Unveiling the real face of United States

The United States has been involved in hundreds of wars, invasions, coups and conflicts around the globe, yet it claims to be the flag-bearer of the international fight for freedom, liberation and human rights.

Even a cursory look reveals that in addition to its crimes, atrocities and attempts to divide countries, Washington stands accused of seditious acts through a widespread social media campaign and its embassies around the globe have been censured for their role in destabilizing different regions of the world.

It is often alleged that the United States itself was founded on violence against the indigenous people of America and since then it has survived on instigating violence with its hegemonic dreams and hopes of global hegemony following the collapse of the British Empire.

Over the past two decades Washington has had its eyes on West Asia with the disastrous invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as its support for Takfiri terrorist groups in countries such as Syria and Libya and in particular Iran.

It has since expanded its warmongering approach towards Eastern Europe with the aim of containing rising superpowers such as Russia. It has also pinned its hopes on China’s domestic issues such as Taiwan, Hong Kong, Tibet, Xinjiang and elsewhere with the hope of containing the rising economic and military power of Beijing. In essence, what is very clear is that wherever there is a US presence, there is also insecurity and no stability in that part of the world.

President Joe Biden claims the US will free Iran. Speaking at a campaign speech in California recently, he said, "Don't worry, we're gonna free Iran". The reality is, as noted by Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi, Iran was freed from US captivity by toppling the Pahlavi regime. 

"I am telling Biden that Iran was freed 43 years ago," Raisi said in reference to the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

It is also important to note that the Iranian people were free in 1953 before the American CIA and British MI6 orchestrated a coup that toppled the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq and replaced it with a puppet regime to loot the country’s large oil and gas resources.

This is something both Washington and its Western allies publicly acknowledge. The reality is that the US has been trying to repeat the exact same scenario in Iran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. It has no interest in freedom or the livelihoods of Iranian people. Experts say human rights are observed in Iran more than the United States where minority groups, including Black Americans, face systematic discrimination.

The US claims it wants to free the Iranian nation while at the same time it has imposed the harshest ever sanctions on Iranian people that have caused the majority of the country's population to suffer. American sanctions prevented and continue to prevent patients suffering from serious diseases, such as cancer or rare skin diseases, to gain access to vital medicines by banning money transfer from Iran. This is under the name of "US freedom".

American widespread support for riots in Iran over the past few weeks have also led to the brutal death of police forces. This is the freedom and human rights that America seeks to spread and preach about. 

The closer the United States approaches Iranian borders or any other border in West Asia and beyond, the more insecurity grows in that country. And the US has dozens of military bases surrounding Iranian borders but an independent Iran has proven it has the capability to prevent the Pentagon from toppling the Islamic Republic because of Tehran's military might.

The governments and kingdoms that have linked their own national security interests (knowingly or unknowingly, willingly or unwillingly) to the US have been toppled because of their lack of sovereignty.

In cases where they have not been toppled, the US is stirring sedition and divide nations. This policy of spreading instability helps American arms manufacturers make lucrative profits from weapons deliveries, as has been witnessed in many countries, such as Cuba and other Latin American countries and more recently to Syria, Libya, Ukraine, etc.  

The US State Department has demanded that North Korea refrain from taking any defensive measures to protect its territory, and instead engage in dialogue. This is while the United States has hundreds of warplanes buzzing around North Korean borders in joint war games that have been extended and which Pyongyang views as a rehearsal for an imminent invasion. North Korea has test-fired ballistic missiles in response to these war games and Pyongyang, unsurprisingly, has been denounced by Washington for stirring up trouble.

The US is allowed to hold the largest ever war games next to North Korea with the deployment of B-1B strategic bombers but the North is not allowed to test its own missiles to protect its territorial integrity.

The US Navy missile-guided destroyers and other warships including US warplane carriers and strike groups regularly sail in the South China Sea and expect China to remain silent, which by the way Beijing has exercised praiseworthy patience with its diplomatic approach to the US provocations. A reflection of how one country is not after seeking military confrontation and how another has a warmongering approach under the pretext of spreading freedom that nobody even requested in the first place.

Critics argue that the delusional idea that Washington can provide security guarantees for another country can’t be further from the truth. The fact of the matter is, as history has shown and proven, the US only looks after its own interests, makes lucrative profit from its military adventurism and once these America’s interests are gone, so are the alleged security guarantees that Washington once promised to provide for certain governments and rulers and kings.

 

United States seeks to militarize unrest in Iran

The former US national security advisor, John Bolton, has said that rioters in Iran are getting weapons, an allegation reminiscent of how Syria plunged into a civil war.

In an interview with the Persian service of the BBC, Johan Bolton said the recent unrest in Iran is different from what happened in previous times because this time, protesters are receiving weapons from the Iraqi Kurdistan. 

Bolton is known for his hawkish stances against Iran and has long been the fiercest advocate of regime change in Iran. He has openly called for bombing Iran.

Bolton’s remarks come at a time when the Iranian elites are warning of a Syria blueprint for Iran aimed at bringing about the disintegration of Iran into smaller states fractured along ethnic and religious lines.

On Tuesday, Mohammad Dehghan, advisor to the Iranian president on legal affairs, said the recent developments in Iran were beyond protests and that the enemy seeks to use the unrest to disintegrate Iran.

“The recent incidents in the country have been beyond protests and as was admitted by a Pahlavi regime official, the enemy, using everything in its power, especially the media, is seeking to disintegrate Iran through regime change,” Dehghan was quoted as saying on Tuesday by IRNA.

Adding substance to that is the repetitive announcements by Iranian officials in recent days that border guards have detained several shipments of weapons headed to Iran. A senior border guard commander has said that the seizure of weapons shipments has risen as compared to last year. According to the commander, more than 600 contraband rifles have been seized by border guards over the last 45 days. 

This speaks to the efforts currently underway to militarize unrest in Iran, which suffers from many hardships. Iranian officials and analysts have said that the enemies seek to turn Iran into another Syria using public grievances. 

Many Iranians from all walks of life have fallen victim to that effort. Over the course of the unrest, many Basij members and clerics, along with ordinary people, have been targeted and in some cases martyred. A case in point is Sajad Shahraki, the prayer Imam of Zahedan’s Molaye Mottaqian Mosque who was assassinated in a drive-by shooting.

The police chief of Sistan-Baluchistan province said mask-wearing gunmen, using two Pride and Peugeot 405 sedans, fired into the car of Shahraki at point-blank range, hitting him in the head and chest.

Many Iranian analysts believe such incidents are meant to foment sedition in Iran with the ultimate goal of breaking up Iran. The disintegration of Iran is now even acknowledged by those who work for foreign countries.

A recently leaked private conversation between a BBC Persian anchor with her mother showed that the enemies have placed the goal of disintegrating Iran high on their agenda.

The anchor, Rana Rahimpour, told her mother that the enemies do not want a unified Iran and that their support for the unrest in the country isn’t sincere. Instead, she said, they seek to break up Iran through the unrest because a weaker Iran will ensure their interests. 

 

Why is the US avoiding penalizing 9/11 facilitators?

Today marks the anniversary of “the strangest incident” which plunged the world in turmoil. Some quarters say the US administration has kept the ‘facilitators’ immune and avoided taking any punitive measures against them.

The lack of any action by Washington in pursuing the inquiry displays utter disregard to killing of people in Afghanistan and Iraq.

This explains lack of US interest in seeking any justice for the millions of civilians killed by its bombing in          Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, and elsewhere. One may recall that the US had waged two wars on the pretext of fighting terrorism. 

Both of which went horribly wrong with civilians paying the price for the policies of hawks and arms manufacturers in Washington. They thrive on the US military adventures abroad or other conflicts that the US supports with constant arms supply. 

