A bruising day for US Dollar

Thursday could be a bruising day for US Dollar. One of the reasons investors are liquidating their positions is depressing news. It is also anticipated that social distancing rules may be extended to April 30th, which delays the return to normal business activity. With the focus on US data this week, a disappointing jobless claims or non-farm payrolls report could also send USD reeling against other currencies.

If the first day of April 2020 was an indication of what’s to come, it will be a very rocky second quarter. After falling more than 24% during the first quarter, the Dow Jones Industrial Average plunged. Currencies have been taking their lead from equities, so it was no surprise to see some of the currencies falling against the greenback. The strongest currencies continue to be the USD and JPY – which absorbed all of the gains in the first quarter.

However the supremacy of the USD is likely to come into question in the weeks ahead. Investors have been buying it on the premise that the rest of the world will be stuck in recessionary conditions longer than the United States because there can’t be a global recovery without a US recovery. While that may be true, the data coming from many countries is weak. The spread of coronavirus in United States is alarming and lockdown is becoming a serious concern.

Looking ahead to Friday’s non-farm payrolls report, it could it be even worse. In many ways tomorrow’s jobless claims report will be more telling and more market moving. The current forecast is 3.5 million, which sounds about right but the underlying numbers are probably much worse. 

According to New York State Labor Department, between March 23rd and March 28th, the agency received more than 8.2 million calls compared to just 50,000 in a typical week. Of course many of those calls are redundant but with just one state receiving that many requests, we can only imagine how many claims are being requested and filed nationally. 

With the exception of JPY, all of the major currencies are lower against USD. Despite an unexpectedly strong increase in German retail sales, Eurozone PMIs were revised lower. UK PMI was also revised lower.  Although manufacturing activity increased in March according to Australia’s PMI report, the RBA minutes were very dovish. According to the central bank a very material contraction is expected in Australia with significant job losses over the months ahead.

Is rebound in oil prices sustainable?

Some hopes were created on Tuesday after U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed to talks to stabilize energy markets, with benchmarks climbing off 18-year lows hit as the coronavirus outbreak cut fuel demand worldwide.

Trump and Putin agreed during a phone call to have their top energy officials discuss stabilizing oil markets, the Kremlin said on Monday. On this flimsiest pretext, oil prices are showing signs of clawing back from a near 18-year low.

Expectations were partly marred when crude oil benchmarks opened April mixed on Wednesday, following their biggest-ever quarterly and monthly losses, overshadowed by fears of global oversupply as data showed a bigger-than-expected rise in inventories in the United States. Brent futures were traded at US$26.14/barrel by 0032 GMT, while WTI futures were traded at US$20.75.

Opening session of today left oil prices marooned near their lowest levels since 2002 amid the global coronavirus pandemic that has brought worldwide economic slowdown and slashed oil demand. Crude futures ended the quarter down nearly 70% after record losses in March.

Added to the trauma was rise in US crude inventories, up by 10.5 million barrels last week, far exceeding forecasts for a 4 million barrel build-up, indicated by data from industry group the American Petroleum Institute.

Oil slumped to a 17-year low as coronavirus lockdowns cascaded through the world’s largest economies, leaving the market overwhelmed by plummeting demand and piling up crude inventories.

Physical oil markets are struggling to store fuel, hit by a double whammy of lockouts and shrinking demand. Western media is portraying it a war for market share between Saudi Arabia and Russia.

The world normally uses 100 million barrels of oil day, but forecasters predict as much as a quarter of that has disappeared in just a few weeks. The plunge in consumption is unprecedented. The great crash of 1929, the twin oil shocks of the 1970s and the global financial crisis don’t come close.

Global oil demand is in freefall and consumption may decline by as much as 20 million barrels a day, according to the International Energy Administration.

The bearish mood in the market hasn’t improved by a rift within the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Saudi Arabia and other members of OPEC were unable to come to an agreement on Tuesday to meet in April to discuss sliding prices.

It is very unlikely that OPEC, with or without Russia or the United States, will agree to production cut to contain global crude oil glut, mainly due to record production by the United States.

Unhinged Foreign Policy of United States

UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres has called for an "immediate global ceasefire" to focus on fighting Covid-19. He has appealed for the "waiving of sanctions that can undermine countries' capacity to respond to the pandemic." But Washington is not listening. Requests from Venezuela and Iran for emergency IMF loans to buy medical supplies were blocked by U.S. interventions.

The Trump administration is reacting to the pandemic stress by lashing out at perceived internal and external enemies. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is leading the external onslaught.

Just a month ago Pompeo announced an increase of sanctions against Iran. The sanctions block money transfers. They make it impossible for Iran to import the medical equipment it urgently needs to counter the epidemic.

While the US renewed the sanction waiver which allows Iraq to import electricity and gas from Iran, the waiver is now limited to only 30 days. One third of Iraq's electricity depends on those imports from Iran and, if the waiver is not renewed, its hospitals will go dark just when the epidemic will reach its zenith.

Parts of the Trump administration are even pressing for a wider war against alleged Iranian proxy forces in Iraq.

The Pentagon has ordered military commanders to plan for an escalation of American combat in Iraq, issuing a directive last week to prepare a campaign to destroy an Iranian-backed militia group that has threatened more attacks against American troops.

But the United States’ top commander in Iraq has warned that such a campaign could be bloody and counterproductive and risks war with Iran.

Some top officials, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Robert C. O’Brien, the national security adviser, have been pushing for aggressive new action against Iran and its proxy forces — and see an opportunity to try to destroy Iranian-backed militia groups in Iraq as leaders in Iran are distracted by the pandemic crisis in their country.

Military leaders, including Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper and Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have been wary of a sharp military escalation, warning it could further destabilize the Middle East at a time when President Trump has said he hopes to reduce the number of American troops in the region.

The plan is lunatic. One can’t "destroy" Kataib Hezbollah and other Iraqi Shia groups which Iran helped to build during the war against ISIS. These groups are part of political parties with deep roots in the Iraqi society.

France, Italy and the Czech Republic have started to withdraw from Iraq. Denmark is also leaving and the UK is removing 50% of its force.

There are less then 5,000 US soldiers in Iraq and a war on Kataib Hezbollah could mobilized hundreds of thousands Iraqis to fight against the US occupation. Such a war would also involve Iran and the US would certainly lose it.

