary regimes and some of the regional accomplices of terrorist groups like Turkey, Qatar and so on.


Dr. Kevin Barrett, one of America's best-known critics of the War on Terror has written the following article which has appeared on Press TV’s website.

Who is responsible for the disaster in Iraq?

Some blame the US for its calamitous invasion and occupation. Others fault Iraqis, pointing to sectarianism, corruption and incompetence.

But on Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu inadvertently revealed the truth: The tragedy in Iraq (like similar tragedies in Syria, Libya, Sudan and elsewhere) was made in Israel. All of these countries have been destabilized as part of Israel’s Oded Yinon plan to balkanize the Middle East.

Speaking at a Tel Aviv University think tank, Netanyahu declared Israel’s support for the destruction of Iraq to make way for an independent Kurdish state. Israel “should support the Kurdish aspiration for independence,” Netanyahu announced, celebrating the success of Israel’s plan to ignite sectarian strife in key Middle Eastern countries and set the stage for their fragmentation.

The destruction of Iraq would be a bonanza for Israel. Such a move would not only eliminate the geo-strategic threat of a united Iraq, but would also hand Israel the lion’s share of the oil of an independent Kurdistan. (Zionists have been infiltrating Kurdistan for years; they are well positioned to dominate its oil and send it to market via a pipeline to Israel.)

ISIL’s attack on Iraq has made this Zionist dream possible. Using the “ISIL threat” as an excuse, Israeli-backed Iraqi Kurds have seized Kirkuk, a major oil production center. If Kirkuk were included in an independent Kurdistan, Iraq would lose much of its future oil revenues, while Israeli-dominated Kurdistan would funnel its vast oil wealth to Tel Aviv.

And by intensifying the destabilization of other Middle Eastern countries, a Kurdish declaration of independence would yield another benefit to Israel. Turkey, Syria and Iran, like Iraq, include regions where Kurdish-speaking people form a majority. Should Iraqi Kurds break away from Baghdad, extremist and/or Zionist-supported elements of neighboring Kurdish communities would want to dismember those nations too. The likely result: An interlinked series of civil wars that might even explode into a regional war.

This is precisely what Netanyahu and other Israeli extremists want. They are desperately searching for a powder-keg and a spark to ignite a big Mideast war that would give Israel the opportunity to finish its ethnic cleansing of Palestine under cover of “the fog of war.”

Officially, the US opposes Netanyahu’s plan to smash Iraq into pieces. Last Tuesday, US Secretary of State John Kerry visited Iraq’s Kurdish region and spoke to Kurdish leaders. Kerry told the Kurds to remain part of Iraq. The US, he said, supports a united Iraq and opposes its dismemberment.

But can the US really oppose Israeli policy? History suggests that Israel has a way of bending the American superpower to its whims.

During the 1990s, Netanyahu’s US-based Israeli agents, including Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, and Scooter Libby, were pushing for the US to invade and occupy Iraq. Though they claimed they wanted to convert Iraq into a Western-style democracy, and predicted that invading US troops would be welcomed with candy and flowers, their real aim was to destroy Iraq and set the stage for its partition.

Throughout the 1990s, the non-Zionist faction of the US ruling elite successfully opposed the Zionist plan to invade Iraq. Such a war, they knew, would not serve the US national interest.

But the Zionists did not care about the US national interest. All they cared about was pursuing the Oded Yinon plan.

So on September 11th, 2001, the Zionists staged a coup d'état in America. They blew up the three World Trade Center skyscrapers, bombed the Pentagon, blamed their enemies, and used the resulting wave of outrage to seize power and change national policy. Under Zionist command, in service to Israeli interests, the US military invaded and occupied Iraq.

During the US occupation, the Israelis and their nominally American mercenaries created and oversaw the sexual torture at Abu Ghraib. They assassinated hundreds of Iraq’s leading scientists and scholars in an intellectual genocide designed to cripple Iraq’s future potential. And they unleashed a wave of false flag terror aimed at fomenting sectarian strife. Today, they are preparing to harvest the fruits of their labors.

Will the US stick to its official policy supporting the unity of Iraq? Or will it surrender to the Zionists and allow Kurdistan to be violently ripped from the national body?