The billions of dollars spent on two invasions in the aftermath of 9/11 made the world less safe and could have been invested domestically instead to eradicate the many problems plaguing America such as homelessness, child hunger, poverty or even the country’s outdated infrastructure. 

Last year, President Joe Biden administration came under strong pressure by 9/11 family members, survivors and emergency responders to declassify an earlier FBI report, summarizing an investigation into the attacks. 

In a sign of how fed up the 9/11 families had become, Biden was told he would not be welcome at the 9/11 memorial events unless he fulfilled a pledge to be more transparent than other presidents. 

In what was an expected U-turn, the American president travelled to Saudi Arabia this year, asked for greater oil production and recently approved a multi-billion-dollar arms deal to the Kingdom. 

In 2017, the US clinched deal with the Saudis worth US$350 billion. The trade is simply too lucrative and would not be possible if ties to Saudi Arabia are broken.

America has made accusations against others over the 9/11 attacks, including Iran, something which is quite laughable and touching on borderline stupidity. However, it is not unexpected from the US officials, who have blamed Iran for just about everything. 

The accusation against Iran is more for domestic audience and aimed to make up for Washington’s failures in genuinely addressing the attacks with any tangible results.

What is even more regrettable is that people of Iraq and Afghanistan had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks but were made to suffer for 20 years after their land was invaded and occupied by American forces. 

20 years later, the US chaotically withdrew from Afghanistan; but in a severe blow to humanitarian efforts in the country, the White House has frozen seven billion dollars of Afghan funds. 

 

 

Grand Ayatollah: A symbol of peace in Iraq

As Iraq was at the brink of civil war lately only one man stopped it, a 92-year-old Iraqi Shi'ite cleric who proved once again he is the most powerful man in his country.

Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani said nothing in public about the unrest that erupted on Iraq's streets, but government officials and Shi'ite insiders say it was only Sistani who halted a meltdown.

According to the western media, the story of Iraq's bloodiest week in nearly three years shows the limits of traditional politics in a country where the power to start and stop wars rests with clerics.

The Iraqis who took to the streets blamed Tehran for whipping up the violence, which began after a cleric based in Iran denounced Iraq's most popular politician, Moqtada al-Sadr, and instructed his own followers - including Sadr himself - to seek guidance from Iran's Supreme Leader.

Sadr's followers tried to storm government buildings. By nightfall they were driving through Baghdad in pickup trucks brandishing machineguns and bazookas.

Armed men believed to be members of pro-Iranian militia opened fire on Sadrist demonstrators who threw stones. At least 30 people were killed.

And then, within 24 hours, it was over as suddenly as it started. Sadr returned to the airwaves and called for calm. His armed supporters and unarmed followers began leaving the streets, the army lifted an overnight curfew and a fragile calm descended upon the capital.

To understand how the unrest broke out and how it was quelled, Reuters spoke with nearly 20 officials from the Iraqi government, Sadr's movement and rival Shi'ite factions seen as pro-Iranian.

Those interviews all pointed to a decisive intervention behind the scenes by Sistani, who has never held formal political office in Iraq but presides as the most influential scholar in its Shi'ite religious centre, Najaf.

According to the officials, Sistani's office ensured Sadr understood that unless Sadr called off the violence by his followers, Sistani would denounce the unrest.

"Sistani sent a message to Sadr, that if he will not stop the violence then Sistani would be forced to release a statement calling for a stopping of fighting – this would have made Sadr look weak, and as if he'd caused bloodshed in Iraq," said an Iraqi government official.

Three Shi'ite figures based in Najaf and close to Sistani would not confirm that Sistani's office sent an explicit message to Sadr. But they said it would have been clear to Sadr that Sistani would soon speak out unless Sadr called off the unrest.

An Iran-aligned official in the region said that if it were not for Sistani's office, Moqtada al-Sadr would not have held his press conference that halted the fighting.

Sistani's intervention may have averted wider bloodshed for now. But it does not solve the problem of maintaining calm in a country where so much power resides outside the political system in the Shi'ite clergy, including among clerics with intimate ties to Iran.

Sistani, who has intervened decisively at crucial moments in Iraq's history since the US invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein, has no obvious successor. Despite his age, little is known publicly about the state of his health.

Meanwhile, many of the most influential Shi'ite figures - including Sadr himself at various points in his career - have studied, lived and worked in Iran, a theocracy which makes no attempt to separate clerical influence from state power.

Last week's violence began after Ayatollah Kadhim al-Haeri, a top ranking Iraqi-born Shi'ite cleric who has lived in Iran for decades, announced he was retiring from public life and shutting down his office due to advanced age. Such a move is practically unknown in the 1,300-year history of Shi'ite Islam, where top clerics are typically revered until death.

Haeri had been anointed as Sadr's movement's spiritual advisor by Sadr's father, himself a revered cleric who was assassinated by Saddam's regime in 1999. In announcing his own resignation, Haeri denounced Sadr for causing rifts among Shi'ites, and called on his own followers to seek future guidance on religious matters from Ayatollah Ali Khamenei - the cleric who also happens to rule the Iranian state.

Sadr made clear in public that he blamed outsiders - implicitly Tehran - for Haeri's intervention, "I don't believe he did this of his own volition," Sadr tweeted.

A senior Baghdad-based member of Sadr's movement said Sadr was furious. "Haeri was Sadr's spiritual guide. Sadr saw it as a betrayal that aimed to rob him of his religious legitimacy as a Shi'ite leader, at a time when he's fighting Iran-backed groups for power."

Sadrist officials in Najaf said the move meant Sadr would have to choose between obeying his spiritual guide Haeri and following Khamenei, or rejecting him and potentially upsetting older figures in his movement who were close to Sadr's father.

Instead, Sadr announced his own withdrawal from politics altogether, a move that spurred his followers onto the street.

Specialists in Shi'ite Islam say Haeri's move to shut his own office and direct his followers to back the Iranian leader would certainly have appeared suspicious in an Iraqi context, where suggestions of Iranian meddling are explosive.

"There's strong reason to believe this was influenced by Iranian pressure - but let's not forget that Haeri has also had disagreements with Sadr in the past," said Marsin Alshammary, a research fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School.

"He directs followers to Khamenei when there's no (religious) need to do so. And it seems unlikely a person in his position would shut down his offices which are probably quite lucrative," she said.

As gun battles raged in central Baghdad, Sadr stayed silent for nearly 24 hours.

During that time, Shi'ite religious figures across Iraq tried to convince Sadr to stop the violence. They were joined by Shi'ite figures in Iran and Lebanon, according to officials in those countries, who said pressure on Sadr was channeled through Sistani's office in Najaf.

"The Iranians are not intervening directly. They're stung by the backlash against their influence in Iraq and are trying to influence events from a distance," an Iraqi government official said.

Sadr insists on new elections, while some Iran-backed groups want to press ahead to form a government. Clashes broke out late in the week in oil-rich southern Iraq.

The government has been largely silent. Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi said on Tuesday he would step down if violence continued, in a statement made hours after fighting had already stopped.

"Where is the prime minister, the commander-in-chief, in all of this?" said Renad Mansour of the London-based Chatham House think tank. More violence was possible, Mansour said.

"Sadr's main focus is to become the main Shi'ite actor in Iraq, and so he wants to go after his Shi'ite opponents. In Iraq, violence is one of the tools used to compete."

Turkey doubles Russian oil imports

Turkey has doubled its import of oil from of Russia this year, shows Refinitiv Eikon data. Both the countries are set for broader cooperation in business, especially energy trade despite western sanctions against Moscow.

Trade between Turkey and Russia has been booming as Turkish companies did not stop from dealing with Russian counterparts and stepped in to fill the gap created by EU businesses leaving Russia after being of war in Ukraine earlier this year. Russia calls its actions in Ukraine 'a special military operation.'