The US has currently two aircraft carrier groups in the Arab sea to threaten Iran. But those ships are of no use right now. They are 'cruise ships with guns'. Nuclear powered five billion dollar Petri Dishes for novel coronavirus outbreaks.

Two US carrier groups in the Pacific are already out of action because they have larger outbreaks on board. It is only a question of time until the other carriers follow.

It is not only Iraq and Iran the US is aiming at. The US State Department cut its contributions to health care in Yemen just in time of the highest need:

Officials with the United States Agency for International Development said the decision to halt funding, reported earlier by The Washington Post, included exceptions for “critical, lifesaving activities, including treatment of malnutrition as well as water, sanitation and hygiene programs aimed at keeping people healthy and staving off disease.”

But humanitarian officials said the agency’s exceptions did not provide for continued funding of basic health care programs, which are heavily reliant on foreign aid, and did not seem to take into account what might occur when the coronavirus begins to spread.

Coronavirus: Pandemic, Biological war or Azab (torment)

Ever since coronavirus has attacked Pakistan all sorts of explanations are being given, but mostly end at ‘it is a virus and no vaccine or treatment is available’. First it was said people should restrict socializing and now government is being asked to impose complete lockdown.

The point being propagated is that the victim will face death; therefore, lockdown is the most appropriate.

Since the lockdown can bring even the most robust economies to stand still, various bailout packages are being prepared by the multilateral donors.

To save the less developed economies, economic powers have developed consensus to offer US$2 trillion package.

This reminds formation of International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, now known as World Bank

While many still don’t believe, a small group has been saying from day one that it’s a biological war. The virus has a stipulated life and after a while all the cities and countries will be declared ‘clean’.

It is estimated that around 25,000 people have died in three months, but a point to be remembers is that the largest number of deaths are in the countries which have one of the best Medicare systems in the world.

This number may look colossal but it is only a miniscule keeping in view the loss of millions of lives in WWII.

During this virus spread, faith of Muslims, Christians and Jews was also jolted as their places of worship were closed. Followers of these religions were terming this pandemic an Azab and they were made to believe the contrary.

It becomes easy to believe that it is a biological war when one looks as the ‘disinformation’ spread by three global news agencies. The ‘embedded’ journalist reported global outbreak so extensively that achieve ultimate goal ‘lockdown’ became too easy.  

Let me conclude that this virus may also have become out of control, keep in mind many of the science fictions, and you will tend to agree with my briefest narrative.

Pakistan Stock Exchange down 8.34%WoW on coronavirus hype

The benchmark index of Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) continued its slide during the week ended on 27th March 2020, closing at 28,110 points, down 8.34%WoW on coronavirus hype. State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) announced a policy rate cut of 150bps taking the cumulative rate cut to 225bps. There was also an announcement of Rs1.2 trillion stimulus packages, but market sentiment remained bearish. To a large extent PSX also remained insulated to the announcement of massive economic stimulus by the US, as opposed to visible cheering by the other stock markets around the globe. Stocks generating the highest volumes during the week included:  KEL, UNITY, BOP, HASCOL and MLCF, while laggards were: HASCOL, PSMC, PSO, ASTL and DGKC.

Major news flow during the week included: 1) announcement of Rs100 billion refunds to export sectors along with deferred payment of principal and interests on bank loans, 2) Rs100 billion for deferred payment of loans for small and medium enterprises (SMEs), agriculture and concessional loans, 3) reduction in the prices of petrol, diesel and kerosene with immediate effect, 4) divestment from government debt instruments by foreign investors reaching some US$1.8 billion, 5) Pak rupee depreciating 4.3% against greenback over the week, 6) ministry requesting OMCs to halt petroleum imports and increase their offtake from local refineries, and 6) GoP considering to approach multilateral lending agencies for additional financial assistance for fighting adverse economic impact of pandemic. Resulting from reduced market timings, average daily trading volumes declined 37.3%WoW to 150 million shares. While the market sentiments in the upcoming week are likely to be dictated by how GoP grapples with rising coronavirus cases in Pakistan, sectors relatively insulated from direct economic impacts may manage to remain afloat. The benchmark index has already shed 33.5% CYTD.

Russia strongly opposes US sanctions against Iran amid coronavirus pandemic

The Aide to the Russian President Yuri Ushakov in a phone conversation with Iran's Ambassador to Russia Kazem Jalali emphasized Moscow's strong opposition to US sanctions against Iran, especially amid coronavirus outbreak.

The two sides discussed medical terrorism against Iran, the latest spread of the coronavirus worldwide, and the measures taken by Iran to combat the virus in the country.

In this conversation, the Iranian ambassador talked about medical terrorism and the extensive US sanctions against the Iranian nation, in particular preventing many countries from sending medical aid to Iran to combat coronavirus.

Jalali also appreciated Russia's humanitarian aid to Iran and sending test kits as well as Russian political support to Iran.

Ushakov, for his part, emphasized Russia's strong opposition to US sanctions on Iran, especially when Iran is fighting against coronavirus outbreak.

The two sides discussed launching a Russia-China-based campaign to lift sanctions on Iran.

While the countries are trying to boost cooperation in the fight against COVID-19 pandemic, the US still continues its unilateral sanctions against Iran which have affected the country’s power to contain the outbreak.

The new sanctions come as China and Russia, in particular, have urged the US to remove its sanctions on Tehran since the restrictions could interfere with Iran’s efforts to contain the coronavirus outbreak in the country.

As of Saturday, the death toll from the coronavirus outbreak in Iran has risen to 1,433 with 19,644 confirmed cases.

It may be recalled that Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif highlighted that what the United States is carrying out against the Iranian nation is a crime against humanity.

“The banking and financial restrictions imposed do not identify whether you are purchasing humanitarian items or not. When a bank deems it risky to do business with Iran, it simply closes the door,” said Zarif.

In addition, European manufacturers of medical equipment do not sell their products to Iran because the US is threatening them with penalties, added Zarif. “There are several ways through which the United States is practicing economic and medical terrorism against Iran. Looking at it from a legal perspective, it is a crime against humanity.”