There is some question about whether the US is sincere in its professed support for Iraqi unity. Sometimes the American leadership takes a principled stand in its official positions, while pursuing an unprincipled secret policy that is diametrically opposed to the official one. And often that unprincipled secret policy is in line with Israel’s policy.

For example, when the brutal thug and Israeli agent al-Sisi overthrew Egypt’s democratically-elected President Mohamed Morsi, the US officially opposed the coup d'état, while Israel openly welcomed it and called al-Sisi “a national hero for all Jews.” But America’s professed opposition to the coup was only skin deep. Even as Morsi was being overthrown, Netanyahu reassured al-Sisi that the billions of dollars of US taxpayer funds that prop up Egypt’s military would continue to flow. And they have.

Another example of the US doing the exact opposite of what it says is the American sponsorship of ISIL. Officially, the US pretends that ISIL is public enemy number one. But behind the scenes, the American taxpayers are funding these too-extreme-for-Al-Qaeda militants, and the CIA is training and equipping them at not-so-secret bases in Jordan. The US seems to have aided and abetted ISIL’s assault on Iraq. This could only have been done in service to Israel and its Oded Yinon plan to balkanize Iraq and the whole region.

Will the US ever decide to assert its own interests – and foster peace and stability in the Middle East? Or is the world’s sole superpower destined to remain forever an abject slave of Israel?

And will the Iraqi people succumb to Zionist-incited sectarianism and ethnic strife? Or will they rise above such petty concerns and manage to preserve their national unity?

Iraq Sun, 06 Jul 2014 06:35:15 +0000
15 killed in a bomb blast in northern Iraq 15 killed in a bomb blast in northern Iraq

At least 15 people have been killed in a car bomb attack in a village east of Iraq’s northern city of Mosul.
According to Press TV, citing police officials, the bomb attack was carried out in a residential area of Al-Muwaffaqiyah, a village east of Mosul, on Thursday.


On October 15, nearly a dozen people lost their lives in a blast targeting a group of worshipers as they were leaving a mosque in the city of Kirkuk after prayers marking Eid al-Adha (Feast of Sacrifice).

Iraqi officials said around 20 people were also wounded in the bomb explosion.

Iraq has been the scene of numerous bombings and shooting attacks over the past few months. Most of the attacks have targeted crowded places, such as mosques, markets, and cafes.

According to Iraqi medical sources, the violence has taken its toll on the lives of more than 300 people since the beginning of October.

According to the United Nations, almost 1,000 people were killed and more than 2,000 wounded in violence in Iraq in September, making it one of the deadliest months in recent years.

Iraq Thu, 17 Oct 2013 17:29:12 +0000
‘Over 460k Iraqis killed in 8 years’‘over-460k-iraqis-killed-in-8-years’‘over-460k-iraqis-killed-in-8-years’

A study shows that over 460,000 people lost their lives in Iraq between 2003 and 2011 as a result of the US-led invasion of the country.


The study was conducted at the University of Washington, Johns Hopkins University, Simon Fraser University and Mustansiriya University.

Researchers conducted the survey based on interviews with 2,000 households in 100 geographical clusters across Iraq’s 18 provinces between May 2011 and July 2011.

According to Press TV, the study found that more than 60 percent of deaths were directly attributable to violence, with the rest associated with the collapse of infrastructure and other indirect causes.

Amy Hagopian, the associate professor of Global Health at the University of Washington and lead author of the study, said “In a war situation, people can’t leave their homes to get medical care. When they do leave their homes to get medical care, they arrive at institutions overwhelmed with violent injuries.”
According to the UN, carnage led to the death of some 5,000 people in Iraq between January and September of 2013. More than 3,000 people also died in 2012.

Iraq Thu, 17 Oct 2013 17:27:10 +0000
Turkey, Qatar sectarian plots will fail in Iraq,-qatar-sectarian-plots-will-fail-in-iraq,-qatar-sectarian-plots-will-fail-in-iraq Turkey, Qatar sectarian plots will fail in Iraq

Since the fall of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, the enemies of Iraq have taken advantage of the complexities of the Iraqi society - made up by different political, ethnic and religious components - in order to fuel sectarian conflicts.