Turkey increased oil imports from Russia, including Urals and Siberian Light grades, beyond 200,000 barrels per day (bpd) this year as compared to just 98,000 bpd for the same period of 2021.

Turkey did not sanction Russia due to its actions in Ukraine, saying it remains reliant on Russian energy supplies.

Russian President Vladimir Putin and Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan met early in August and agreed to boost business cooperation.

Turkey's main refiners Tupras and Azerbaijan's SOCAR's STAR refinery significantly increased intake of Russian Urals and Siberian Light oil this year, while decreasing purchases of North Sea, Iraqi and West African grades.

Over the last few years, STAR refinery increased purchases of Norway's Johan Sverdrup and Iraqi oil grades, which are close in quality to Urals as Russian oil has been growing in price.

This year, Russian oil prices fell to historical lows against Brent benchmark, while North Sea and Iraqi oil grades prices increased.

STAR refinery is expected to purchase about 90,000 bpd of oil from Russia during January to August 2022 as compared to 48,000 bpd during the same period of the last year.

Tupras refineries will buy about 111,000 bpd of oil from Russia in January to August this year compared to just 45,000 bpd during the same period last year, according to the data.

"The choice for Turkey's refiners was obvious as they have no limits on Russian oil buying", a trader in the Mediterranean oil market said, who declined to be named as he is not authorized to speak to the press.

He added that good Urals oil refining margins supported profits of Turkish refiners.

 

Can Iraqi mediation bring Saudi Arabia and Iran closer?

According to a report by Saudi Gazette, Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa Al-Kadhimi paid a visit to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, during which he met Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman. The visit was followed by another visit to the Iranian capital Tehran, during which he met senior Iranian officials of that country.

What emerged from these two visits was an attempt of mediation to ease the atmosphere and reduce tension in the region, through dialogue between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

There has been no halt for the Iraqi attempts of mediation over the past few years, especially after the assumption of office by Al-Kadhimi as prime minister of the country. Al-Kadhimi is a respectable leader for Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom sees him as a patriotic figure who works sincerely to resolve the huge crises that are afflicting Iraq.

The Iraqi viewpoint is that crises in inter-regional relations produce negative impact on Iraq internally. The more the region moves towards resolving crises and easing tension, the more this gives a comfortable ground for rulers in Mesopotamia.

It is true that the crises in Iraq are structural and it is very difficult to overcome most of these without understanding all the crises in their entirety. There is a possibility to mitigate the impact of these dilemmas, and perhaps the most important of them is the security dilemma.

It is ironic that Saudi Arabia, in its understanding and approach, is betting on Iran, which is striving to be a national state, and this is a major point of contention with Iran. The latter is betting on pre-state groups, and even supports them through illegal channels far from what is supposed to be from a national state, whether the militias in Iraq, the Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon and others.

Restoring the national state will not be an easy matter after years of tampering with the social fabric in the countries of the region, which negatively affected the security and stability of the entire region.

It goes without saying that restoration of the state’s presence and roles through internal dialogue and negotiations and by stopping states from interfering in the internal affairs of other states, all of this would contribute to averting these states and the entire region from bloodshed.

Saudi Arabia spares no effort in extending the hand of dialogue to all who want to reach to this end, despite the pile up of discouraging experiences in terms of dialogue.

A point of concern is the arms race that Tehran wants to launch. It will not serve anyone, and it will cause serious consequences for Iran itself. Here we are talking about two aspects: The first is the nuclear program and the anxiety it causes to countries in the region and the lack of confidence in Iranian promises, especially with the increase in the enrichment rate and the secret aspects that Iran seeks to hide.

The second aspect is the program of drones and ballistic missiles that pose a serious threat to the entire region, and in this also there is a threat to the arms race that has already begun.

Serious dialogue to reach a security system can be a window not to resolve crises, as we all wish, but at least to manage them. As for the idea of dialogue for the sake of image, it will not work as the region had tried it during the past decades, a dialogue that results in smiles in front of cameras but fears remain.

What is worst is that Tehran is using this dialogue to continue its troubling policies, all of which will not be useful.

Saudi Arabia, under the leadership of King Salman and Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman, continues its efforts in the region to restore stability, avoid tension, and defuse crises whenever it is possible.

Iranian non-oil trade with neighbors up 18% during March-June 2022 quarter

The value of Iran’s non-oil trade with its neighboring countries increased 18% during the first three months of the current Iranian calendar year (March-June), as compared to the same period last year, the spokesman of Islamic Republic of Iran Customs Administration (IRICA) announced.

Ruhollah Latifi put Iran’s non-oil trade with its neighbors at 20.973 million tons worth US$12.363 billion in the three-month period.

He said trade with the neighbors accounted for 49% of the value and 59% of the weight of Iran’s non-oil trade during the period under review.

The country exported 16.05 million tons of non-oil goods worth US$6.736 billion to the neighboring countries in the three-month period of this year, indicating 20% rise in value, while 10% drop in weight, as compared to the same period last year, the official stated.

He named Iraq, Turkey, United Arab Emirates (UAE), Afghanistan, and Oman as the five top export destinations.

Latifi further announced that Iran imported 4.433 million tons of goods worth US$5.627 billion from its neighbors during this period, with 15% growth in value and one percent rise in weight YoY.

He named UAE, Turkey, Russia, Pakistan, and Oman as the five top sources of imports.

As previously announced by the IRICA head, the value of Iran’s non-oil trade with its neighbors during the previous Iranian calendar year 1400 was reported at US$51.875 billion, an increase of 43% YoY.

Alireza Moghadasi put the weight of non-oil trade with the neighboring countries at 100.131 million tons in the said year, stating that trade with the neighbors also increased by 23% in terms of weight.

The official put the annual non-oil exports to the mentioned countries at 75.445 million tons valued at US$26.29 billion, with a 29% rise in value and a 12% growth in weight.

Major export destinations of the Iranian non-oil goods were Iraq with US$8.9 billion, followed by Turkey (US$6.1 billion), United Arab Emirates (US$4.9 billion), Afghanistan US$1.8 billion) and Pakistan with (US$1.3 billion) in imports from the Islamic Republic, others countries included Oman, Russia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia, according to the official.

Moghadasi further stated that Iran imported 24.686 million tons of non-oil commodities worth over US$25.846 billion in the previous year, with a 60% growth in value and a 68%YoY increase in weight.

The United Arab Emirates was the top exporter to Iran during the period exporting US$16.5 billion worth of goods to the country, followed by Turkey, Russia, Iraq, and Oman, he stated.

Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Armenia, Kuwait, Qatar, and Bahrain were other top neighboring countries that supplied goods to Iran in 1400, respectively.

Increasing non-oil exports to the neighboring countries is one of the major plans that the Iranian government has been pursuing in recent years.

Iran shares land or water borders with 15 countries namely UAE, Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Kazakhstan, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, and Saudi Arabia.

Iran: Neighborhood policy neutralizes impact of US sanctions

A year into his administration, Iranian President Ayatollah Seyed Ebrahim Raisi succeeded in diversifying Iran’s foreign policy options through the nascent neighborhood policy he set out last year.

When he assumed office last year in August, Ayatollah Raisi made it clear that he had a new agenda for Iran’s foreign policy. He outlined his foreign policy goals within what came to be known as the Neighborhood Policy, which rests on fostering mainly economic relations with neighboring countries and non-Western powers. 

The new policy orientation soon yielded results, leading to Iran’s membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in the first weeks of Raisi’s presidency. Since then, the President traveled to many countries in a bid to advance his foreign policy goals. This included visits to Russia, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Oman, and Qatar, to name a few. 

