Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Iraq PM confirms receiving ‘signed’ US pullout letter

Press TV – January 7, 2020

Amid confusion over a reported US letter to Iraq announcing the steps its military would take to move out of Iraq, Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi confirms that Baghdad has actually received “signed and translated” copies from the US Army concerning the withdrawal.

In a televised cabinet meeting on Tuesday, Abdul Mahdi clearly refuted all US claims that the letter had been sent by mistake or it had been inauthentic.

On Sunday, the Iraqi Parliament voted unanimously in favor of a bill demanding the withdrawal of all foreign military forces led by the United States from the country.

The vote came only two days after US airstrikes assassinated senior Iranian commander Lt. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, and the second-in-command of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) anti-terror group, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis in the Iraqi capital.

Earlier, various news agencies reported that Brigadier General William Seely, who oversees US Task Force Iraq, had sent a letter to the head of Iraq’s Joint Operations Command on Monday, suggesting potential withdrawal of the forces belonging to a US-led coalition, which has been operating in Iraq since 2014 under the pretext of fighting Daesh.

‘Signed and translated’

US Defense Secretary Mark Esper later denied that the US military had announced preparation for “movement out of Iraq,” and the Pentagon claimed that an unsigned draft version of the letter had been sent by mistake.

Abdel Mahdi, however, said he had received signed and translated copies at 8:00 p.m. local time (1700 GMT) on Monday.

The letter discussed “redeploying with an aim to withdraw from the country. The expressions were very clear,” he said. “It was an official letter written in such a manner,” the premier told ministers.

“It’s not a piece of paper that fell off the printer or reached us by coincidence,” he added. The letters only contained a translation mistake that the US military corrected and provided Baghdad with new versions, Abdul Mahdi noted.

The AFP said it had received a copy of the letter late Monday and verified its authenticity with both US and Iraqi officials, the agency added.

In it, Seely informed his Iraqi counterparts that American troops were preparing to leave Iraq. Seely wrote the US-led coalition would “be re-positioning forces in the coming days and weeks to prepare for onward movement.”

“In order to conduct this task, Coalition Forces are required to take certain measures to ensure that the movement out of Iraq is conducted in a safe and efficient manner,” said the letter.

It said helicopters would be travelling in and around Baghdad’s heavily-fortified Green Zone, where the US Embassy is located as part of the preparations.

The AFP, meanwhile, said its reporters could hear helicopters flying low over Baghdad throughout the night on Monday as well as Tuesday.

January 7, 2020 Posted by | Illegal Occupation | , | Leave a comment

2019: The Year the Neocons Failed

By Tom Luongo | Strategic Culture Foundation | January 5, 2020

When things are as crazy as they are right now, it’s hard to see just how much progress has been made. 2019 had in it a number of watershed moments in geopolitics which signal just how close to radical change in the game board we are.

The neoconservatives within the Trump administration went for broke in 2019 and came a cropper every time. There’s no war with Iran. Nordstream 2 will be completed. Russia and Ukraine are on the path to solving their conflict. Iran is still selling oil. Turkey is still run by a madman. Israeli politics is more fractious than Spain’s. And Bashar al-Assad is still in charge in a slowly-rebuilding Syria.

The problem with these folks is they are relentless and still placed everywhere within the permanent bureaucracy of the U.S. government and Congress itself.

And President Trump has only been partially successful in fending them off from pulling off policy mistakes from which there is no turning back.

We are downstream from the neocon/Israeli push to withdraw the U.S. from the JCPOA, or Iran Nuclear Deal. That one event has dominated the geopolitical landscape for going on two years now. Trump thought he was gaining leverage over both Europe and Iran by withdrawing from the deal, when he actually unleashed a political and diplomatic quagmire.

The pull of the AIPAC crowd surrounding him, specifically Sheldon Adelson, Jared Kushner and Rudy Guiliani, put Trump on a path to confrontation with Iran which could only end in war, their desired outcome.

Trump, to his credit, has resisted this but only just barely. His refusal to go to war after Iran shot down a Global Hawk drone in June led to the firing of arch-neocon John Bolton as National Security Adviser and the subsequent impeachment fiasco we’re seeing today.

Trump, for his part, is reforming the NSC – National Security Council—by stripping it of more than two-thirds of its staff, to limit is ability to set policy outside of his purview. This will be reported by the MSM as him arrogating dictatorial powers and becoming insulated from reality.

It seems Trump is finally realizing that in Washington personnel is policy. Robert C. O’Brien is not John Bolton. It’s a good start. And if Trump wins a second term in November there may be hope that we’ll see foreign policy that is less schizophrenic and, frankly, dangerous.

