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."

Protests erupt in United States after assignation of Soleimani in a US attack in Iraq

According to a Reuters report, groups of protesters took to the streets in Washington and other cities of United States on Saturday to condemn the air strike in Iraq ordered by President Donald Trump that killed Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani and Trump’s decision to send about 3,000 more troops to the Middle East.

“No justice, no peace. US out of the Middle East,” hundreds of demonstrators chanted outside the White House before marching to the Trump International Hotel a few blocks away.

Similar protests were held in New York, Chicago and other cities. Organizers at Code Pink, a women-led anti-war group, said protests were scheduled on Saturday in numerous US cities and towns.

Protesters in Washington held signs that read “No war or sanctions on Iran!” and “US troops out of Iraq!”

Speakers at the Washington event included actress and activist Jane Fonda, who last year was arrested at a climate change protest on the steps of the US Capitol.

“The younger people here should know that all of the wars fought since you were born have been fought over oil,” Fonda, 82, told the crowd, adding that “we can’t anymore lose lives and kill people and ruin an environment because of oil.”

“Going to a march doesn’t do a lot, but at least I can come out and say something, that I’m opposed to this stuff,” said protestor Steve Lane of Bethesda, Maryland. “And maybe if enough people do the same thing, he (Trump) will listen.”

Soleimani, regarded as the second most powerful figure in Iran, was killed in the US strike on his convoy at Baghdad airport on Friday in a dramatic escalation of hostilities in the Middle East between Iran and the United States and its allies.

Public opinion polls show Americans in general have been opposed to US military interventions overseas. A survey last year by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs found 27% of Americans believe military interventions make the United States safer, and nearly half said they make the country less safe.

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.”

US warns of preemptive attack against forces allegedly backed by Iran

The predictable result of the Trump administration’s reckless bluster, escalation and miscalculation in the Middle East is that the super power is now hurtling closer to an unauthorized war with Iran. America has the surprising audacity of attributing to Iran the protests of the Iraqi people against (Washington’s) savage killing of at least 25 Iraqis.

The embassy incident came seven years after the 2012 attack by armed militants on the US diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, that resulted in the death of the US Ambassador and three other Americans and led to multiple congressional investigations.

The unprecedented attack on an American diplomatic mission in Iraq marked a sharp escalation of the proxy conflict between the United States and Iran - both influential players in the country - and plunged US relations with Iraq to their worst level in years.

Mark Esper, US Defense Secretary said on Thursday that there were indications Iran or the forces it backs may be planning additional attacks and said it was possible the United States might have to take preemptive action to protect American lives.

“There are some indications out there that they may be planning additional attacks, that is nothing new ... we’ve seen this for two or three months now,” Esper told reporters.

“If that happens then we will act and by the way, if we get word of attacks or some type indication, we will take preemptive action as well to protect American forces to protect American lives.”

Iranian-backed demonstrators who hurled rocks at the U.S. embassy in two days of protests withdrew on Wednesday after Washington dispatched extra troops.

Donald Trump, US President, who faces a re-election campaign in 2020, accused Iran of orchestrating the violence. He threatened on Tuesday to retaliate against Iran but said later he did not want war.

The unrest outside the US embassy in Baghdad followed US air raids on Sunday against bases of the Tehran-backed Kataib Hezbollah group. Washington said the air strikes, which killed 25 people, were in retaliation for missile attacks that killed a US contractor in northern Iraq last week.

The protests marked a new turn in the shadow war between Washington and Tehran playing out across the Middle East.

“The game has changed and we are prepared to do what is necessary to defend our personnel and our interests and our partners in the region,” Esper said.

During the same press briefing, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley said there had been a sustained campaign by Kataib Hezbollah against US personnel since at least October and the missile attack in northern Iraq was designed to kill.

“Thirty-one rockets aren’t designed as a warning shot, that is designed to inflict damage and kill,” Milley said.

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.  

Iran Russia China joint naval drill in Sea of Oman

Naval forces from Iran, Russia and China started a large-scale maritime exercise in the northern part of Indian Ocean and Sea of Oman on Friday, 27th December 2019.The joint exercise is being viewed by some analysts as a show of power and solidarity between Iran, China and Russia. The exercise, named “Marine Security Belt”, will last for four days and cover 17,000 square kilometers and consist of "various tactical exercises"

Earlier, speaking at a news conference on Wednesday, Iranian Armed Forces Brigadier General Abolfazl Shekarchi said it was important and vital that security should be established in Indian Ocean and Sea of Oman. Indian Ocean and Sea of Oman are among the world's key trade routes and many countries commute in the (two) regions and therefore establishing security there is important and vital, said Shekarchi.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said on Friday that the joint military exercises show that Iran and its partners are committed to secure vital waterways. “Our joint military drills in Oman Sea/Indian Ocean with Russian and Chinese partners make clear our broader commitment to secure vital waterways,” Zarif added. Iran has been insisting that it is ready to work with its neighbors on the southern shores of the Persian Gulf to secure maritime trade in the region based on the Hormuz peace initiative. “Iran has long stated its readiness to work with its neighbors to secure the Persian Gulf.

Since the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979, it is the first time that the country has staged such a large-scale drill participated with two huge naval powers in the world. Certainly those countries share security, economic, political, and defense interests and try to restore collective security in the region. Reinvigoration of international maritime trade, countering piracy, exchange of information and experiences in various fields including maritime rescue and relief are among the main objectives of the drill.