A senior Iranian lawmaker has said that the neighborhood policy of Raisi played in a major role in Iran’s efforts to neutralize US sanctions. The lawmaker, Javad Karimi Quddousi, who is a member of the Iranian parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, said the Raisi presidency marked a shift in Iranian foreign policy.

According to the lawmaker, one reason that why the US sanctions had negative impact on Iran’s economy was that the previous government failed to prioritize enhancing economic relations with neighboring countries and focused its time and energy on boosting Iran’s relations with Europe, which has been seeking to sow divisions among Muslim states. 

“Sanctions were also effective in cases where our relations with neighboring countries were strained in the previous government. When I asked Saif (Valiullah Saif, the former governor of the Central Bank) to make bilateral agreements for the exchange of national currencies between other countries, his answer was that this issue was not realized. While diplomacy and many trips between countries are for the realization of this goal,” he told Iran’s state news agency IRNA. 

Qoddousi added, “The 13th government created a unique and unprecedented transformation in foreign relations with neighboring countries in the shortest time. Membership in unions such as Shanghai [SCO], Eurasia, (and possibly) BRICS, etc., signing important agreements with countries in the region and the world in various fields are among the successful goals of the 13th government that have been achieved.”

The Raisi administration is continuing the neighborhood policy. On Monday, President Raisi received Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Jeyhun Bayramov, who also met his Iranian counterpart Hossein Amir Abdollahian. The visit came amid diplomatic efforts to upgrade relations between Tehran and Baku. 

It also came against a backdrop of broader diplomatic efforts by Iran in the region to improve ties with regional heavyweights such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Amir Abdollahian recently paid a visit to Turkey where he met Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu.

In parallel, Iran and Saudi Arabia seem to be on the verge of restoring ties as a result of mediatory efforts by Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi. The Iraqi premier visited Iran and Saudi Arabia in the past week. According to Arab press reports, Iran and Saudi Arabia could soon announce the restoration of diplomatic ties in a meeting in Baghdad. 

 

 

Who attacked Iraqi Prime Minister?

Reports of a recent drone attack on the home of Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa Al-Kadhimi have caused a major escalation in the region. There is an increased use of drones as a strategic weapon, with the goal of intimidating the Iraqi Prime Minister just days after security forces clashed with pro-Iranian protesters.

It is apprehended that the attack was carried out by pro-Iranian militias as probably there exist no other culprits in Iraq who have drones that could or would attack the Iraqi Prime Minister.

While ISIS has used drones in the past, it’s not clear why they would suddenly emerge now to target the Iraqi leader and that leaves Iran-backed groups firmly in the frame.

While official reports have not yet specified which group was behind the attack and no one has yet taken responsibility for it, the trend of such attacks in the region points to Iranian-linked groups.

A drone was used to attack a US garrison at Tanf in Syria in October. In July, a drone was used to attack a commercial tanker in the Gulf of Oman, killing two crew members. In both instances, the US and other countries have pointed the finger at Iran.

In May, a drone was launched from Iraq, or possibly from Syria, targeting Israel during the 11-day war with Hamas. It is believed that Iran was also behind this attack.

For years, Iran has been building more sophisticated drones for surveillance and kamikaze-style attacks. The drones have become better at navigation and pre-programmed flight paths, or even real-time intelligence gathering. The fact they have targeted a moving ship is a clear indication of this.

An attack on the residence of Kadhimi is also a likely message by pro-Iran groups in Iraq that the Prime Minister is not immune.  

Iraqi armed forces announced the start of investigations to discover the location of the launch of the booby-trapped drone that targeted Kadhimi. Images showed the damage to the home, but it is unclear if drone fragments had been found that would link the design to any single country or entity.  

One of the reasons pro-Iran groups — including Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis in Yemen — use drones, is that it is difficult to trace their launch site and to know who is behind them once they are launched.

Israel has, in the past, accused Iran of creating a drone training center. Drones from Iran and technology from Iran has been a key to aiding Houthi efforts to attack Saudi Arabia.

Since January, the pro-Iran militias in Iraq have increasingly used drones to target US forces. This has occurred even in Erbil where the pro-Iran militias used a drone in the spring of 2021 to target what US media called, at the time, a CIA hangar at Erbil airport. Pro-Iran groups have done parades with drones.  

But, the kind of drone used to attack the Iraqi Prime Minister may be smaller than some of the kamikaze drones, which tend to be larger than a human. Locating parts of the equipment will be important, but Iraq’s security services may be reticent to conclude that Iran or any of its proxy groups were behind the attack.

Because in previous incidents where Iraq’s prime minister has acted against pro-Iranian groups engaged in illegal attacks, they succeeded in freeing their jailed members as a result.

Now, the groups, most linked to the Fatah party in parliament and the paramilitary Hashd al-Shaabi, have been conducting a sit-in to demand the overturn of recent election results. This kind of election protest is designed to raise tensions and pressure the prime minister.  

The problem being faced by the Iraqi government is that the militias are often tied to official paramilitary forces because former Iraqi Prime Minister, Haider Abadi, pushed to give the militias a legitimate role.

The militias were given increased power in 2014, based on some existing pro-Iran units, to fight ISIS but after the war on ISIS ended, the militias refused to go home and Abadi, who was backed by the US, empowered the militias.

Finding legitimacy of freezing Iranian funds

The United States has long used sanctions to obstruct Iran’s access to its foreign exchange reserves. The Obama administration (2009-2017) used sanctions to pressure Iran to curtail its nuclear program and come to the negotiating table.

Through, a series of regulations and designations, Washington made clear that foreign companies and financial institutions that provided material support to the Iranian financial system – even by simply processing Iran-related transactions – could find themselves similarly designated and therefore cut off from the US financial system

Foreign banks that hold Iranian foreign exchange reserves responded to these sanctions by freezing Iran’s access to their reserves. Iranian requests to make transfers or payments have often been refused, even when transactions are technically permissible under exemptions intended to protect humanitarian trade.

Limiting Iran’s access to the reserves weakened Iranian currency, made the economy more vulnerable to a balance of payments crisis, and made it harder for the Iranian government and Iranian companies to do business abroad.

In 2014, Iran gained access to a small portion of its reserves after it reached an interim nuclear deal the world’s six major powers – Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia, and the United States. Iran was allowed to repatriate paltry US$4.2 billion in oil revenues held abroad.

In 2015, the same countries reached a final agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), in which Iran agreed to significantly curb its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. As a result, Tehran regained access to more than US$100 billion in assets abroad.

In 2018, however, President Donald Trump withdrew from the JCPOA and reimposed wide-ranging US sanctions – effectively freezing Iran’s assets abroad again.

Iran’s total foreign exchange reserves amounted to US$115.4 billion at the end of the 2020 financial year, which ended on April 30, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). But as of October 2021, only US$12.2 billion was readily available and controlled by the monetary authorities after the re-introduction of financial sanctions, according to IMF estimate.

Most of Iran’s foreign exchange reserves have accrued in countries buying crude oil from Iran. Determining where exactly Iran maintains the reserves is difficult because the government treats information regarding the location and value of these reserves as a matter of national security.

Media reports, suggest that significant reserves are held in South Korea and Japan (historically major customers of Iranian oil) and Iraq (a country that buys electricity from Iran). Iran’s central bank also maintains accounts in several other countries, including China, Germany, India, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates. Since the reimposition of US sanctions in 2018, Iranian economic diplomacy has focused in large part on bilateral negotiations with these countries to seek the release of funds.

Iran’s inability to access the reserves is more a function of the hesitance of financial institutions to process any Iran-related transactions – including humanitarian trade – without a green light from the US Administration. (Under U.S. law, humanitarian goods are not subject to sanctions, but some foreign companies and banks have been reluctant to do business with Iran for fear of violation of the US sanctions.) Faced with this predicament, Iran has pressured the South Korean, Japanese, and Iraqi governments to seek approvals from the United States.