Make no mistake, Trump not going to war overtly with Iran in June was a win. A small win, but a win, nonetheless.

But since that day it has been one non-stop neocon assault on his presidency and any kind of peace in the Middle East. I’m still of the opinion, tenuously so, that Trump wants to do the right thing in, at least, minimizing U.S. meddling in the region.

But the neocons are still dominant. They infest the NSC, the CIA, the State Dept. as well as major European governments and intelligence agencies. And it’s clear that Trump is fighting a rear-guard battle against them. They dominate the information flow to him.

I’m not absolving Trump of his mistakes by saying this. It’s clear he needs to be better at seeing through the misleading, if not outright false, data put in front of him about what’s happening on the ground in places like Syria, Iraq and Lebanon.

But what’s also clear is that the neocons will not stop until they get a war with Iran. Theirs is an ideology of subjugation and permanent revolution. These people are the descendants of Trotsky and all that implies.

Israel has stepped up its aggression against Syria and Iraq while simultaneously backing down to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Airstrikes to the west get bolder and more aggressive, sometimes with the U.S.’s help while the mere threat of retaliation by Hezbollah sees IDF forces disappear from the earth for a week.

Israeli Prime Minister (for now) Benjamin Netanyahu will do anything to keep the U.S. engaged in Syria and Iraq. He and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo are on the same page and it seems every time Pompeo shows up to talk with Bibi some escalation happens a week later.

The latest is this attack on the K1 base near Kirkuk which killed ‘an American contractor.’ That’s code for non-strategic personnel, most likely someone working the Iraqi oil fields there. The base was under the control of Iraqi PMU forces and likely attacked by either the local Kurds or ISIS.

The U.S. response was to bomb five PMU bases in Syria and Iraq nowhere near Kirkuk, all supporting the Iraqi government’s order to open up the Al Qaim/Al-Bukamai border crossing with Syria, which both the U.S. and Israel are vehemently opposed to.

It looks to me that Pompeo and Netanyahu cooked up yet another ‘incident’ to force President Trump into a confrontation with Iran by escalating tensions now in Iraq.

The result of the U.S. response was assaults on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad which brought in 100 marines and Apache helicopters to disperse the crowd.

And then Trump talks literally out of both sides of his mouth on Twitter.

Everything that happens in the Middle East that the U.S. and Israel doesn’t like is Iran’s fault. There can be no nuance for Iraqi people rising up organically against U.S. airstrikes taking out dozens of Iraqi patriots who liberated most of Iraq from ISIS and Al-Qaeda on the thinnest of pretexts.

Iraq is not going to rise up against Iran over this. If Trump has been advised that this is possible that is coming straight from a national security infrastructure intent on convincing him of staying it the Middle East forever. But Trump has shown no inclination to take this farther.

He’ll threaten fire and brimstone but that’s about it. And for this reason, the neocons are losing ground in the long run. What’s clear to me is that Trump lacks the political will to hold the line completely. He goes along with economic sanctions and tariffs in lieu of putting troops on the ground.

But at some point, he’s going to have to take a decisive stand and stop playing a game of attrition. Speaker Nancy Pelosi is slow-walking the impeachment articles to gain more leverage over him and force him from office with Republican support. For now, there is no appetite for this. But into this vacuum of power where Trump’s future rests on the votes of 17 Republican Senators, all rampant neocons, the worst legislation imaginable will come forth. This is how the NDAA got passed with additional sanctions on European allies working on Russian energy projects.

This is how Lindsey Graham (R-SC) will push the even worse DASKA through Congress now that he’s secured the vote of the Foreign Relations Committee. If Trump doesn’t toe the neocon line while the impeachment threat hangs over his neck, then, all of a sudden, conviction in the Senate will be the talk of the town.

That’s the bad news. The good news is that Trump keeps bringing in record money to fund his re-election. As long as Iran can keep a hold over its more militant factions and not escalate the situation in Iraq then all of these neocon provocations will peter out along with impeachment.

These moves by the neocons are desperation plays to retain control over U.S. foreign policy which the electorate is growing more tired of by the day. 2019 was the year they failed to secure victory. Most of 2020 will be dominated with them putting up one, last desperate offensive.

January 6, 2020 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | 2 Comments

US-Led Coalition Tells Baghdad It Will ‘Move Out’ of Iraq – Official Letter

Sputnik – 06.01.2020

In a Monday letter to Iraqi military leaders, the US-led coalition in Iraq announced it was preparing to “move out” of the country out of respect for Iraqi sovereignty.