They are trying to overthrow the current Iraqi government, led by Nouri al-Maliki, by claiming that it is Shiite-dominated or pro-Iranian and spreading sedition between Sunnis and Shiites and Arabs and Kurds.
Yusuf Fernandez, a journalist and secretary of Muslim Federation of Spain has analyzed the situation in his recent article which had appeared in Tehran Times and Press TV as follows:

Iraqi analysts think that some foreign parties are plotting to topple the Maliki government in order to expel Shiite parties from power or at least weaken their influence. They also consider that Iraq would be the following country in the list if Bashar al-Assad´s government were toppled by armed groups in Syria. Extremist groups would then feel emboldened by a hard line sectarian government in Damascus and the result would be a wider sectarian conflict in the region.
One of the enemies of the Iraqi government is al-Qaeda in Iraq, responsible for a wave of sectarian terrorist attacks that continue up to today. Last year, al-Qaeda began to expand its operations in Iraq and, as a result, hundreds of people were killed, especially during Shiite religious celebrations.
Despite the high number of victims, the Iraqi authorities have dismissed al-Qaeda´s operations as “insignificant”. “The war on terror is over,” said Maliki, adding that “what remains is only a bunch of cells backed by foreign countries.” The Iraqi Parliament has also passed a tough anti-terrorism law, which has contributed to reduce the number of attacks. However, some problems remain. The security forces still lack an appropriate counterinsurgency strategy, a requirement in defeating an elusive enemy.
Nevertheless, some experts acknowledge that al-Qaeda is probably making a comeback in Iraq. The head of the Iraqi intelligence agency, Qassim Atta, has also admitted that al-Qaeda may be gaining strength and told Al-Alam television network that the organization was changing its modus operandi in order to increase “security chaos”.
Even in that case, it is clear that the terrorism strategy has not achieved its goals. Maliki´s support in the Parliament is stable and it has undermined the image of his enemies, some of whom appear to be linked to terrorist activities. Some weeks ago, prosecutors ordered the arrest of the bodyguards who work for Finance Minister, Rafie Issawi, because of their alleged connections with terrorism.
This case followed that of Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi, who has been sentenced to death by several courts because his participation in terrorist activities. Prosecutors claim that Hashemi bears responsibility in some 150 attacks between 2005 and 2011. They accuse him of using his bodyguards as a death squad and have cited confessions by some of them. Before being arrested, Hashemi fled to Qatar, Saudi Arabia and finally Turkey, where he has been given public recognition and protection.
Last December, Maliki´s external and internal enemies started to use another strategy in order to overthrow the prime minister. Thousands of residents began anti-Maliki protests in the Sunni-majority Anbar Province. They asked for Maliki´s resignation and the derogation of the anti-terrorism law, a strange demand in a country where terrorism is killing hundreds of persons every year.
The protests have been supported by the Iraqiyya Block, led by former CIA protégé Iyad Allawi. One leading member of this bloc, MP Ahmed al-Alwani, led noisy demonstrations in Fallujah where participants chanted explicitly anti-Shiite and anti- Iranian slogans. He even called masses to march eastward to “crush Iranian agents”.
Maliki, for his part, warned that the arrest of suspected terrorists did not mean that a specific religious group was being targeted. “Sunnis, Shiites and all the people must know that carrying out arrest warrants against suspects doesn't mean targeting a specific sect,” he said, adding that the Anbar protests were “unconstitutional” and would not be tolerated for long because the only way to topple a government in Iraq was through elections.