For years, critics of the JCPOA have warned that unfreezing some or all of Iran’s foreign exchange reserves could be a windfall for the government. A key concern is that Tehran could use the billions of dollars to fund militant proxies and other malign activities. 

Historically, Iran has not drawn down large sums from its reserves. Part of the reason why Iran has accrued significant foreign exchange reserves is that, like most countries, it is happy to let its reserves grow. In 2002, Iran had around US$21 billion of foreign exchange reserves. By 2015, total reserves had risen to US$128 billion. In 2016, Iran regained access to its assets abroad as part of the JCPOA. By 2017, reserves had only fallen to US$112 billion. 

Even if the outflow of funds from the reserves were limited, the economic impacts of unfreezing could be significant. The accessibility of reserves serves to stabilize the value of Iranian currency and restore a degree of economic resilience in the face of crises.

Had Iran access to its reserves during the COVID-19 pandemic, it would have been better able to weather the economic impacts. Easier access to reserves would have helped Iran pay for imported medicine and medical equipment, especially Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and devices such as ventilators that were in short supply in the first phase of the pandemic. Payment challenges put Iran at the back of the line for these goods, despite it being one of the first countries hit by the pandemic.

In March 2020, Iran applied for an emergency financing package from the IMF worth US$5 billion because its reserves were not readily accessible. Iran technically qualified for such a loan, drawn from a pool of financing earmarked for economies facing balance of payments crises. In the end, the loan did not come through because of the opposition by the US and technical challenges posed by US secondary sanctions.

Tehran maintains that it needs the reserves at least in part for humanitarian reasons, to pay for COVID-19 vaccines and medical supplies and to pay dues to the United Nations.

Iran has also called on the Biden administration to unfreeze some of its reserves as a goodwill gesture. In September 2021, Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian urged the US to release at least US$10 billion before resuming talks on restoring the JCPOA.

“The Americans tried to contact us through different channels in New York (at the U.N. General Assembly) and I told the mediators if America's intentions are serious then a serious indication was needed,” Abdollahian later explained in a televised interview.

The United States, however, refused to offer concessions to bring Iran back to the negotiating table. From April to June 2021, Iran and the world’s six major powers held six rounds of talks. Diplomacy stalled in June during Iran’s presidential campaign and the political transition as Ebrahim Raisi took office and appointed his cabinet in August. On October 27, Iran’s new lead negotiator announced that nuclear talks would resume by the end of November.

Notably, Iran has complained that the US is obstructing the release of around US$7 billion of reserves reportedly held at two South Korean banks, the Industrial Bank of Korea and Woori Bank. In October 2021, Foreign Minister Abdollahian warned that Iran’s central bank could sue the South Korean banks if they didn’t release the funds. “US pressure (on Seoul) is a fact, but we cannot continue... to turn a blind eye to this question,” he said. 

Beyond the need for humanitarian aid, Iran is seeking access to the funds for two main reasons. First, at a political level, unfreezing the reserves is perhaps the clearest way that Iranian officials can indicate to domestic audiences that sanctions relief has been implemented. Just as critics of the JCPOA view the release of billions of dollars of reserves as a threat, Iranian officials point to those large numbers as a boon.

Second, Iran cannot operate normally in the global economy without the ability to use its foreign exchange reserves and to make transfers between currencies. For example, Iran runs trade surpluses with some countries and deficits with others. Effective reserve management requires converting reserves earned in countries where Iran runs a surplus, into the currency of those countries in which it is necessary to make up for a deficit.

Iranian trade with neighbors up 52%YoY

The value of Iran’s non-oil trade with its 15 neighbors rose to US$22.588 billion in the first six months of the current Iranian calendar year, posting 52% increase year on year (YoY). This was stated by the spokesman of the Islamic Republic of Iran Customs Administration (IRICA).

The Islamic Republic traded over 47.222 million tons of commodities with the neighboring countries in the mentioned year, IRIB quoted Ruhollah Latifi.

The volume of the traded goods in the mentioned period also increased by 37% as compared to the figure for the previous year’s same period.

Iran traded a total of 79.104 million tons of non-oil products worth US$44.926 billion with its trade partners during this period.

Trade with neighboring countries in the first half of the year accounted for 60% and 50% of the country’s total non-oil trade during the said period, in terms of weight and value, respectively.

The country exported over 36.087 million tons of non-oil goods worth more than US$11.218 billion to the neighboring countries in the period under review, while imported more than 19.138 million tons of goods worth over US$11.369 billion.

Iraq was Iran’s top export destination, importing $3.840 billion worth of commodities from the Islamic Republic, while the lowest volume of exports was made to Saudi Arabia with only US$39,000, according to Latifi.

After Iraq, the main export destinations for Iranian products and goods were Turkey, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Afghanistan and Pakistan.

On the other hand, the highest volume of Iran's imports from neighboring countries was made from the UAE with US$7.305 billion, followed by Turkey, Russia, Iraq and Oman.

Increasing non-oil exports to the neighboring countries is one of the major plans that the Iranian government has been pursuing in recent years.

Iran shares land or water borders with 15 countries namely UAE, Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Kazakhstan, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, and Saudi Arabia.

According to IRICA, Iran currently exports non-oil commodities to 40 European countries, 21 Asian countries, 28 African countries, and 12 American countries, while importing from 41 European countries, 31 Asian countries, 12 American countries, and 11 countries in Africa.

Jordan joins Egypt for handling Iraqi oil

On 27^th June 2021, King Abdullah II of Jordan met with Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa Al-Kadhimi and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi in Baghdad. All three announced an agreement to cooperate on transporting Iraqi oil through pipelines from Iraq to Jordan to Egypt, from where it will be exported to Europe through the Mediterranean.

This agreement is King Abdullah’s “coming out of the closest” with Iran. It is now official: Jordan is allied with Iran because Iraq is actually under Iran’s control. Exporting Iraqi oil through Jordan to Europe is simply exporting oil controlled by Iran, which rules Iraq through its Shi’ite militias and controls the country’s resources.

One day after this happened, Jordanian state media began promoting full financial cooperation with Iran. This is as shocking to the Jordanian public as it was to the Egyptian public 40 years ago when then-president Anwar Sadat announced peace with Israel.

King Abdullah’s adviser, Zaid Nabulsi, a member of the newly appointed “king’s Advisory Board,” told the media, “Iranian religious tourism will breathe life back into Jordan.” Government-controlled media sites began speaking about one million expected religious tourists. Those are meant to visit the southern village of Kerak, 120 km south of Amman, to visit the shrine of Jaffar Ibn Abu Taleb. In addition to that, the Jordanian and Arab press began speaking of an Iranian proposal to build an airport in Kerak.

Jaffar Ibn Abu Taleb was the Prophet Muhammad’s cousin who died fighting against the Byzantine Empire in Kerak. His shrine is considered most holy to the Shi’ite faith. Nonetheless, the Sunni faith generally bans visiting graves for worship and considers it an act of infidelity toward God, hence the shrine is mostly closed. Nonetheless, the king himself went for a visit to promote and help legitimize these future visits

It went further, with a monarchy-supported campaign to even promote the Shi’ite faith itself. This is what Iran did in both Syria and Iraq. This is exactly how it all began.

A Jordanian journalist known for his close ties to the Hashemite monarch, Mouafaq Mahadeen, appeared on TV two nights after the king’s visit and said “80% of Lebanon’s Shi’ites are originally from Kerak.” Jordanian media sites repeated that Iran was considering building an airport in Kerak. Old news stories resurfaced of Iran allegedly promising to supply the kingdom with free oil for 30 years

On July 3, Jordanian TV broadcast a show in which the speakers claimed it was not at all dangerous to welcome the Iranians into Jordan as tourists. This was in response to mutual threats and warnings issued by the leaders of the Palestinian majority of the country as well as the Bedouin native minority. Both issued messages to the king on 1st July 2021 warning him against bringing Iran into Jordan. In a normal situation, both sides would not dare criticize the king, let alone send him a warning.