Rear Admiral Tahani said peace, friendship and sustainable security under collective unity and cooperation are the main messages of the current naval drill. The message of this exercise is peace, friendship and lasting security through cooperation and unity … and its effect will be to show that Iran cannot be isolated.

China has sent a guided-missile destroyer to the four-day drills, which it called a "normal military exchange" between the three armed forces. It is not necessarily connected with the regional situation. China has close diplomatic, trade and energy ties with Iran, which has friendly ties with Russia.

Russia had sent three ships from its Baltic Fleet - a frigate, a tanker, and a rescue tug boat - to take part in the drills. It is believed that Russia is participating for the first time in such drills, being held in such a format.

The drills are being held at a time that the United States is resorting to every ploy to pressure Iran and isolate it in the world.  It sends a clear signal to the United States that the Iran issue should be addressed through negotiations based on the previous deal rather than military actions. The US should stop fanning the flames.

Certain quarters say that the drill was in response to recent US maneuvers with its regional ally Saudi Arabia. The trilateral drills are the first of its kind and being held at a time when Iran is facing unprecedented sanctions from the US. The joint drills are likely to be perceived as provocative by Washington. 

Divided Kuala Lumpur Summit

Contrary to the expectations of many Pakistanis, Prime Minister Imran Khan opted not to attend Kuala Lumpur Summit. The overwhelming perception is that that Khan decided to stay away from the Summit under the pressure of Saudi Arabia. It is no secret that the Kingdom has been extending help to the incumbent government to avert the economic crisis, ever since Khan came into power.

Reportedly, Khan had telephoned his Malaysian counterpart Mahathir bin Mohammad to express his regrets for not being able to attend the summit. He also conveyed the same to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who was also one of the driving forces behind the event.

It is worth noting that Pakistan was one of the first countries with whom Mahathir shared his plans for holding the summit, when he met Khan along with Erdogan on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session in New York in September. Khan formally conveyed his acceptance of the invitation for attending the summit when deputy Foreign Minister of Malaysia called on him in Islamabad on 29th November.

Prior to the commencement of Summit, a statement issued by Malaysian Prime Minister’s Office saying, “Dr. Mahathir appreciates Prime Minister Imran Khan’s call to inform of his inability to attend the summit where the Pakistani leader was expected to speak and share his thoughts on the state of affairs of the Islamic world.”

There is a dire need to read the explanation put forward by Pakistan’s Foreign Minister, Shah Mehmood Qureshi. He confirmed that Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates had concerns about the Kuala Lumpur Summit. They were worried that the event could cause fragmentation of Ummah and lead to setting up of another organization parallel to the existing Saudi-dominated Organization of Islamic Cooperation.

It is on record that prior to the commencement of Summit, Mahathir told reporters in Kuala Lumpur that Saudi King; Salman bin Abdul Aziz was averse to the Summit discussing issues facing the Muslims. Saudi King was of the view that the OIC should continue as the platform for discussing such matters.

In view of the reservations about the event, Qureshi said, it was decided that Pakistan would first attempt to bridge the gap between Riyadh and Kuala Lumpur and if that did not work there would be no participation in the Summit.

Foreign minister explained that Pakistan did attempt to patch up the differences and succeeded not only in getting invites for Saudis and Emiratis, but also convinced Mahathir to personally visit Riyadh and directly invite King Salman. Mahathir’s visit could not be scheduled because the dates proposed by Riyadh were not convenient for him to undertake the trip.

He also informed that Khan visited Saudi Arabia in an attempt to bringing Saudi Arabia and Malaysia closer, and not for getting a permission to attend the summit. Qureshi was of the view that by staying back, Pakistan had underscored its neutrality on the issue and conveyed that it was not inclined towards one side or the other.

According to media reports from the Malaysian capital, Mahathir and King Salman held a video conference to discuss Saudi reservations even after Pakistan had officially pulled out, but no common grounds could be found.

It was anticipated that two of the world's most outspoken leaders, Malaysia's Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad and Turkey's President Tayyip Erdogan would be giving their views during the four-day summit. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and Qatar's Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamid Al-Thani, two countries having tense relations with Saudi Arabia, were invited to attend the Summit.

Saudi Arabia was of the opinion that Summit was the wrong forum to discuss matters of importance to the world's 1.75 billion Muslims.  Saudi King Salman believed that such issues should be discussed through the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).

However, some analysts suspected the Kingdom feared being diplomatically isolated by regional rivals Iran, Qatar and Turkey. A quote of James Dorsey, a senior fellow at S Rajaratnam School of International Studies and Middle East Institute in Singapore just can’t be overlooked.

He said, “The issue is that you've got blocs. “You've got a Saudi-UAE bloc, Turkey-Qatari bloc, and Pakistan in the middle trying to hedge their bets.”

Defending the summit, Mahathir's office issued a statement saying there was no intention to create a “new bloc as alluded to by some of its critics”.

“In addition, the Summit is not a platform to discuss religion or religious affairs but specifically to address the state of affairs of the Muslim Ummah,” it said.

However, one just can’t ignore what Mahatir had told Reuters. He had expressed frustration with the OIC's inability to forge a united front and act decisively.