Although some Western channels have referred to the Anbar protests as a new example of the “Arab Spring”, Iraq´s political system actually makes the country immune to the challenges of this phenomenon. No one doubts of the Iraqi government’s political legitimacy after gaining the confidence of the Parliament, which has been elected through fair and clean elections.
The country is also going through a rapid economic development. Iraq´s gross domestic product is expected to grow by an average rate of at least 9.4% annually between 2012 and 2016 as the oil-producing country largely benefits from higher oil prices, a senior central bank official said in February. Of course, these good economic results have made Maliki a popular figure among many Iraqis.
On January 12, thousands of demonstrators took to the streets in Baghdad to show support for Maliki´s government and rejected calls to abolish the anti-terrorism law. Some of the protesters raised banners reading, “The aim of Anbar protests is to divide Iraq” and others held up posters denouncing fugitive al-Hashemi as a “lord of sectarianism.”
Some analysts have seen the hand of Turkey behind the Anbar protests. Several weeks ago, Maliki ordered a government review of the country´s relationship with Turkey after a series of disputes with Ankara over a string of issues including the Turkish support for militancy in Syria and Turkey´s increasing involvement in Iraq´s sectarian and ethnic conflicts.
The tensions with Ankara grew after Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu visited the disputed city of Kirkuk while on a trip to Iraqi Kurdistan. Davutoglu´s trip drew a furious reaction from Baghdad and brought the already-strained bilateral relations to a new low.

Iraq had previously accused Turkey of fueling tensions between Baghdad and the Kurds over control of territory and oilfields by dealing with Iraqi Kurdistan as if it were an independent state. In July, the region began to export oil to Turkey without Baghdad´s permission, an “illegal” move, according to the Iraqi authorities. Turkey also started to build export pipelines in the Kurdistan that bypass routes controlled by Baghdad. No permission was asked here either, although Ankara knows very well that such projects are a prerogative of the Iraqi central government.

Iraqi Minister of Education, Ali Adeeb, speaks of “a Turkish invasion of Iraq”. He mentioned the presence in Iraq of elements of the Turkish intelligence services and added that 1,080 Turkish companies are now operating in Iraqi Kurdistan.
Erdogan also flagrantly interferes in Iraqi affairs. He has criticized Maliki in lining up in an open way with leaders of Al-Iraqiya Block, which was established with the help of the Turkish leadership in Ankara. The same day that Davutoglu paid a visit to Iraqi Kurdistan, Al-Iraqiya Block leader, Iyad Alawi, was received by Erdogan in Ankara.
Qatar is also believed to be heavily involved in the protests. Its Al-Jazeera channel is offering heavy coverage of the protests in Iraq and its employees have joined an anti-Shiite campaign on the Internet.
“Some foreign countries, as the Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, aspire to play a regional role in Iraq. They have exploited the lack of confidence prevailing within the components of the Iraqi people, inherited from the previous regime”, said Adeeb. And added: “The United States is not far from what is happening in Iraq... There is a will to divide Iraq into three parts: Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite.”
However, the new sectarian plot in Iraq is likely to be doomed to failure as many moderate Sunni groups and leaders have expressed their rejection to the anti-Shiite sectarian rhetoric, describing it as being dangerous. There are also signs of dissent within the Al-Iraqiya Block. The party´s spokesman Haidar Al-Mullah said he was resigning from his post because of the anti-Shiite diatribes of some of its leaders.

Iraq Sat, 19 Jan 2013 12:32:08 +0000
Crisis triangle in Iraq

The intense Iraqi developments during the past few months indicate costly efforts to unify political groups for countering the government of Nouri Al-Maleki and bringing it down to a stalemate.

The effort was made to destroy popular trust in Maleki. Although the effort was foiled provocations for challenging Maleki government persist.

The recent statements of the Iraqi parliament speaker Osama al-Nujaifi on the likely impeachment of Maleki is part of these efforts.

But one should see which groups and countries are seeking to change the existing political situation of Iraq and what goals do they pursue?

Inside Iraq, the three influential groups of al-Iraqiyah coalition, the Kurds and the Sadrist group have reached a common viewpoint for changing or even dismissing Maleki. The two meetings held in Erbil and holy Najaf among the leaders and representatives of political groups were conducted in a bid to implement the scenario of Maleki’s dismissal. But the three sides of the triangle do not have identical view in dismissing Maleki in terms of strategy and tactic.

Al-Iraqiyah coalition had disagreed with the establishment of Maleki government after the 2010 election and the head of the coalition Ayad Allawi and the prominent member of the coalition Tariq Al-Hashemi have been trying to put hurdles on the way of political trend. Conflicts over distribution of ministerial posts and discontent with assigning a post for Allawi showed that Maleki and Al-Iraqiyah are opposed to each other. The involvement of the fugitive vice-president Tariq Al-Hashemi in terrorist acts left no doubt that Al-Iraqiyah is an enemy of Maleki.