The king of Jordan believes that opening the door to the Shi’ites will save his country from various crises facing the country. But analysts say this will be a double-edged sword, and it will not take long for Jordan to sink into darkness just like Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen have. Israel fears of opening another front, sending drones, or even digging tunnels in the areas bordering Jordan, which will be under the control of the Shi’ites.

Why United States has lost almost every war?

Since the World War II, the United States has lost almost every war that it has initiated in a developing country. This symbolizes the tragedy of super power’s incapability. 

The US is bowing out without having achieved its original objectives. The withdrawal also poses serious consequences for Afghanistan, the region and NATO’s reputation.

After the Vietnam fiasco and the Iraq debacle, as well as the example of the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan, the US and its allies should have been wiser in their choice of intervention, but Afghanistan’s case clearly demonstrates the opposite. These interventions have been driven by the view that the super power has the necessary military power to easily overwhelm an enemy, which has turned out to be untrue.

Washington’s planners may have proved very effective in invading a country, but have been defeated invariably in every war. Four interrelated themes explain America’s failure in these three countries.

First, Washington’s inability to comprehend the complexity of the country it has invaded and the region. The US may have been good at overthrowing governments but has no idea when it comes to their replacement. The US invades without a clear and deep understanding of the very complicated nature of their societies and intricacies of their neighborhoods.

Second, the US hasn’t been able to secure a credible and effective partner on the ground in the invaded country. This was true in South Vietnam and has been also the case with Iraq and Afghanistan. Every leader and government that the US has backed in these countries has proved to be incompetent, manipulative, unpopular and incapable of generating national unity.

Third, US hasn’t been able to sell its invasions and fulfill its original promises to the people of these countries. The disillusionment in the invaded countries and in the US has undermined its war efforts.

Fourth, Washington has learned little or nothing from its past experiences: it is not well equipped or suited for fighting national insurgencies. The insurgents have shown the staying power to exhaust the US.

All of these issues have come together to demonstrate why America’s Afghanistan adventure has failed.

President Joe Biden’s declaration to withdraw troops is a clear admission of defeat. He is doing what his predecessor and long-standing critic of the Afghan war Donald Trump had set out to do.

The tragedy is that the withdrawal follows very high human and material costs for the US and its allies as well as for the Afghan people. The war has over US$2 trillion.

Afghan’s human and property losses have been far greater. Current estimates put the number of civilians and security service men and women killed at more than 100,000, with many more injured and displaced.

All the promises made initially by President George W. Bush to free Afghans and to transform the country into a stable, secure, prosperous democracy seem farther from the reality.

The US and its allies will leave behind a broken Afghanistan, just as the US left South Vietnam and Iraq. With no political settlement or ceasefire in place Taliban have already clinch victory.

Taliban are now well positioned to get control over Kabul, but the takeover will not be the end of the Afghan conflict. On the contrary the conflict will continue with more suffering for the poor Afghans.

Portraying Iran a threat for United States is Israel’s biggest scam

It is evident that since Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979, United States has kept the country under sanctions that is: 1) small, 2) half the world away, 3) has never attacked United States, 4) does not have nuclear weapons and 5) whose contribution to regional instability doesn’t look any worse than that of Israel or Saudi Arabia.

It is in Israel’s interest to portray Iran a threat to United States and the world. Keeping the US engaged in Israel’s proxy war with Iran keeps the attention on a supposedly dire threat, instead Israel’s atrocities against Palestinians. On top of all it serves Benjamin Netanyahu in his effort to stay in power and out of jail by coining one enemy after another and keeping the US presidents under his influence.

Israel’s supporters in the US Congress keep on playing the mantra. Lately, Senators Bob Menendez and Lindsey Graham have sent Joe Biden a letter containing the astounding claim, “Outside of its nuclear program, Iran continues to pose a threat to the US and international security.” The Israel lobby group AIPAC tweeted on Wednesday, Iran’s determination to further destabilize the Middle East, develop nuclear weapons and build ballistic missiles brings the world closer to war.

Wendy Sherman, Biden’s choice for Deputy Secretary of State helped negotiated the Iran deal, or JCPOA, but Menendez said, “Returning to the JCPOA without concrete steps to address Iran’s other dangerous and destabilizing activities will be insufficient.”

The Iran deal was a signal accomplishment of the Obama administration in setting the United States on the path toward amicable relationship with Iran. It took years for Obama to build the deal; it has been destroyed not only by Donald Trump and his late patron Sheldon Adelson, but by a bunch of Democrats.

Even if Biden gets back into the deal, as all hope, it is going to take many months or years and a lot of political capital to make it a reality. It is also evident that liberal bunch of Israel lobby is working hard on Biden’s behalf, but they can’t get unanimity inside the Democratic Party. The AIPAC implants are campaigning against the Iran deal.

The only thing to be said about all the efforts to destroy the deal is that they originate from the Israel lobby. Because it was such a “strong deal,” there was only one nation on earth that opposed it, Israel, Obama had said that in a famous speech when he was trying to seal the deal in summer 2015. But the President also said it would be an abrogation of my constitutional duty as American president to take Israel’s side.

The pity is that the US media and political system fall again and again fall of Israel’s scam. Recently, “60 Minutes” aired a segment highlighting Iranian-backed attacks on American troops in Iraq as a grave insult to the US honor. They did this without ever questioning the US presence in Iran’s neighbor, let alone NATO-led criminal attack on Iraq.

It is amazing that Netanyahu was able to address a joint session of Congress in opposition to the Iran deal back in 2015, while many Democrats were in the attendance. As Obama said, foreign policy touching on Israel was taken as a domestic issue, when the Israeli government is opposed to something; people in the US take notice.

Netanyahu is able to make such demands because as Ben Rhodes, Obama’s former foreign policy aide, explained recently, Israeli lobbyists are deeply involved in policymaking. Ten to twenty American Jews who invariably took the Israeli government’s position came in and out of the White House all the time, Rhodes said.

While Congress people parroted an Israeli script on the latest radioactive isotopes found in the Parchin military facility, and when the deal actually got close, they warned Rhodes that AIPAC was going to cancel their fundraisers. Political money was at the heart of the influence.

When Benjamin Netanyahu said in Hebrew 20 years ago that he didn’t worry about the peace process because “America is a thing you can move very easily,” he was talking about the power of the Israel lobby.

The United States was easily played, at the highest level. When Obama clashed with Netanyahu not over Iran but the creation of a Palestinian state, Democrats in Congress bailed on Obama, and Rhodes wrote in his memoir, “I was given a list of leading Jewish donors to call to reassure them of Obama’s pro-Israel bona fides.”

Now Rhodes tells us that he feels “shame” that the Obama administration “pretended” that Netanyahu supported the creation of a Palestinian state, which he never did, because it was politically dangerous to alienate the rightwing Israeli Prime Minister.

The good news is that the Israel lobby is split and liberal Zionist organizations such as J Street and Americans for Peace Now have vigorously supported the Iran deal and are trying to give Joe Biden some of the Jewish political capital he needs to take on Menendez.

But Israel is setting the terms for the US foreign policy… Just as it did when it needed Israel as battleship in the Middle East against the Soviet Union… Just as it did when the cold war ended and United Staes needed the only democracy in the Middle East in its war against “radical Islam”… There’s always some geopolitical agenda that Israel is advancing. Israel gets to determine the narrative.

Palestinians are the biggest victims of the Iran shell game. For nearly 75 years the world has been promising them self-determination in their own land, and the US has made sure that that would not happen, while Israel takes more and more of the country for expansion.