Asked about official offer of United States to help Iran, Zarif said that the offer was ‘hypocritical’. “A few days ago, US Secretary of State, Pompeo asked other countries to set conditions to help Iran with the fight against coronavirus. All the United States needs to do is to stop interfering.”

“We will take care of ourselves and have enough friends in the world to help us. Stop economic terrorism. If you are not ready to do this, then we ask the world to stop just watching this bullying. This is inhumane.”

“Iranians are dying and people are accepting American bullying just in the hope that they will not be hit. This will not work.”

Calls for lifting unilateral sanctions imposed by the United States against Iran has increased during the recent weeks as the country is facing problems with buying its required medicine and equipment to contain the coronavirus outbreak. Meanwhile, Washington has announced that it will not abandon the maximum pressure policy. 

Iran has emerged as one of the hard-hit countries by the virus. As of Saturday, the death toll from the coronavirus outbreak in Iran rose to 1,556 with 20,610 confirmed cases.

Pakistan Prime Minister calls for lifting sanctions on Iran to combat coronavirus

Prime Minister Imran Khan, in an interview with Associated Press has called for lifting of sanctions on Iran to enable it to combat coronavirus.

In a call for action from the international community, Imran Khan said it was time to end US sanctions on Iran, where one of the worst coronavirus outbreaks in the world has unfolded. 

Iran has struggled to respond in part because of crippling sanctions imposed by the Trump administration.

Khan further added that Iran is a “classic example” of a place where the humanitarian imperative to contain the outbreak outweighs political rivalries or economic dogmas.   

The prime minister said he fears the new coronavirus will devastate the economies of developing nations and warned richer economies to prepare to write off the debts of the world’s poorer countries. 

“It’s not just Pakistan. I would imagine the same in India, in the subcontinent, in African countries,” the prime minister said, referring to the virus, “If it spreads, we will all have problems with our health facilities. We just don’t have that capability. We just don’t have the resources.”

Falling oil prices, biggest threat to US shale producers

The week ended on 13th March 2020 can be termed one of horrific weeks for crude oil producers and traders as prices went down about 50 percent since the start of the year. 

Oil rebounded a bit on Friday following movement in the U.S. Congress to pass a coronavirus economic relief bill. Nevertheless, the near-term looks dire for oil markets, with supply rising quickly as demand continues to collapse. The added threat is likely hike in output by OPEC and Russia.  

Analysts anticipate oil prices to remain at current depressed levels for months amid a price war and the fight for market share. They fear WTI Crude prices to hover around US$30/barrel in the near term. On Friday, WTI traded at US$33, but down by a massive 25 percent on the week for what is shaping up to be the worst week for oil prices since the financial crisis in 2008. Brent prices are also likely to remain range bond in the near term.

After the collapse of the OPEC+ production cut deal, major banks slashed their oil price forecasts, expecting an enormous oversupply in the market as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Russia are turning on the taps and looking out for their own interests instead of trying to fix the prices.

Goldman Sachs has warned oil price may plunge to US$20, Standard Chartered says WTI Crude will average just US$32 a barrel in 2020, and ING slashed its Q2 Brent Crude forecast to $33, from US$56, to name a few.

Saudi Arabia has promised to flood the oil market with an extra 2.6 million bpd of oil from April, while its fellow OPEC producer and ally, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), pledged an additional one million bpd in supply. This will result in a total increase of 3.6 million bpd in global oil supply from OPEC’s heavyweights at a time of depressed oil demand due to the coronavirus outbreak. Russia indicates to raise production up to 500,000 bpd.   

According to the Wall Street Journal, Russia believes that low oil prices can damage U.S. shale producers. Outwardly, Moscow does not link its motivations to an intention to harm U.S. oil companies, but Russia had grown wary of the OPEC+ cuts, which contributed to a 4 million bpd increase in U.S. shale over the past three years. Western analysts believe that U.S. sanctions on Nord Stream 2 and Rosneft stoked ire in Moscow. 

 A study of 30 shale drillers accounting for 38 percent of total U.S. oil production finds that roughly 50 percent of their output is hedged at an average price of US$56. If WTI averages US$40 this year, the hedges would save the companies a combined US$10.5 billion or US$17 billion if WTI averages US$25. “There is definitely a significant amount of default risk,” said Michael Anderson, a strategist at Citi.

Western media annoyed with Russia for not joining Saudi Arab in production cut

As usual the western media is putting pressure on Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and Russia, commonly known as OPEC plus to opt for deeper production cut. After the inconclusive meeting of the group on 6th March 2020, the media is projecting a rift between OPEC, led by Saudi Arabia and Russia, but has not said a word to demand United States to cut production. It is on record that now United States has attained the status of largest oil producing country, followed by Russia and Saudi Arabia.  

On Friday, Brent price witnessed its biggest daily loss in more than 11 years, after Russia didn’t support a production cut by OPEC to stabilize prices hit in the aftermath of coronavirus outbreak. Prices plunged because the OPEC conference remained inconclusive. The split between OPEC and Russia revives fears of a 2014 oil price crash, when Saudi Arabia and Russia fought for market share with US shale oil producers of United States; it is on record that United State has never participated in any output limiting pact.

Now there is uncertainty about whether the OPEC plus alliance will survive. A day earlier, OPEC issued a call to cut production and also indicated that there would be no deal without Russia. It is believed that Moscow didn’t agree at production cuts not only because it has a stronger stomach for lower prices than Riyadh, but also because the oil market is suffering from a demand trap.

There is talk that if OPEC plus has failed to agree on additional production cuts, would the current agreement – the one  agreed in December 2019 and set to expire in March in 2020 be adhered to or producers will be at liberty to raise output. The fate of the alliance is now on the rocks, although the group pledged to continue to talk going forward. 

There was pressure on Russia to agree, but Moscow has been skeptical of additional cuts for quite some time. A few days ago, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that his country was more or less contented with where oil prices were, noting that the Russian budget had taken into accounts the possibility of low oil prices.

Western analysts find it hard that Russia didn’t agree to further production cut. They believe it required only a modest reduction on Moscow’s part that would have boosted crude prices. They also believe that no-deal would almost surely lead to further decline in prices.