Following approval of a non-binding resolution by Iraq’s parliament calling for US forces to leave the country, US military commanders announced they were drawing up preparatory plans for their departure. A Pentagon spokesperson could not immediately confirm the authenticity of the letter to Reuters.

“We respect your sovereign decision to order our departure,” the letter says, according to Reuters. US forces will re-position themselves over the coming days and weeks in preparation for the move, the letter states.

“In due deference to the sovereignty of the Republic of Iraq, and as requested by the Iraqi Parliament and the Prime Minister, CJTF-OIR [Combined Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve] will be repositioning forces over the course of the coming days and weeks to prepare for onward movement,” states the letter, addressed to Iraqi Lt. Gen. Abdul Amir and signed by US Marine Corps Brig. Gen. William H. Seely III.

​The lawmakers’ request comes on the heels of a January 3 drone strike at Baghdad International Airport in which US forces killed Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani as well as the leader of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis. The two commanders helped lead the fight against Daesh in the 2014-17 Iraqi Civil War that saw the terrorist group expelled from the country. At its height, Daesh controlled significant amounts of northern Iraq, including its third-largest city of Mosul, and was advancing on Baghdad.

“In order to conduct this task, coalition forces are required to take certain measures to ensure that the movement out of Iraq is conducted in a safe and efficient manner,” the letter continues. “During this time, there will be an increase in helicopter travel in and around the International Zone (IZ) of Baghdad. This increased traffic will include CH-47, UH-60 and AH-64 security escort helicopters. Coalition forces will take appropriate measures to minimize and mitigate the disturbance to the public. In addition, we will conduct these operations during house of darkness to help alleviate any perception that we may be bringing more Coalition forces into the IZ.”

“As we begin implementing this next phase of operations, I want to reiterate the value of our friendship and partnership. We respect your sovereign decision to order our departure.”

Contradictory Statements

The news comes after US President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo snubbed the idea of leaving Iraq, where US forces have been stationed since the March 2003 invasion that overthrew Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

“We have a very extraordinarily expensive airbase that’s there. It cost billions of dollars to build. Long before my time We’re not leaving unless they pay us back for it,” Trump said on Sunday. “We will charge them sanctions like they’ve never seen before ever. It’ll make Iranian sanctions look somewhat tame.”

“The prime minister is the acting prime minister,” Pompeo said on Fox News on Sunday, speaking of Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi. “He’s under enormous threats from the very Iranian leadership that it is that we are pushing back against. We are confident that the Iraqi people want the United States to continue to be there.”

January 6, 2020 Posted by | Illegal Occupation | , , | 2 Comments

A Terrorist Attack Against Eurasian Integration

By Federico Pieraccini | Strategic Culture Foundation | January 6, 2020

The murder of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani in Baghdad, in the early hours of January 3 by US forces, only highlights the extent to which US strategy in the Middle East has failed. It is likely to provoke reactions that do not benefit US interests in the region.

To understand the significance of this event, it is necessary to quickly reconstruct the developments in Iraq. The US has occupied Iraq for 17 years, following its invasion of the country in 2003. During this time, Baghdad and Tehran have re-established ties by sustaining an important dialogue on post-war reconstruction as well as by acknowledging the importance of the Shia population in Iraq.

Within two decades, Iraq and Iran have gone from declaring war with each other to cooperating on the so-called Shia Crescent, favoring cooperation and the commercial and military development of the quartet composed of Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. Such ties, following recent victories over international terrorism, have been further consolidated, leading to current and planned overland connections between this quartet.

Local movements and organizations have been calling for US troops to leave Iraqi territory with increasing vigor and force in recent months. Washington has accused Tehran of inciting associated protests.

At the same time, groups of dubious origin, that have sought to equate the Iranian presence with the American one, have been calling for the withdrawal of the Popular Mobilization Units (PMUs) that are linked to Iran from Iraq. The protests from such groups appear to be sponsored and funded by Saudi Arabia.

With mutual accusations flying around, the US hit a pro-Iranian faction known as Kataib Hezbollah on December 29. This episode sparked a series of reactions in Iraq that ended up enveloping the US embassy in Baghdad, which was besieged for days by demonstrators angry about ongoing airstrikes by US forces.

The US secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, blamed this volatile situation on Iran, warning that Tehran would be held responsible for any escalation of the situation involving the embassy.

In the early hours of January 3, 2020, another tangle was added to the Gordian Knot that is the Middle East. Qasem Soleimani was assassinated when his convoy was attacked by a drone near Baghdad International Airport. The most effective opponents of ISIS and Wahabi jihadism in general was thus eliminated by the US in a terrorist act carried out in a foreign country in a civilian area (near Baghdad International Airport). The champagne would have no doubt been flowing immediately upon receiving this news in the US Congress, the Israeli Knesset, Riyadh royal palace and in Idlib among al Nusra and al Qaeda militants.