But the escape of Al-Hashemi and Ayad Allawi’s efforts to show that Hashemi’s charges were political; and resorting to interventionist acts of countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey for creating a political deadline in Iraq were all in vain. For this reason, Al-Iraqiyah turned towards Kurds and promised to materialize their demands on Kirkuk and the unsolved issues between Erbil and Baghdad. It seems that this policy has drawn the attention of at least the head of Kurdistan region, Masoud Barzani. The Al-Iraqiya coalition, as the active side of the triangle, is continuously striving to resort to domestic and foreign means to create crisis and put a brick to the political process of Iraq. 

Unlike their policy in the recent years the Kurds, who have had constructive relations and cooperation with the Shiite groups and especially Maleki, have now changed their direction and stood in the opposite side. It seems that prolongation of differences between Baghdad and Erbil over the future of Kirkuk and the oil revenues and budget of Pishmargan forces have deepened the differences between Barzani and Maleki. In such circumstances Allawi’s trip to Iraq’s Kurdistan and his cooperation with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar might exacerbate the political relations between Barzani and Maleki.

 Iraqi Kurds might think that pressuring Maleki and creating a political vacuum in Iraq will provide better conditions for pushing forward their demands by the next government. But the Iraqi president Jalal Talebani, as a Kurdish political veteran, has a different idea.

Recently the Iraqi president’s office called on Barzani to act realistically; because stripping confidence from Maleki is detrimental to the Kurds and the Iraqi nation and it will have no achievements for the Kurds. Talebani called on Barzani to hold talks with Maleki for ending the political crisis and resolving the existing problems between Baghdad and Erbil. Although criticisms against Maleki have decreased in Kurdistan, it can not be considered an end to the political crisis especially given that Barzani speaks of the necessity of impeachment of Maleki.

The third side of the crisis triangle is the Sadrist group which was shaped with the Moqtada Sadr’s trip to Erbil and his participation in the conference on finding a solution to Iraq’s political crisis. The fraction of Al-Ahrar with 40 parliamentary seats is one of the allies of Maleki’s national unity. In 2010, Maleki made much effort to urge Sadr join his government. Although there have already been disputes and rifts between Sadr and Maleki due to Maleki’s measures in 2008 for limiting the activities of Sadr’s “Jaish-al-Mahdi” or the Army of Mahdi, perhaps Maleki’s inattention to Sadr’s demands for determining defense, interior and security ministers worsened the relations between the two parties.

In spite of Sadr party’s negotiations with other groups for pressuring Maleki, the party might not be willing to bring down Maleki.

One of their goals might be undermining Maleki’s situation among his allies and opposing the state of law decision for Maleki’s candidacy for the third time. In the meantime, in view of their social base, Sadrists are trying to play a new role in the political structure of Iraq and prepare themselves for the next elections.

However Iraq’s political atmosphere is still exposed to developments and moves of the groups which try to achieve their goals by challenging and weakening Maleki’s government.

Legally, impeachment of Maleki has a special mechanism which has been stipulated in the constitution. Talebani’s recent remarks that signatures for stripping confidence from Maleki have not reached the required quota and that he cannot ignore the demands of the Shiite majority are all based on this legal article.

Article 59 of Iraq’s constitution, explaining the duties of MPs and the manner of stripping confidence from prime minister, stresses that “the president can strip the prime minister by presenting a request to the parliament. The parliament can strip confidence of prime minister at the demand of one fifth of its members. But the parliament can do this just through the absolute majority of its members.”

Based on this legal article, now there is no enough unanimity for stripping confidence from Maleki. Although this file has now been put aside with the mediation of Talebani and other leaders, the situation in Iraq is against the national interests of the country and it paves the way for foreign interference.

Therefore, to take Iraq out of political and fabricated crises, the country is in need of national reconciliation among parties rather than unanimity for creating crisis and toppling the government; since this might once again cast Iraq in chaos.