Another twist appeared when Iranian Oil Minister, Bijan Namdar Zanganeh told reporters that if Russia does not sign there will be no deal. Western experts term this a hollow threat. They insist, OPEC has shown signs of a determination to cut output even without Russia. The pressure on government budgets from low oil prices is already pinching.

“OPEC is making the cuts conditional on Russia joining. What Moscow perhaps is underestimating is that Saudi Arabia may be ready to walk away if it doesn’t get a positive answer,” said Amrita Sen, chief oil analyst at consultant Energy Aspects, reported Bloomberg.

Russia, for its part, sees US shale on the ropes, with financial stress deepening for small and medium-sized drillers. US oil production growth has slowed dramatically in recent weeks and months, and if WTI lingers below US$50/barrel for a long period, first output will flatten and then decline.

Keeping crude oil prices has facilitated the US in boosting production. Time has come for Saudi Arabia and Russia to snatch the title of largest oil producing country from United States. This target can’t be achieved without plunging crude oil prices below US$40/barrel that will force many US Shale companies to shutdown their operations.

Is Coronavirus reporting merely a media driven plot to topple President Trump?

Reportedly, Acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney has refused to take responsibility for the Trump administration's response to Coronavirus spread and crafted a new conspiracy theory that the news coverage on the novel virus is merely a media-driven plot to take down Donald Trump.

"They think this will bring down the president," Mulvaney said at the Conservative Political Action Conference, regarding news reporting on the spread. The virus and its spread have caused panic among investors, who fear the disease could have lasting impacts on the economy.

On Thursday (27th February 2020), the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell nearly 1,200 points, the worst one-day drop in history. On Friday, the index fell by another 1,190 points, dropping 4.4%. As a consequence, equities are likely to witness their worst week since the 2008 financial crisis, according to the Wall Street Journal.

When asked how the administration could calm the markets, Mulvaney again blamed the media — the go-to strategy Trump and his aides employ when faced with criticism over their policies. "What I might do to calm the markets is turn the television off for 24 hours," Mulvaney said. "This is not Ebola. It's not SARS."

While Trump and his appointed officials are trying to calm fears, experts within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are warning of community spread of virus, saying cities should plan to implement "social distancing measures," including closing schools and asking businesses to have employees work from home.

Because Trump fears the impact the virus may have on his reelection hopes, he's trying to control the amount of information that gets to the public on the disease, putting Mike Pence solely in charge of the communications response. Pence, has a checkered record on public health crises, overseeing the worst outbreak of HIV in Indiana when he served as state governor.

And in even worse news for the administration, a whistle blower came forward to say that public health workers in the federal government are not well trained or properly equipped to deal with the disease, saying workers were "improperly deployed" to military bases where people infected with the disease are being quarantined.

There is a talk also that Congress and the White House need to rise above their usual partisan sniping and name-calling and show a little unified leadership as the United States readies itself for the spread of the new virus.

It seems hard, given the level of bitter polarization in Washington, but Democrats and Republicans owe it to the American people to shun their differences. That’s what rational, responsible governments do in cases of war, natural disaster and, yes, a mass outbreak of infectious disease.

It is being said that the outbreak in the United States seems all but inevitable. Transmission without a known connection to someone who is sick or traveled to a place where people are sick marks a concerning turning point in any disease outbreak.

One thing that needs to happen now is the accelerated production of millions of masks needed to protect healthcare providers; another is to get working testing kits out to the states to confirm suspected cases.

President Trump made the same point about working together in a news conference Wednesday night. He tried to assure the country that he and his team had things completely under control. To make that point he waved a printout that he said was a list from the Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore ranking the U.S. as the most prepared country to handle an epidemic.

“We should be working together,” he said when asked about criticism by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the partisan debate about the right amount of federal funds needed to properly prepare. “Pelosi shouldn’t be making statements like that because it’s so bad for the country,” he said.

The president then undercut his own point by trash-talking Pelosi, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-New York) and all of the Democratic candidates on whom he inexplicably placed blame for the recent stock market drops.

Boosting Pakistan Iran Trade

A Trade delegation from Tehran Chamber of Commerce, Industries, Mines and Agriculture (TCCIMA) recently visited Pakistan to discuss strengthening trade ties between the two countries.

In a meeting with their Pakistani counterparts, the Iranian delegation expressed concerns over the low level of trade between the two countries and suggested taking measures like holding exhibitions, exchanging business delegations and the use of non-bank channels for money transfers, for boosting trade between the two nations.

The delegation, Led by TCCIMA Head Masoud Khansari also visited Federation of Pakistan Chambers of Commerce & Industry (FPCCI). Mian Anjum Nisar, President, FPCCI said the level of economic relations between the two countries was insufficient keeping in view the existing capacities and cultural closeness between the two sides.

“Although the two countries have signed a preferential trade agreement a few years ago, none of them has used this opportunity properly,” Nisar regretted.

There are growing realization that the US sanctions against Iran are a major part of the obstacles to the development of economic cooperation between the two countries, and both sides need to take serious measures to resolve this issue. 

During the visit to Pakistan, the Iranian delegation also met with Arif Ahmed Khan, Chief Executive, Trade Development Authority of Pakistan (TDAP) in Karachi.

In the meeting, the two sides emphasized the need to use solutions such as the preferential trade agreement, free trade agreement, and removing customs barriers for boosting trade relations between the two countries. 

Speaking on this occasion, the head of the Tehran chamber pointed out some of the obstacles in the development of economic cooperation between the two countries. Annual trade between Iran and Pakistan is as paltry as US$1.5 billion. 

Ahmad Khan noted that both Iranian and Pakistani authorities should realize that the development of trans-regional trade is subject to a boom in regional trade. Therefore, the two countries must take operational steps to improve trade relations.

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.

Need to end Saudi-Iran animosity

One completely fails to understand why even a thought of ending Saudi-Iranian animosity make the supporters of monarch jittery. If one could recollect lately Iraq made an attempt to ease tension between the two arc enemies, but turmoil was created in Iraq. Soon after two top military strategist, one each from Iran and Iraq were killed, the probability of war in the region increased manifold.

Recently, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, who traveled to Germany to attend the 2020 Munich Security Conference, said that after the martyrdom of commander Soleimani, we received a message from Saudi Arabia calling on talks with Iran. Zarif also reiterated that although he replied to the Saudis' response, he received no further messages.