It remains to be seen what the reasons were behind Trump’s decision to okay the assassination of such an influential and important leader. Certainly the need to demonstrate to his base (and his Israeli and Saudi financiers) plays into his anti-Iranian crusade. But there are other reasons that better explain Trump’s actions that are more related to the influence of the US in the region; the geopolitical chess game in the Middle East transcends any single leader or any drone attack.

In Syria, for example, the situation is extremely favorable to the government in Damascus, with it only being a matter of time before the country is again under the control of the central government. General Soleimani and Iran have played a central role in ridding the country of the scourge of terrorism, a scourge directed and financed by the US and her regional allies.

In Iraq, the political situation is less favorable to the US now than it was back in 2006. Whatever progress in relations between Baghdad and Tehran has also been due to General Soleimani, who, together with the PMUs and the Iraqi army, freed the country from ISIS (which was created and nurtured by Western and Saudi intelligence, as revealed by Wikileaks).

It would seem that the US sanctions against Iran have not really had the intended effect, instead only serving to consolidate the country’s stance against imperialism. The US, as a result, is experiencing a crisis in the region, effectively being driven out of the Middle East, rather than leaving intentionally.

In this extraordinary and unprecedented situation, the Russians and Chinese are offering themselves variously as military, political and economic guarantors of the emerging Eurasian mega-project (the recent naval exercises between Beijing, Moscow and Tehran serving as a tangible example of this commitment). Naturally, it is in their interests to avoid any extended regional conflict that may only serve to throw a monkey wrench into their vast Eurasian mega-project.

Putin and Xi Jinping face tough days ahead, trying to council Iran in avoiding an excessive response that would give Washington the perfect excuse for a war against Iran.

The prospects of a region without terrorism, with a reinvigorated Shia Crescent, led by Iran at the regional level and accompanied by China and Russia at the economic (Belt and Road Initiative) and military level, offer little hope to Riyadh, Tel Aviv and Washington of being able to influence events in the region and this is likely going to be the top argument that Putin and Xi Jinping will use to try to deter any Iranian overt response.

Deciding to kill the leader of the Quds Force in Iraq proves only one thing: that the options available to Trump and his regional allies are rapidly shrinking, and that the regional trends over the next decade appear irreversible. Their only hope is for Tehran and her allies to lash out at the latest provocation, thereby justifying the regional war that would only serve to benefit Washington by slowing down regional unification under Iranian leadership.

We must remember that whenever the US finds itself in a situation where it cannot control a country or a region, its tendency is to create chaos and ultimately destroy it.

By killing General Soleimani, the US hopes to wreak havoc in the region so as to slow down or altogether scupper any prospect of integration. Fortunately, China, Russia and Iran are well aware that any conflict would not be in any of their own interests.

No drone-launched missiles will be enough to save the US from decades of foreign-policy errors and their associated horrors; nor will they be enough to extinguish the memory of a hero’s tireless struggle against imperialism and terrorism.

January 6, 2020 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Middle East Strategic “Balance” Shredded

By Alastair Crooke | Strategic Culture Foundation | January 6, 2020

President Trump was understood to not want a Mid-East war that might blight his rosy re-election prospects (so long as the US stock market stays inflated, and the economy doesn’t tank). Pat Buchanan, the three-times US Presidential candidate, warned Trump that if there is a potential landmine on Trump’s road to reelection, it may be found in the Middle and Near East: “Not infrequently, foreign policy has proven decisive in presidential years”. Plus Iran was not seeking any major confrontation; Hizbullah wasn’t; Iraq wasn’t; and the Israeli Security Establishment wasn’t.

In fact, the strategic balance – though sorely tested – had been hanging together. Just to be clear: Iran and Israel both had been keeping – just – within the parameters of unspoken ‘red lines’ – despite the inflated rhetoric. And both were practicing ‘strategic patience’. So the strategic balance seemed more or less sustainable: until its upending with the assassination of Qasem Soleimani and the head of the PMU, Al-Muhandis, ordered by Trump.

Israel has not – despite its lurid language – been landing strategic blows on Iran in Syria. It has not been killing Iranians there (apart from seven killed at T4 airport in eastern Syria last year). It did not target the head of the Iranian air force, some ten days ago, as some reports have suggested (he was not even in Iraq at the time). Most of the Israeli air attacks have been on depots in the early hours, when no personnel were present. It has been a campaign more of a regular, small slicing away at Iranian logistics. It was not strategic damage.