Iraq Mon, 02 Jul 2012 05:30:32 +0000
Future of US in Iraq

Will the US put an end to its 9 year occupation of Iraq? This question is posed in the political and media circles since two weeks ago when the US president Barack Obama spoke of Washington's commitment to withdrawal of US forces from Iraq at the due time by the end of December 2011.

Obama stressed that the entire 50 thousand US troops will leave the country. With the withdrawal of US soldiers from Al-Anbar province, as the Americans themselves say, the project to withdraw from Iraq is now well on its way.

Washington-Baghdad security agreement which was signed in the final months of the former US president George Bush tenure emphasized the complete pull-out of US forces from Iraq by the end of December 2011 but there have been serious doubts on the agreement’s implementation in due time. One reason is that the US military and political officials have made much consultation to convince the Iraqi government to keep part of the US troops in Iraq after 2011. The Americans have frequently claimed that the pull-out of US forces from Iraq will be troublesome for the Iraqi government and Iraq will be in their own words ‘exposed to widespread insecurity and instability.’ But except people like the commander of the Iraqi joint chiefs of staff Babakr Zibari, other Iraqi officials including the premier Nouri al-Maleki have stressed the necessity of withdrawal of occupiers in due time.

Analysts ask, ‘how will the US be ready to withdraw its forces from Iraq while it has always tried to justify its occupation in the country?’ Even the political leaders of Iraq are not sure of the full US withdrawal from Iraq. The influential leader Moqtada Sadr expressed doubt on the full pull-out of US troops from Iraq and said that a number of US forces will stay in Iraq under the titles like safeguarding embassies, personnel of security companies or trainers in Iraq. Therefore, the 9 years of US occupation of Iraq will not end on the last day of December. It seems that Barack Obama pursues the strategy of replacement in Iraq and the Persian Gulf.

This strategy should maintain Washington's defined interests in the region.

The American people have not forgotten how Barack Obama, during his presidential campaign, spoke of withdrawal of US forces from Iraq within a 16 month period. But when Obama entered the White House, he soon realized that the US foreign strategies are determined by the owners of industries, military complexes and powerful lobbies. Perhaps that is why Obama did not fulfill his promise, and now 3 years after the Washington-Baghdad security agreement, Obama speaks of pulling out of US forces, why?

Has the Iraqi grass root opposition to the occupation of their country been responsible for taking this decision?

These oppositions especially the resistance of some Iraqi groups against the US occupation has played the basic role in Washington's decision on withdrawal of forces from Iraq; but this viewpoint has also many supporters that Washington pursues other objectives in implementing the withdrawal commitment.

Recently the American media have been reporting of the US regime new program for the Persian Gulf. New York Times has revealed that the US is seeking to send more warships to the Persian Gulf and probably will increase the number of US troops in the country's bases in the southern regions of the Persian Gulf. A short while ago, on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly meeting, the US secretary of state Hilary Clinton met with the senior officials of 6 members of the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council and spoke of the need for concluding new so-called security agreements. Moreover, Iranophobia is seriously continued by the US.

From this viewpoint, the US strategy might be based on the regional presence instead of presence in Iraq especially that the pull-out of forces from Iraq is not clear yet because Washington officials have spoken of increasing the number of the US embassy personnel in Baghdad and US Consulates in Iraq. Experts say the US has not come to Iraq to leave it after a while. The US strategic goal is to guarantee the fundamental presence in the policy, government and security of Iraq. This means that the US is seeking to reconstruct the military system and the Iraqi army on the basis of American pattern and to continue sale of warfare to Iraq as overall strategy.

The US has so far concluded tens of military accords worth over 10 billion dollars with Iraq. This is just the beginning and more news is to be heard of new agreements and even the US-Iraq security treaties. The US assumes the control of Iraq's air space. So it is naïve to interpret the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq as the end of US hegemony over Iraq. On the contrary, the US will probably unveil its new military strategy in the Persian Gulf and Iraq within coming months; and then the true meaning of US strategy of withdrawal pretended by Obama will be revealed. Perhaps the US is going to replace presence of mariners with the strategy of software presence.