Following the remarks by the Iranian foreign minister, Saudi Foreign Minister, Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud claimed that Riyadh had not sent any private messages to Tehran. On the issue of talks between Iran and Saudi Arabia, there seem divergent thoughts, which must be explored to end the enomsity.

First, it is being said that Saudi Arabia is trying to compare the dialogue between Riyadh and Tehran with the US-Iran negotiation and is constantly changing its stance on Iran. The nature of the negotiations between Iran and the US differs from that between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Iran has repeatedly stated that it is willing to hold talks with the Saudis without any preconditions, as the proximity of the two countries is in favor of stabilizing the region and reducing tensions.

Second, the Saudis have always set mostly general and vague preconditions for starting talks with Iran, such as the need for Iran to change its behavior in the region. The foreign policies of the countries are defined by their foreign interests, so Saudi Arabia expects to change all of Iran's behavior and policies in the region, which is totally inappropriate.

Third, Saudi officials have been at odds over developments in the region; on the one hand, they know that the US and the West cannot provide the country’s security forever, which led Riyadh to the dialogue with Tehran, and on the other hand, they are still looking forward U. support. The recent regional developments have led Saudi Arabia to face new developments in the region.

Fourth, remarks by Zarif indicate that the Saudis are deeply afraid of escalating tensions in the region. Whenever military tensions are heightened in the region the Saudis reduce their provocative actions against Iran, but once the situation is settled down they resume their actions. The most notable sample of this behavior is Saudi Arabia’s reaction to the assassination of General Qassem Soleimani, as it was trying to not take a provocative stance against Iran.

Fifth, Saudi Arabia needs to restore its ties with Iran to deal with the regional cases. The first issue is the attrition warfare in Yemen that began in March 2015 with the invasion of the Saudi-led coalition and has continued until now. There are clear thoughts a war that had nothing but destruction for the Yemeni people and defeats and lots of military costs for the Saudis.

In its recent actions toward Damascus, Saudi Arabia has shown that it is seeking to improve its relations with Syria, a country that has strong ties with Iran and is a part of the axis of resistance. In this regard, Syria’s permanent representative to the United Nations, Bashar Al-Jaafari, recently attended a special ceremony held in honor of the Saudi Minister of State in New York, Fahad Bin Abdullah Al Mubarak, which drew lots of controversy.

Diplomatic sources in New York said the Saudi delegate to the UN, Abdullah bin Yahya al-Muallami had intentionally met with Bashar al-Jaafari during the visit, which was unexpected for the attendees. During their celebration Saudi officials expressed their love for Syria and said that it remained in their hearts, adding that what had occurred between the two countries was nothing but a summer cloud that will inevitably pass.

Ankara has become a relentless rival to Riyadh in all aspects these days. This issue has been worsened following the Persian Gulf crisis, Saudi Arabia's cut of relations with Qatar and the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. Saudi Arabia needs to improve its relations with Iran to be able to prevent Turkish influence, especially in African countries and Libya.

Improving relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia can undoubtedly be helpful in settling the crisis between Saudi Arabia and Qatar, as Doha has gotten closer to Tehran and Ankara since the crisis.

 The point is that some parties will certainly be dissatisfied with the close relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia and will make every effort to obstruct it.

United States not likely to ever pull its troops from Afghanistan

I wrote a blog as back as in August 2012 exploring the probability of United States pulling its troops from Afghanistan. Despite being a novice at that time, my conclusion was that troops may never be pulled out. The history confirms my prediction was right.

My biggest argument was that the objective of sending troops to Afghanistan was not to liberate the Afghan from the control of USSR or Taliban, but to occupy it for economical and political gains. It must also be kept in mind that there was no justification for attacking Afghanistan as no Afghan was involved in 9/11, directly or indirectly.

One could find only two reasons for the continued occupation of Afghanistan by the US troops: 1) presence of valuable metals and other bounties and 2) use of the country as a military base against adjoining countries, i.e. Pakistan, Iran, China and India. The persistent state of war in Afghanistan will neither allow rest of the world to sell its goods to Central Asian countries nor buy crude oil and gas from the countries that were previously part of USSR.

Being the sole surviving super power, United States seems adamant at maintaining its military dominance by brining countries all around the world under its hegemony. Afghanistan has an important place in the US foreign policy due to common borders with Pakistan, Iran, China and many oil and gas rich Central Asian countries.

Since Islamic Revolution in Iran, United States has been projecting the country as the biggest threat to the world. Over the years, despite remaining under economic sanctions, Iran has emerged as one of the major challenger for the US hegemony in the region. It seems certain that United States is waiting for the right opportunity to attack Iran to destroy its nuclear assets. United States needs a military base near Iran and Afghanistan is the ideal option.  The two countries share long mountainous border, which is virtually impossible to monitor and defend.

Lately, China has also emerged as the second superpower and started challenging US hegemony. While United States has been controlling countries through its military might, China is using the other alternative, its economic supremacy. To contain China, United States has already created its outposts in Taiwan and South Korea, but Afghanistan offers the best option, a land route.

Afghanistan has remained a hostage of super powers since Cold War era. It is no secret that if USSR had used Afghanistan, US have been occupying patronized the country for the last two decades. Having failed in bringing regime change in Iran in last four decades, the super power is consolidating its position in Afghanistan.

The USSR believed that getting control over Afghanistan could give it a perfect foot hold in South Asia and the Middle East. There are no warm water ports in Afghanistan, but getting control over the Khyber Pass (located in Pakistan) an ancient trade route would bring it closer to Iran and Turkey on the West and Pakistan on the South, all with warm water ports.

The recent history proves that the United States has got too desperate in establishing its hegemony in South Asia and MENA. Afghanistan appears to be the most ideal outpost. Therefore, hoping that the United States will pull its troops from Afghanistan is hoping against the hopes. 

Iran and India negotiating more on Preferential Trade Agreement

Lately, Iran and India held a new round of negotiations on signing a preferential trade agreement (PTA) between the two sides. Initiated in 2016, the negotiation on this agreement is said to be in the final stages, and the two sides hope that the list of the commodity items entitled to preferential tariffs will be finalized in the next round of the talks.