And Iran, after sending clear ‘messages’ to Gulf States of its willingness to inflict pain on parties to its economic siege, plainly had been calibrating this push-back carefully; Iran still had its eye to global diplomacy (to wit: the joint Iranian naval exercises with Russia and China in the Persian Gulf) – whilst countering politically, America’s ‘new’ tactic of inciting ‘colour’ protests across Lebanon and Iraq (and trying to bust Syria financially, by stealing its energy revenues).

Here is the point: The US was no longer content with mere sanctions on Iran. It has been covertly escalating across the board: orchestrating protests in Iraq, in Lebanon, and in Iran itself; mounting a major cyber offensive on Iran; and a ‘messaging’ operation aimed at turning genuine popular frustration with regional mis-governance and corruption, into a weapon aimed at weakening revolutionary Iran.

The US was having some success with turning protest messaging against Iran – until, that is – its killing and wounding of so many Iraqi security force members last week (Ketaib Hizbullah is a part of Iraq’s armed forces).

Escalation of maximum-pressure was one thing (Iran was confident of weathering that); but assassinating such a senior official on his state duties, was quite something else. We have not observed a state assassinating a most senior official of another state before.

And the manner of its doing, was unprecedented too. Soleimani was officially visiting Iraq. He arrived openly as a VIP guest from Syria, and was met on the tarmac by an equally senior Iraqi official, Al-Muhandis, who was assassinated also, (together with seven others). It was all open. General Soleimani regularly used his mobile phone as he argued that as a senior state official, if he were to be assassinated by another state, it would only be as an act of war.

This act, performed at the international airport of Baghdad, constitutes not just the sundering of red lines, but a humiliation inflicted on Iraq – its government and people. It will upend Iraq’s strategic positioning. The erstwhile Iraqi attempt at balancing between Washington and Iran will be swept away by Trump’s hubristic trampling on the country’s sovereignty. It may well mark the beginning of the end of the US presence in Iraq (and therefore Syria, too), and ultimately, of America’s footprint in the Middle East.

Trump may earn easy plaudits now for his “We’re America, Bitch!”, as one senior White House official defined the Trump foreign policy doctrine; but the doubts – and unforeseen consequences soon may come home to roost.

Why did he do it? If no one really wanted ‘war’, why did Trump escalate and smash up all the crockery? He has had an easy run (so far) towards re-election, so why play the always unpredictable ‘wild card’ of a yet another Mid-East conflict?

Was it that he wanted to show ‘no Benghazi’; no US embassy siege ‘on my watch’ – unlike Obama’s handling of that situation? Was he persuaded that these assassinations would play well to his constituency (Israeli and Evangelical)? Or was he offered this option baldly by the Netanyahu faction in Washington? Maybe.

Some in Israel are worried about a three or four front war reaching Israel. Senior Israeli officials recently have been speculating about the likelihood of regional conflict occurring within the coming months. Israel’s PM however, is fighting for his political life, and has requested immunity from prosecution on three indictments – pleading that this was his legal right, and that it was needed for him to “continue to lead Israel” for the sake of its future. Effectively, Netanyahu has nothing to lose from escalating tensions with Iran — but much to gain.

Opposition Israeli political and military leaders have warned that the PM needs ‘war’ with Iran — effectively to underscore the country’s ‘need’ for his continued leadership. And for technical reasons in the Israeli parliament, his plea is unlikely to be settled before the March general elections. Netanyahu thus may still have some time to wind up the case for his continued tenure of the premiership.

One prime factor in the Israeli caution towards Iran rests not so much on the waywardness of Netanyahu, but on the inconstancy of President Trump: Can it be guaranteed that the US will back Israel unreservedly — were it to again to become enmeshed in a Mid-East war? The Israeli and Gulf answer seemingly is ‘no’. The import of this assessment is significant. Trump now is seen by some in Israel – and by some insiders in Washington – as a threat to Israel’s future security vis à vis Iran. Was Trump aware of this? Was this act a gamble to guarantee no slippage in that vital constituency in the lead up to the US elections? We do not know.

So we arrive at three final questions: How far will Iran absorb this new escalation? Will Iran confine its retaliation to within Iraq? Or will the US cross another ‘red line’ by striking inside Iran itself, in any subsequent tit for tat?

Is it deliberate (or is it political autism) that makes Secretary Pompeo term all the Iraqi Hash’d a-Sha’abi forces – whether or not part of official Iraqi forces – as “Iran-led”? The term seems to be used as a laissez-passer to attack all the many Hash’d a-Sha’abi units on the grounds that, being “Iran-linked”, they therefore count as ‘terrorist forces’. This formulation gives rise to the false sequitur that all other Iraqis would somehow approve of the killings. This would be laughable, if it were not so serious. The Hash’d forces led the war against ISIS and are esteemed by the vast majority of Iraqis. And Soleimani was on the ground at the front line, with those Iraqi forces.