Meanwhile infiltrating the political and administrative structure of Iraq is part of Washington's strategy which is actually the mission of the vast US embassy in Baghdad. The US policy is to take advantage of the demographical context and the multi-ethnic and multi-religious atmosphere of Iraq to interfere in the decision-making in this country.

The future of US-Iraq relations depends on the type of interaction of the Iraqi political groups with each other. Undoubtedly the unanimity of the Iraqi groups on major issues and their keeping away from differences will hinder the foreign interference, especially by the US, just as the Iraqis’ opposition to the continued presence of US forces in Iraq has played a basic role in ending the occupation of this country.

Now Obama cunningly plans to celebrate the withdrawal of US forces together with the families whose members are in Iraq so that once again he can use the issue of Iraq as a winning card in the next presidential campaigns announcing that he has pulled US forces out of Iraq despite the republicans' opposition.

Iraq Sun, 13 Nov 2011 04:24:50 +0000
Iraq's Political and Security Developments Iraq's Political and Security Developments

US President Barack Obama has recently announced the end of mission of the US forces in Iraq and it is inferred from his words that war in Iraq has ended.

Obama considered the end of war in Iraq as historical moment and saying that combat operation ends in Iraq but the US commitment to the future of this country has not ended. Obama believes that new horizon has begun in Iraq. This term displaced the phrase which was applied in 2003 by the former US president George Bush who termed the attack on Iraq as the operation for liberating the country.

By repeating the phrase “End of Military Operation in Iraq”, Obama tried to make the maximum political and propaganda advantage of this issue. Prior to his presidency, he had already raised the issue of withdrawal of US forces from Iraq in a bid to suggest that he was abiding by his commitments. Analysts do not consider Obama's speech on withdrawal of US forces from Iraq as the end to Iraq occupation. By the year 2011, the remaining 50,000 US forces withdraw from that country but the phrase uttered by Obama indicates the main nature of US policy toward Iraq which is no much different from Bush's strategy.

Obama says the US is committed towards the future of Iraq. These words indicate the reality that US strategy is based on the long term military presence in Iraq but it is certainly in a different way.

On the other hand, the 50 thousand US forces in Iraq are claimed to give consultation and training to Iraqi forces.

Another US goal behind training the Iraqi forces is to have the control of Iraq's security and even the military affairs. Meanwhile some agreements are reached on the sale of US weapons to Iraq within the framework of Americanizing the Iraqi army system.

Six months after the parliamentary election, the political vacuum resulting from non- agreement of Iraqi political groups to establish a government has overshadowed the political and security developments of Iraq. Intensification of terrorist incidents in the recent weeks has aggravated the situation of Iraq, an issue which can serve as a means to increase the US forces’ interference in operations and to question the ability of Iraqi forces in controlling the situation which is in line with US goals in the country to justify the need for military presence in Iraq.

In these circumstances, the US interference in Iraq's political affairs will further be revealed. US vice-president Joseph Biden has recently made a proposal on reducing the prime minister's powers and setting up an institution under the title of ‘Command of Iraq's Security and Intelligence Organs’ to be chaired by Ayad Allawi the leader of Al-Iraqia list so that Maleki gains less power.

Biden has also suggested the responsibility of presidential election to be given to Massoud Barzani the president of Iraq's Kurdistan.

This offer is contradictory to the articles of Iraq's constitution. What is clear is that the situation ruling over the political behavior of Iraqi leaders has provided the conditions for US intervention.

Now the Iraqi national coalition's introduction of Adel Abd al-Mahdi as the candidate for premiership, has paved the way for the agreement of the two main Shiite groups; that is the coalition of the state of law and the national coalition of Iraq, for electing the final candidate of premiership. The speedy agreement of these two groups can pave the way for political unanimity among different groups and coalitions, for; the only way for taking Iraq out of the exiting situation is the mass unanimity based on the country's interests.

If the Iraqi groups do not prefer the national interests of their country to the political and party considerations, the establishment of a government will fail and the talks will be useless. It is evident that in this situation the US intervention will increase under the pretext of giving order to the political situation of the country, especially that Washington plans to take the mandate of the Iraqi groups.

Iraq Wed, 15 Sep 2010 07:08:45 +0000