Iran non oil trade reported at US$52 billion in 9 months

The value of Iran’s non-oil trade during the first nine months of the current Iranian calendar year (March-December 2020) was reported at US$52 billion by the Head of Islamic Republic of Iran Customs Administration (IRICA).

The total volume of the country’s non-oil trade was 110 million tons during the period under review, out of that 85.2 million tons were exported commodities and about 25 million tons were imported goods, Informed Mehdi Mir Ashrafi.

The official put the total value of the imports into the country during the said time at US$26.8 billion, while the value of exports was reported to be US$25.1 billion.

According to Mir-Ashrafi, 17.5 million tons of the imported commodities into the country in the period under review were basic goods, accounting for the lion's share of the imports in terms of weight.

Iran's top five non-oil export destinations during this period were China with US$6.4 billion worth of exports, Iraq with US$5.9 billion, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) with over US$3.3 billion, Turkey with US$1.8 billion, and Afghanistan with US$1.7 billion.

The country’s top five sources of imports during this period were China with US$7 billion, the UAE with US$6.3 billion, Turkey with US$3 billion, India with US$1.6 billion and Germany with US$1.6 billion worth of imports.

Some 5.2 million tons of commodities were also transited to other countries through Iran, 10.9 percent less than the figure for the same period in the previous year, Mir-Ashrafi said.

Like all other countries around the world, Iran’s trade with its foreign partners has been affected by the coronavirus pandemic. However, the situation is getting back to normal and the country’s trade is reaching its pre-pandemic levels.

Why is war in Iraq still going on, despite the massive economic costs?

The war in Iraq from the outset was very controversial in the United States and other Western countries.The opponents considered the cost of the war in Iraq as a heavy burden on the US taxpayers and wanted to prevent the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and have called for a halt to the war in Iraq repeatedly since its beginning.

Lately, various US groups and institutions have rallied to highlight this issue once again. “The Costs of War Project” is one of the research projects on the costs of the war in Iraq that begun its evaluation of the costs since 2011. The project is being observed and managed by Dr. Neta C. Crawford, Professor and Chair of Political Science at Boston University, examining the key features and effects of the Iraq War on the federal budget. 

According to the latest report says that even if the US administration decides to pull out all of its troops in Iraq immediately, the war has already cost US$1,922 billion to the US tax payers voters from 2003 to the end of 2019. This amount not only includes funding appropriated by the US Department of Defense (DoD) for the war, but also the costs of the care of Iraq War veterans and interests on debt incurred for the 16 years of the US military's involvement in the country. 

The DoD had allotted approximately US$838 billion for military operations in Iraq from the fiscal year 2003 to 2019, including operations fighting ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Aside from the Defense Department costs, the State Department added approximately US$59 billion to the total costs of the Iraq War for The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) on Iraq and Syria. Since 9/11 attacks, about US$4.1 billion has been spent on medical and disability care of war veterans and compensation. 

These costs came at the time when the Pentagon has been trying to cut its expenditures for the past decade after its annual US$140 billion funds for the Iraq War heightened in 2008. In some cases, Congress has appropriated funding required for the war in Iraq apart from previous approved plans.

It is worth mentioning that the EU budget with 27 member countries and a population of 446 million people was set at US$175 billion in 2018. Therefore, a question is being asked, why is the war in Iraq still going on, despite the massive economic costs?

Some experts consider the ideological orientation of US foreign policy to be one of the main reasons for the continued war in Iraq. From this point of view, Washington is trying to confront its ideological opponents rather than adopting short-term approach toward issues and the costs and benefits of the implementation of its policies.

On top of all Washington considers Islamic Republic of Iran as its most important ideological opponent, which has been openly defying the US policies. Therefore, White House leaders find it necessary to continue the war in Iraq to confront Iran.

Therefore, withdrawal of US troops from Iraq is being considered as a major defeat for the United States. That is the reason the US continues to insist on maintaining its presence and even expanding its military bases in Iraq, despite the massive financial costs and the Iraqi parliament’s resolution for expulsion of foreign troops. 

Washington knows it very well that the withdrawal of its troops from Iraq will be taken as a sign of its defeat. It also knows that this defeat will be the opposite of the "America First" populist slogan.

United States making every effort to keep its troops in Middle East

Iraqi Parliament passed a resolution to expel US troops from the country two weeks ago. However, Washington does not seem ready to leave the country. According to some analysts, the US administration knows it very well that leaving Iraq could become the preamble of complete exit from Middle East and North Africa (MENA).

There is growing consensus that the presence of US troops in MENA and South Asia, especially Iraq, is part of greater agenda of fragmentation and establishing a “Feeble Middle East”. The strategy was formed during Bill Clinton’s presidency and it was practically launched by George W. Bush. 

The strategy has been applied in all the tactics and policies of US foreign and defense policies in the past two decades. There seems no ambiguity or disagreement between Democrats and Republicans regarding the necessity of its implementation. Criticizing Donald Trump’s recent behavior in the region by his Democratic rivals is related to the failure of the White House in carrying out the strategy.

The US withdrawal from the JCPOA, exerting pressure for a new deal or at least including new articles in the current deal, and insisting to limit the Iranian influence in the region can be assessed in this regard.

Washington has made great investment in exploiting the terrorist potential of Takfiri groups for the fragmentation in the region. The presence of US troops in the region, under the pretext of the fight against ISIS, is an issue of crucial importance for the White House, which it will not easily ignore.

The United States has witnessed major d.efeats in the political, military and intelligence areas by the axis of resistance. It has failed in executing its plans, despite spending billions of dollars of US tax payers. This became an important matter in Iraq and officials provided the conditions for greater synergy with the axis of resistance, a move that infuriated the White House.

Over the last four months, the US has put the tactic of “creating a power vacuum based on social protest” on its agenda to weaken those leaders who want complete expelling of US troops from the region. Washington has sought to undermine the Iranian-Iraqi strategic unity through anti-Iran slogans and prepare the ground for its troops to remain in Iraq.

The assassination of senior commanders of the resistance movement, Major General Qassem Soleimani, and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, was the same blunder that the theorists of the partition project were afraid of since they considered it as the loss of all American possessions in the region.

Iraqis agreed upon the expulsion of US troops from the country. The incident was the beginning of the new White House game in Iraq, US administration made every effort to disrupt the implementation of the resolution.

The US administration termed the resolution illegal and then claimed that the parliament did not have a quorum at the time of voting. The US administration also stated that under the Iraqi constitution, parliamentary sessions will take legal form if more than half of the members plus one person attend the session. This is exactly what happened during the voting.

When they failed in proving the allegation, US officials resorted to bypassing the resolution by bringing up again the old disputes between the Kurdish leaders and Baghdad. 

The US is also trying to convince the UN Security Council of the necessity of continuing its presence in Iraq to fight terrorism, by transferring a number of ISIS leaders (trained at U.S. bases, especially in Syria's Al-Tanaf and Al-Hasakah) to Iraq. In fact, several terrorist operations recently carried out by ISIS elements in Iraq is an example of the US hostility.

A new wave of violent protests has been staged in the past few days, which are allegedly being directly led by the US embassy in Baghdad. Washington is seeking to seize the opportunity and stabilize its presence in Iraq by disrupting the process of appointing a new prime minister. 

It seems that Iraq will witness some unrest due to enmity of the US and its regional and European allies, including Britain, United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia.

Trump administration justifies killing of Soleimani

Qassem Soleimani, Commander of Iran’s elite Quds Force, was killed in the US air strike in Baghdad, the attack was ordered by President Donald Trump.  His killing has instantly upped the military stakes in the region. Some believe that his killing was an adventurist step that will increase tensions throughout the region and make the world even more dangerous. Others believe that the incident opens the doors of the region to all possibilities, except peace and stability and United States will have to bear the responsibility for that. Let us review what the western media has to say.