These forces are not Iranian ‘proxies’. They are Iraqi nationalists who share a common Shi’a identity with their co-religionists in Iran, and across the region. They share a common zeitgeist, they see politics similarly, but they are no puppets (we write from direct experience).

But what this formulation does do is to invite a widening conflict: Many Iraqis will be outraged by the US attacks on fellow Iraqis and will revenge them. Pompeo (falsely) will then blame Iran. Is that Pompeo’s purpose: casus belli?

But where is the off-ramp? Iran will respond… Is this affair simply set to escalate from limited military exchanges … and from thence, to escalate until what? We understand that this was not addressed in Washington before the President’s decision was made. There are no real US channels of communication (other than low level) with Iran; nor is there a plan for the next days. Nor an obvious exit. Is Trump relying on gut instinct again?

January 6, 2020 Posted by | War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , | 2 Comments

Soleimani was to deliver Tehran’s reply to Saudi de-escalation letter when killed: Iraqi PM

Picture released by Iraqi Prime Minister’s Media Office shows Iraq’s caretaker prime minister Adel Abdul Mahdi (L) attending a parliamentary session on January 5, 2020. (Photo via AFP)
Press TV – January 5, 2020

Iraq’s Caretaker Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi has said that Lieutenant General Qassem Soleimani was set to deliver Tehran’s reply to an earlier Saudi message regarding de-escalation talks mediated by Baghdad when he was assassinated.

Abdul-Mahdi made the remarks during an extraordinary parliamentary session in the capital which led to the adoption of a law demanding the withdrawal of US forces from the country on Sunday, the National Iraqi News Agency reported.

The premier said that he was due to meet Soleimani at 8:30 am local time on Friday before the US assassinated the general a few hours earlier.

The revelations come as Baghdad has been mediating talks between Tehran and Riyadh following a recent uptick of tensions the region.

Sunday’s parliamentary vote was held in response to Washington’s Friday airstrikes targeting Soleimani and his comrades.

Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the second-in-command of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) was also killed in the attack.

Iran’s judiciary has said that the attack took place despite Soleimani being a “formal” and “high profile” guest of the Iraqi government.

The Sunday vote comes as many Iraqi figures and parliamentary factions have been long demanding the withdrawal of US troops from the country, specifically following a series of unclaimed airstrikes on PMU forces.

Abdul-Mahdi also revealed in his Sunday remarks that Washington had confirmed to Baghdad that Tel Aviv was behind a number of the attacks.

“America informed us that Israel bombed the warehouses of the PMU last summer,” he said, calling on the parliament to take all measures to end the presence of foreign forces in Iraq.

Rockets rock Baghdad’s Green Zone

Also on Sunday, the Iraqi military reported that three Katyusha rockets fell in Baghdad, two of which landed inside the capital’s heavily fortified Green Zone housing government buildings and foreign missions.

Witnesses told AFP that the rockets had landed close to the US embassy without further elaborating on probable casualties.

No group has yet claimed responsibility for the attack.

January 5, 2020 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , | 2 Comments

The USA is now at war, de-facto and de-jure, with BOTH Iraq and Iran

The Saker | January 5, 2020

First, let’s begin by a quick summary of what has taken place (note: this info is still coming in, so there might be corrections once the official sources make their official statements).

  1. Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdl Mahdi has now officially revealed that the US had asked him to mediate between the US and Iran and that General Qassem Soleimani was to come and talk to him and give him the answer to his mediation efforts. Thus, Soleimani was on an OFFICIAL DIPLOMATIC MISSION as part of a diplomatic initiative INITIATED BY THE USA.
  2. The Iraqi Parliament has now voted on a resolution requiring the government to press Washington and its allies to withdraw their troops from Iraq.
  3. Iraq’s caretaker PM Adil Abdul Mahdi said the American side notified the Iraqi military about the planned airstrike minutes before it was carried out. He stressed that his government denied Washington permission to continue with the operation.
  4. The Iraqi Parliament has also demanded that the Iraqi government must “work to end the presence of any foreign troops on Iraqi soil and prohibit them from using its land, airspace or water for any reason“
  5. The Iraqi Foreign Ministry said that Baghdad has turned to the UN Security Council with complaints about US violations of its sovereignty.
  6. Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr said the parliamentary resolution to end foreign troop presence in the country did not go far enough, calling on local and foreign militia groups to unite. I also have confirmation that the Mehdi Army is being re-mobilized.
  7. The Pentagon brass is now laying the responsibility for this monumental disaster on Trump (see here). They are now slowly waking up to this immense clusterbleep and don’t want to be held responsible for what is coming next.
  8. For the first time in the history of Iran, a Red Flag was hoisted over the Holy Dome Of Jamkaran Mosque, Iran. This indicates that the blood of martyrs has been spilled and that a major battle will now happen. The text in the flag says “Oh Hussein we ask for your help” (unofficial translation)
  9. The US has announced the deployment of 3,000 soldiers from the 82nd Airborne to Kuwait.
  10. Finally, the Idiot-in-Chief tweeted the following message, probably to try to reassure his freaked out supporters: “The United States just spent Two Trillion Dollars on Military Equipment. We are the biggest and by far the BEST in the World! If Iran attacks an American Base, or any American, we will be sending some of that brand new beautiful equipment their way… and without hesitation!“. Apparently, he still thinks that criminally overspending for 2nd rate military hardware is going to yield victory…