During the fourth round of the negotiations, which was also held in Tehran, the two countries discussed draft text of the agreement which is to reduce tariff rates by 25% to 45%. In the fifth round of the talks held at Iran’s Trade Promotion Organization (TPO), some clauses of the pact remaining from the previous talks were reviewed and discussed, said Hossein Bamiri, the secretary of TPO’s Iran-India Desk.

As reported by TPO, Iranian delegation participating in this round included Reza Seyed Aqazadeh, director general of TPO’s Asia-Pacific Office, Hossein Bamiri, the secretary of TPO’s Iran-India Desk, Mir-Hadi Seyedi, TPO’s advisor in international affairs, Zahed Talaban, international expert at TPO, and representatives from the ministries of agriculture and health, Veterinary Organization, National Standard Organization, and some other organizations.

Signing the preferential trade agreement lays a competition ground for Iranian companies to enter the Indian market, Bamiri said, adding, “In this round of the talks we tried to reduce tariffs for those commodity items that we have high potential in their production and export.”

“If tariffs are reduced and other extant barriers are removed, we can strengthen our entrance to the Indian market through the PTA”, the official emphasized.

Iran’s major exports to India are oil, fertilizers and chemicals while imports include cereals, tea, coffee, spices and organic chemicals.

The value of India’s exports to Iran stood at US$2.65 billion in 2018, while imports were valued at US$11.11 billion. The trade imbalance is mainly because of India's import of oil from Iran.

Signing this PTA is of great significance for India, as the country will be able to diversify its export basket which is now limited to agricultural products, Trade Promotion Council of India (TPCI) Chairman Mohit Singla has declared.

"With a carefully designed PTA, strategic products such as leather, textiles and readymade garments, which attract very high duties in Iran can become naturally competitive and India will be able to leverage its export strengths," The Economic Times reported quoting Singla.

Preferential trade between the two countries is a priority in India’s future plans for trade with Iran, according to Indian Ambassador to Tehran Gaddam Dharmendra.

The two countries were supposed to finalize the preferential trade agreement by the end of 2019, a target that has not come true in due time.

Addressing an Interactive Session on Business Opportunities in Iran held in New Delhi in last August, Iranian Ambassador to India Ali Chegeni had said, “Very few formalities remaining to be completed on this front will be accomplished shortly with 5th round of talks between the authorities of the two countries here in New Delhi before it becomes a reality by end of 2019.”

While the agreement has not been reached at the projected time, the two sides resolve to finalize it as soon as possible to further promote bilateral trade.

“Iran does not consider Saudi Arabia as enemy”, Dr. Foad Izadi

Dr. Foad Izadi is an associate professor of American Studies for a doctorate program at the University of Tehran, Faculty of World Studies. Having studied in the United States and has a Doctorate in Mass Communication from Louisiana State University. After his studies in US, he returned to Iran in 2009 and started a teaching profession. During an exclusive interview with the Tehran Times he talked about regional geopolitical situation and Iran’s ties with neighboring countries. Following are the excerpts from his interview. 

Tehran Times: How do you see Iran’s ties with countries of the Persian Gulf? Do you see thawing of relations with Saudi Arabia?

Dr. Foad Izadi: Iran does not consider Saudi Arabia to be an enemy. For Iran the United States and Israel are enemies.  Saudi Arabia is a neighbor and Iran has been trying to improve relations with Saudis, especially since President Rouhani came to power. Rouhani has also tried to reduce tensions with the US government.

The problem is that the Saudis are not interested, especially after (Saudi Crown Prince) MBS came to power and started a confrontational policy. The Saudi policy against Yemen and Qatar has also failed with the MBS leadership. In order to mend ties, Iran’s foreign minister has several times proposed to visit Saudi Arabia.

Iran has no intention for a confrontation with Saudi Arabia. The US tried to follow a divide and rule policy, creating tensions between neighboring countries, using its propaganda tools. The idea here is to replace Iran as the main power in the region with Israel.

They have been successful to certain extent. For example when Iran helped the Syrian government to fight ISIS there was a huge propaganda campaign to try to portray Iran as an occupation force. Saudis play with the price of oil to put pressure on Iran by over-exporting and the end result would be for Iran to suffer.

Tehran Times: What about Iranian crude exports?

Dr. Foad Izadi: Iran is presently exporting crude to some Chinese companies unofficially. Officially the export is zero.

Tehran Times: The UN has described the war in Yemen as the biggest humanitarian crisis since WWII. With the UAE giving signals for withdrawing from the conflict do you see a compromise in the near future?

Dr. Foad Izadi: It is not a decision for Iran. It is a decision the two sides have to make. Iran has four-step proposal: 1) Seize hostilities; 2) Humanitarian aid; 3) Establishing Yemeni-Yemeni dialogue without external interference and 4) Reaching a political solution in regards to the Yemen war.

The basic idea is to make sure that the war ends. The problem with the Saudis is that they know they have lost the war but they don’t know how to save face.

Tehran Times: What was the effect of the Houthi Aramco missile attacks on the Yemen conflict?

Dr. Foad Izadi: Since last year the Yemenis are using more sophisticated weapons. The Yemeni side has asked for a long time to stop the war but the UN was unable to stop hostilities because of American UNSC veto power. So Yemenis started to use force, which is the only language that the Saudis understand. The sooner the Saudis start understanding that the sooner the war will end.

Tehran Times: What is the role of Majlis in foreign affairs and do you think there is any chance for the survival of the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA)?

Dr. Foad Izadi: JCPOA is almost dead. The only country that is following JCPOA is Iran. Sooner or later Iran will have to abandon the nuclear deal. Even the Rouhani government is getting tired. Majlis has passed a law after the murder of Soleimani. Now they want to confront the US. After the US pulled out from the JCPOA and the murder of Gen. Soleimani, even the most optimistic MPs are anti-American.

Tehran Times: What about independent candidates. How many in the present Majlis and what do you predict for independent candidates for the next Majlis?

Dr. Foad Izadi: Generally during every Majlis election 1/3rd of the votes are for independent candidates, 1/3 reformist and 1/3 principlist. I don’t think this year will be any different.

Tehran Times: What do you think will be the turnout for the 11th Majlis election and which faction will fare well in the upcoming parliamentary election?

