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.