Analysis

Well, my first though when reading these bullet points is that General Qasem Soleimani has already struck out at Uncle Shmuel from beyond his grave. What we see here is an immense political disaster unfolding like a slow motion train wreck. Make no mistake, this is not just a tactical “oopsie”, but a major STRATEGIC disaster. Why?

For one thing, the US will now become an official and totally illegal military presence in Iraq. This means that whatever SOFA (Status Of Forces Agreement) the US and Iraq had until now is void.

Second, the US now has two options:

  1. Fight and sink deep into a catastrophic quagmire or
  2. Withdraw from Iraq and lose any possibility to keep forces in Syria

Both of these are very bad because whatever option Uncle Shmuel chooses, he will have lost whatever tiny level of credibility he has left, even amongst his putative “allies” (like the KSA which will now be left nose to nose with a much more powerful Iran than ever before).

The main problem with the current (and very provisional) outcome is that both the Israel Lobby and the Oil Lobby will now be absolutely outraged and will demand that the US try to use military power to regime change both Iraq and Iran.

Needless to say, that ain’t happening (only ignorant and incurable flag-wavers believe the silly claptrap about the US armed forces being “THE BEST”).

Furthermore, it is clear that by it’s latest terrorist action the USA has now declared war on BOTH Iraq and Iran.

This is so important that I need to repeat it again:

The USA is now at war, de-facto and de-jure, with BOTH Iraq and Iran.

I hasten to add that the US is also at war with most of the Muslim world (and most definitely all Shias, including Hezbollah and the Yemeni Houthis).

Next, I want to mention the increase in US troop numbers in the Middle-East. An additional 3,000 soldiers from the 82nd AB is what would be needed to support evacuations and to provide a reserve force for the Marines already sent in. This is NOWHERE NEAR the kind of troop numbers the US would need to fight a war with either Iraq or Iran.

Finally, there are some who think that the US will try to invade Iran. Well, with a commander in chief as narcissistically delusional as Trump, I would never say “never” but, frankly, I don’t think that anybody at the Pentagon would be willing to obey such an order. So no, a ground invasion is not in the cards and, if it ever becomes an realistic option we would first see a massive increase in the US troop levels, we are talking several tens of thousands, if not more (depending on the actual plan).

No, what the US will do if/when they attack Iran is what Israel did to Lebanon in 2006, but at a much larger scale. They will begin by a huge number of airstrikes (missiles and aircraft) to hit:

  1. Iranian air defenses
  2. Iranian command posts and Iranian civilian and military leaders
  3. Symbolic targets (like nuclear installations and high visibility units like the IRGC)
  4. Iranian navy and coastal defenses
  5. Crucial civilian infrastructure (power plants, bridges, hospitals, radio/TV stations, food storage, pharmaceutical installations,  schools, historical monuments and, let’s not forget that one, foreign embassies of countries who support Iran). The way this will be justified will be the same as what was done to Serbia: a “destruction of critical regime infrastructure” (what else is new?!)

Then, within about 24-48 hours the US President will go on air an announce to the world that it is “mission accomplished” and that “THE BEST” military forces in the galaxy have taught a lesson to the “Mollahs”.  There will be dances in the streets of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem (right until the moment the Iranian missiles will start dropping from the sky. At which point the dances will be replaced by screams about a “2nd Hitler” and the “Holocaust”).

Then all hell will break loose (I have discussed that so often in the past that I won’t go into details here).

In conclusion, I want to mention something more personal about the people of the US.

Roughly speaking, there are two main groups which I observed during my many years of life in the USA.