According to media reports, Trump administration has justified killing of Soleimani as an act of self defense. This announcement came in response to the accusations that United States has violated international law and concerns raised by legal experts and a senior UN rights investigator.

According to Reuters, Republican and Democratic lawmakers dispute the wisdom of the attack. Some legal experts questioned whether Trump had the legal authority to target Soleimani on Iraqi soil without the permission of Iraq’s government, and whether it was legal under international and US law.

Iraq’s prime minister said Washington had with the attack violated a deal for keeping US troops in his country, and several Iraqi political factions united in a call for American troops to be expelled.

The UN Charter generally prohibits the use of force against other states but there is an exception if a state gives consent to the use of force on its territory. Legal experts said the absence of consent from Iraq makes it difficult for the United States to justify the killing.

Yale Law School professor Oona Hathaway, an international law expert, said on Twitter that the available facts “do not seem to support” the assertion that the strike was an act of self-defense, and concluded it was “legally tenuous under both domestic and international law.”

The Pentagon said targeting Soleimani was aimed at deterring “future Iranian attack plans,” while Trump said the Iranian general was targeted because he was planning “imminent and sinister” attacks on US diplomats and military personnel.

Robert Chesney, a national security law expert at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law, said the administration’s best argument on the UN Charter issue is self defense. “If you accept that this guy was planning operations to kill Americans, that provides the authority to respond,” he said.

Scott Anderson, a former legal adviser to the US Embassy in Baghdad under Trump’s predecessor, Barack Obama, said Trump’s justification so far under international law is questionable, but he could try to argue that the Iraqi government was either unwilling or unable to deal with the threat posed by Soleimani, giving the United States the right to act without Iraq’s consent.

Article 51 of the U.N. Charter covers an individual or collective right to self-defense against armed attack. The United States used the article to justify taking action in Syria against Islamic State militants in 2014. The US troops in Iraq had been fighting Islamic State, and about 5,000 troops remain, most of them in an advisory capacity.

A strategic framework agreement signed in 2008 between Washington and Baghdad called for close defense cooperation to deter threats to Iraqi “sovereignty, security and territorial integrity,” but prohibited the United States from using Iraq as a launching point for attacks on other countries.

Under historic norms of international law, a country can defend itself preemptively if it acts out of necessity and responds proportionally to the threat.

Agnes Callamard, the U.N. special rapporteur on extra-judicial executions, questioned whether the attack met this threshold.

The targeting of Soleimani “appears far more retaliatory for past acts than anticipatory for imminent self-defense,” she said. “Lawful justifications for such killings are very narrowly defined and it is hard to imagine how any of these can apply to these killings.”

Democratic lawmakers called on Trump to provide details about the imminent threat that he said Soleimani represented.

“I believe there was a threat, but the question of how imminent is still one I want answered,” Senator Mark Warner, the Democratic vice-chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told Reuters.

Other critics raised questions about Trump’s authority to kill Soleimani under US law, and whether he should have acted without first notifying Congress.

Legal experts noted that recent US presidents from both parties have taken an expansive view of their unilateral ability to preemptively engage in force, including through targeted killings, a view bolstered by executive branch lawyers in successive administrations.

In the case of Soleimani, the administration’s self-defense arguments may hinge on disclosing specific knowledge of his imminent plans to attack Americans.

Self-defense could allow the administration to act without having to first notify Congress or act under a prior congressional authorization for the use of military force, Chesney said.

Democratic lawmakers did not defend Soleimani, who US officials have said is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans, but they called on Trump to consult with Congress going forward.

“This administration, like all others, has the right to act in self-defense,” said Rep. Elissa Slotkin, a former Central Intelligence Agency analyst who worked in Iraq focusing on Iranian-backed militias. “But the administration must come to Congress immediately and consult.”

Motives behind US air strikes in Iraq and Syria

The fighter jets of United States targeted several bases of the Iraqi popular forces of Hashd al-Shaabi at border with Syria on Sunday evening. In a statement, the US defense secretary confirmed the attacks. Now the question is, which objectives had the US wanted to achieve from the attacks?

There is growing perception that the US was not comfortable with the consolidation of relationship between Iraq and Syria, especially in security and economic fields. Therefore, Washington wanted to seal Iraq-Syria common borders and passageways by targeting military positions in Iraq and Syria as well as providing support for the existing terrorists and creating fresh terrorist group.

Keeping the terrorist groups protected and providing backup for them seems to be the main objective of the US  after a number of reports hinted towards relocation of terrorists from Syria into Iraq or vice versa. In the meantime, the US has raided the Iraqi army several times to provide support for the terrorist groups in the country. 

Certainly, weakening Iraq and turning it into a crisis-hit country is aimed at providing the ground for the US to impose its will on Baghdad. Weakening the Iraqi popular forces and damaging relations and cooperation between the country’s army and the popular forces are also among the main objectives of such plots. 

Other dimensions of the US recent plot against Iraq can be mentioned as spreading chaos and turning peaceful protests of the Iraqis into violence, destabilizing Iraq’s political situation by interfering in the trend of forming the country’s new government, weakening Iraq’s security forces through conducting attacks on the Army centers and Hashd al-Shaabi’s bases and cutting Iraq’s ties with its neighboring countries including with Iran.
The new US plot is also aimed at deviating public opinion from critical situation of the Zionist regime of Israel as well as appeasing the Zionist lobby to continue supporting Donald Trump who is facing the congress impeachment.

By acts, the US proves it is the number one supporter of terrorism. Washington’s claim of campaign against terrorism is only a deception that is why their claimed military coalitions in the Persian Gulf and in the Bab al-Mandab Strait have brought about nothing but enhancing terrorism.   

The US has not been a savior but it has been disruptor of the region’s security and stability. The secret trips of the US officials to Iraq have certainly roots in their fear from the Iraqis’ rage against Americans’ crisis-making behaviors.

Widespread supports of popular and political groups as well as the country’s religious authorities for Hashd al-Shaabi against the US aggressive policies shows nationwide trust of Iraqis in the resistance forces which in turn shows failure of the White House’s anti-resistance project.  

US Warmongering on Iran Showing Cracks

According to reports, Exxon was forced to withdraw some 80 staff from Iraq’s oil-rich Basra over ostensible Iranian threats to US interests in the fallout from Washington’s attempt to provoke Tehran.

Now the acting US Defense Secretary is saying, vaguely, that the threat of attacks by Iran has been “put on hold” thanks to US counter measures, while Trump has wavered back and forth about his intentions, based on criticism coming from the Democratic camp.

The dishonest western media continue to say that Saudis are lobbying for a war and Yemen’s Houthis are happy to oblige, claiming to have launched an armed drone at the Najran airport in Saudi Arabia. The tinted media also say that it is not the first time Houthis have targeted this airport, which is right on the Saudi-Yemen border and is an easy target.
In the meantime, Iraqi are furious on Exxon’s evacuation of staff, calling it “unacceptable and unwarranted”. Iraqi also claim that the southern part of their country is peaceful and secure and other oil companies (Lukoil, BP, Eni) have made no similar move and also have not expressed any intent.

Reasonably, Iraq is worried about the false message being sent to the investors and the market in general.

Iraq also says that 19th May 2019 rocket attack aiming Green Zone has served to ratchet up tensions further. The attack was being headlined in the media as “near the US Embassy in Baghdad”. This headline is grabbing ploy because the attack occurred a mile away from the embassy, suggesting that the embassy was clearly not the target.

The only significance of the attack was that it was the first in the Green Zone in some 8 months, but there were no casualties, and authorities know little about the nature of the attack, other than that the rocket was fired from an open field and may have been fired from Eastern Baghdad, where there are known Iranian militias.