Dr. Foad Izadi: Turn out generally for Majlis is about 55-65 percent. I expect that these elections will follow that norm. The fact is that the Rouhani government’s policies have not paid off, including the nuclear agreement. Domestically, they are facing difficulties due to sanctions and mismanagement and currency fluctuations. So support for reformist camp won’t be as before which will give a chance to the principlists.

Tehran Times: What do you predict for the future now that E3 (European Union trio of Britain, France and Germany) has triggered the dispute mechanism?

Dr. Foad Izadi: According to article 36 of the nuclear agreement starting dispute mechanism doesn’t mean that they will finish it. They can take several steps. The last step would be to re-impose previous UNSC sanctions in which case Iran will exit NPT as well.

Iran rejects Deal of the Century proposed by US President Donald Trump

In a move consistent with the Islamic Republic's decades-old policy regarding Israeli-Palestinian issue, Iranian officials have harshly criticized US President Donald Trump's "Deal of the Century".

Speaker of the Iranian Parliament, Ali Larijani wrote a letter to the heads of parliaments around the world describing Trump's Deal of the Century as "disgusting," and "in violation of all international agreements and laws including the UN Charter."

Larijani wrote, “The deal ensures the continuation of occupation of Palestine and promised that Muslim nations and countries will confront the imposition of this unilateral deal."

He accused the US President of acting based on his personal interests rather than consulting the UN or the Palestinians.

Larijani also echoed Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's idea of holding a referendum in the Palestinian territories to determine the fate of Palestinians.

Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif slammed the US plan as "a nightmare for the region." He wrote in a tweet that the Vision for Peace "is simply the dream project of a bankruptcy-ridden real estate developer." Zarif hoped that deal would be "a wake-up call for all the Muslims who have been barking up the wrong tree."

In an earlier tweet, Zarif characterized the Deal of the Century as "an illusionist plan that is dead on arrival."

Repeating the idea of holding a referendum in the Palestinian territory, Zarif suggested that “Instead of a delusional ‘Deal of the Century’—which will be D.O.A.—self-described ‘champions of democracy’ would do better to accept Iran's democratic solution proposed by Ayatollah Khamenei.”

Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman, Abbas Mousavi expressed Iran's official view saying, "The Zionist regime is an occupying regime and the only solution to solve the Palestinian crisis is a referendum among all main residents of the Palestinian land and such vicious plans are doomed to failure."

Mousavi called on "All free nations and governments in the region and across the world to counter Trump's "disgraceful" scheme." However, he regretted that "some Muslim countries have forgotten the Palestinian cause," adding that such an attitude will undermine "the future and prestige of Muslims and Islamic countries."

Khamenei's office belatedly posted a series of tweets on the issue Tuesday afternoon which appear to have been taken out of his previous speeches.

In the tweets Khamenei said, "The Deal of the Century will never bear fruit," and called the "Jewishization of Qods" a "foolish and unwise" act. He reiterated that "The Palestinian nation and all Muslims will definitely stand up to them and not allow the so-called Deal of Century to be realized."

Usually, as it works in Iran, during the first hours after a development like the announcement of the Deal of the Century, everyone who considers himself or herself a politician says something about the matter which may not necessarily reflect the views of the government. Later, the Foreign Ministry Spokesman offers the regime's attestation in the matter.

The spokesman's statement as seen above contains three elements.

First, the regime does not like the Deal of the Century, second, it calls on other Muslim nations to oppose the deal and third, it offers Khamenei's solution which is holding a referendum.

All later comments, including Friday prayers sermons, embodied one or more of the three arguments. Naturally, those who take a more hardliner stance on the issue, including military officials, will focus on the confrontational part, calling on other nations to resist Trump's idea.

However, in this particular case, any comment by officials or any analysis by the media are also mixed with the usual anti-US and anti-Trump jargon while also marking the Islamic Republic's antagonistic opposition to the existence of Israel.

Traditionally, the Islamic Republic has opposed all solutions to the Israel-Palestinian conflict throughout the past four decades. Ayatollah Khamenei came up with the idea of referendum inspired by former ultraconservative President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad but put it forward after his Presidency.

What has kept Islamic Republic of Iran intact over four decades?

Since the end of WWII, the United States has conducted coups against many nations, including Iran in 1953. The US involvement in toppling Shah in 1953 has been confirmed by unclassified CIA documents. After the revolution in 1979, the US and its allies have been making efforts to topple the regime in Islamic Republic of Iran by establishing and supporting various rebel factions within the country, but all in vain.   

It may be worth probing the factors that have kept the regime intact. These include:

1. Since 1979, the US has become increasingly hostile, causing the general population of Iran to become united in support of the regime. The biggest evidence came recently at the funeral of General Soleimani inside and outside Iran.
2. Iranians are concerned that the US support might bring a regime change that could be worse than the present regime.
3. The current regime has successfully created a semi-welfare state by subsidizing basic necessities, and lately providing free medical insurance to all, a situation that does not exist even in the US.
4. The US threats including a steady increase of sanctions, as economic terrorism have had a direct impact on ordinary Iranians.
5. The US pressure on Iranians to topple the present regime is based on the recent US history of regime changes in many countries, specifically in the Middle East, Central and South America.
6. Trump’s maximum pressure on Iran via sanctions has had a significant impact on ordinary Iranians to remain united.
7. Iranians as well as rest of the world understand that western democracy is based on wealth and is not true democracy.    

Strategic Planning of the incumbent regime moved on many fronts to thwart the US, which are:

1-      Going to Syria and defeating US-created ISIS and elements backed by the west, which include, defeat of ISIS in Syria and containment of devastation in Iraq, Libya and Syria.

2-      Policies and the ability to produce defensive and offensive weapons have made the prospect of a US invasion costly.

3-      Development of strategic alliances with Russia and China, with their UN veto power has effectively made overt US aggression illegal.

4-      Iranian regime making a major strategic shift to the balance of world power in favor of Iran, Russia, and China, against other western imperialists.

5-      In June 2019 Iran surprised the world by shooting down a US drone in the Persian Gulf to which there was no US military response.

6-      In late December 2019 IRI conducted military exercises with Russia and China in the Gulf of Oman.

7-      On January 3, 2020 the US assassinated General Soleimani, an act condemned around the world. Following that action, Iran labeled the Pentagon a terrorist organization and US a terrorist state.

8-      The most important strategic achievement of Iran was its response to that killing, shooting 22 missiles into two US military bases in Iraq, again without a US response.

9-      Iran developed a policy of changing US assets into liabilities; also showed that the sole purpose of US weapons has been to increase corporate profit, not for defense.

10-   The US attempts to force Iraqi’s PM to resign, by suggesting he and his defense minister could be killed, failed when the PM refused and made it public, exposing the US as terrorist

Iranians have been gradually uniting as the government counters US provocations, sanctions, sustained hostility, aggression, and existential threats against them. Recently, they have been more critical of the US. There is general support to major strategic achievements including defeating ISIS in Syria and Iraq, and their strategic alliances with the emerging world powers of China and Russia.

Most importantly, the regime has prevented US from invading Iran, made history and changed the world balance of power against US aggression, hopefully moving toward a more peaceful and safer world.

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.

Lopsided reporting on United States-Iran Conflict

Without mincing words, it may be said that Pakistani readers/viewers get no clue of the current United States-Iran Conflict. To be precise they are lost by reading reports released by international media houses. The reason in most obvious, these media houses are owned and operated by anti-Muslim elements.

Over the years, distorted news reports were released about Pakistan-India conflict that culminated at East Pakistan, becoming Bangladesh. During 1965 and 1971 Pakistanis became addicted to BBC, as they were made to believe that the reporting was ‘fair’. When Saddam Hussein of Iraq attack Kuwait Pakistanis were introduced to another fantasy, CNN, as live coverage were provided by ‘embedded journalists’. After 9/11, United States attacked Afghanistan and Iraq and over the last four decades, Pakistanis have been completely brain washed and now they believe only Western media provides unbiased reports.

Let me point out the deficiency of Pakistani media houses, they hardly have correspondents even in Brother Muslim countries. As a result these media houses are obliged to use tinted reports released by international agencies, numbering less than half a dozen. Interestingly Pakistani news agencies also have arrangement with some foreign agencies and use their content without any deciphering.

Added to this, are the political affiliation of the owners of media houses with countries and sects. It is also not a secret that the successive governments in Pakistan have remained inclined to certain global and regional super powers, as a result some reports are overblown and some are completely blacked out.

Now coming to the current and the most contentious issue of United States-Iran confrontation, no one can deny Pakistan has been towing the US foreign policy, since independence. Over the years Pakistan also faced tenses relations with USSR. It has been facing tense relations with Afghanistan, Iran and India.

The biggest example of US hegemony is non-completion of Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) gas pipeline. The dichotomy of US policy can be gauged from the fact that India was allowed to construct Chabahar Port in Iran as well as rail and road links connecting the port to Central Asian Countries. Was not this hoodwinking aimed at undermining the importance of Pakistan?

I am inclined to infer that the most important aspects of present media system, and yet hardly known to the public that most of the international news coverage in Western media is provided by only three global news agencies based in New York, London and Paris.
Western media often report on the same topics, even using the same wording. In addition, governments, military and intelligence services use these global news agencies as multipliers to spread their messages around the world.These news agencies are the most important suppliers of material to mass media around the world and Pakistan cannot be an exception. No daily media outlet can manage without them. They influence our image of the world; above all, we get to know what they have selected.

In view of their essential importance, it is all the more astonishing that these agencies are hardly known to the public: A large part of society is unaware that news agencies exist at all.  On the contrary, they play an enormously important role in the media market.

There is something strange about news agencies. They are little known to the public. Unlike a newspaper, their activity is not so much in the spotlight, yet they can always be found at the source of the story.

In fact, not only the text, but also the images, sound and video recordings that we encounter in our media every day, are mostly from the very same agencies. What the uninitiated audience might think of as contributions from their local newspaper or TV station, are actually copied reports from New York, London and Paris.

Iraqi Parliament votes to expel US troops from Iraq

Reportedly in an extraordinary session on Sunday, the Iraqi parliament voted for a resolution requiring the government to order the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

The session came two days after a US drone strike on a convoy at Baghdad airport which killed Iranian Military Commander Qassem Soleimani and Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) Deputy Chief Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis.

“There is no need for the presence of American forces after defeating Daesh,” said Ammar al-Shibli, a lawmaker and member of the parliamentary legal committee.

“We have our own armed forces which are capable of protecting the country,” he said, Reuters reported.

Around 5,000 U.S. troops remain in Iraq, most of them in an advisory capacity.

During a massive funeral procession for General Soleimani, the commander of the IRGC Quds Force, and al-Muhandis in Baghdad, al- Kadhimiya, Karbala and Najaf, hundreds of thousands of angry Iraqi mourners carried placards demanding an immediate expulsion of “U.S. terrorists” from their country.

In the face of the Iraqi people’s will, the Iraqi parliament made a historic test about by voting to expel the U.S. troops.

Expelling Iraqi troops had turned into a “national demand” after the terrorist attacks on the top Iranian and Iraqi military commanders. 

Following the terrorist attack by the US, Iraqi caretaker Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi had asked the parliament to take a decision based on Article 58 of the Iraqi constitution about the “illegal action” of the US army.

The Prime Minister said the US move was a violation of the Iraqi sovereignty and an affront to national pride.

He called the US act a dangerous move which will trigger another devastating war in Iraq and the region.

Since the US terrorist attack, rival political leaders had been calling for expulsion of US troops from Iraq in an unusual show of unity among factions.

Hadi al-Amiri, the top candidate to succeed al-Muhandis, repeated his call for US troops to leave Iraq on Saturday during an elaborate funeral procession for those killed in the attack.

Iraqi Parliament Speaker Salim al-Jabouri has expressed anger over the US attack on the military convoy, saying, “What happened around Baghdad airport was an open violation of the Iraqi territorial sovereignty and violation of international agreements.”

He added, “Any security and military operation should be with the agreement of the government.”

Faleh al-Fayad, Iraq’s national security advisor and chief of Hashd al-Shaabi or PMF), has also said it is the duty of the Iraqi government and judiciary to respond to the violation of the Iraqi sovereignty.  

Also, Abdelkarim Khalaf, spokesman for the Iraqi Armed Forces has said "these strikes represent a treacherous stab in the back."