Group one: is the TV-watching imbeciles who think that the talking heads on the idiot box actually share real knowledge and expertise. As a result, their thinking goes along the following lines: “yeah, yeah, say what you want, but if the mollahs make a wrong move, we will simply nuke them; a few neutron bombs will take care of these sand niggers“. And if asked about the ethics of this stance, the usual answer is a “f**k them! they messed with the wrong guys, now they will get their asses kicked“.

Group two: is a much quieter group. It includes both people who see themselves as liberals and conservatives. They are totally horrified and they feel a silent rage against the US political elites. Friends, there are A LOT of US Americans out there who are truly horrified by what is done in their name and who feel absolutely powerless to do anything about it. I don’t know about the young soldiers who are now being sent to the Middle-East, but I know a lot of former servicemen who know the truth about war and about THE BEST military in the history of the galaxy and they are also absolutely horrified.

I can’t say which group is bigger, but my gut feeling is that Group Two is much bigger than Group One. I might be wrong.

January 5, 2020 Posted by | Deception, War Crimes | , , , | 7 Comments

Iraqi parliament passes resolution asking government to cancel request for assistance from US-led coalition

RT | January 5, 2020

Iraqi parliament has voted to have foreign troops removed from the country, heeding a call from its caretaker prime minister. The move comes after US assassination of a top Iranian general and a commander of Iraqi militia.

The resolution, which was passed anonymously, instructs the government to cancel a request for military assistance to the US-led coalition, which was issued in response to the rise of Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS). With IS supposedly defeated, Iraq will not need foreign troops to fight the jihadists and can close its airspace to coalition aircraft.

“The Iraqi government must work to end the presence of any foreign troops on Iraqi soil and prohibit them from using its land, airspace or water for any reason.”

According to Press TV, some Western military presence may remain for training purposes. The resolution says Iraqi military leadership has to report the number of foreign instructors that are necessary for Iraqi national security.

At the same time, the Iraqi Foreign Ministry said that Baghdad had turned to the UN Security Council with complaints about US violations of its sovereignty.

Speaking at an emergency parliament session on Sunday, Iraq’s caretaker PM said the American side notified the Iraqi military about the planned airstrike minutes before it was carried out. He stressed that his government denied Washington permission to continue with the operation.

“Despite the internal and external difficulties that we might face, it remains best for Iraq on principle and practically.”

Qassem Soleimani, the commander of Iran’s Quds Force, and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the deputy commander of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Force, were killed by a drone strike as their convoy was leaving Baghdad International Airport on Friday morning.

The interim prime minister said after the incident that it was clear it was in the interest of both the US and Iraq to end the presence of foreign forces on Iraqi soil.

Mahdi said Soleimani was on his way to meet him when the US airstrike killed the Iranian general.

Influential Iraqi cleric Muqtada al-Sadr stated in a letter that Iraq should go further and shut down the US embassy.

Washington claims the assassination of Soleimani was an act of self-defense justified by his planning of attacks on American citizens. Tehran called it international terrorism and vowed to avenge the popular military officer.

In the wake of the attack the US advised all American civilians to leave Iraq. The US-led coalition troops in Iraq have also suspended all training operations and hunkered down at fortified bases, bracing for retaliatory strikes.

January 5, 2020 Posted by | Illegal Occupation | , | Leave a comment

170 Iraqi lawmakers sign draft bill to expel US military forces from country

Press TV – January 5, 2020

A total of 170 Iraqi lawmakers have signed a draft bill, demanding the withdrawal of US military forces from the country following the assassination of Iran’s top military commander, Lt. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, and the second-in-command of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Units (PMU), Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis.

On Sunday, the legislators used an extraordinary parliamentary session to push for a vote on a resolution requiring the government to press Washington to withdraw US troops from Iraq.

The lawmakers, citing Articles 59 and 109 of the Constitution and in line with their national and regulatory responsibilities as representatives to safeguard the security and sovereignty of Iraq, singed a four-point draft bill as follows:

Firstly, the central government in Baghdad is obliged to cancel its request to the US-led military coalition, which was purportedly fighting the Daesh Takfiri terrorist on the grounds, now that military operations have ended in the country, and victory over Daesh has been achieved. The Iraqi government should therefore put an end to the presence of any foreign troops and prevent the use of the Iraqi airspace.

Secondly, the government and the commander-in-chief of the armed forces must announce the number of foreign trainers they need, along with their locations, responsibilities, and duration of their contracts.

Thirdly, the Iraqi foreign minister, on behalf of the government, must turn to the United Nations and the Security Council to file a complaint against the United States for violations of the Iraqi sovereignty and security.

Finally, the plan comes into force once it obtains the parliamentary approval.

On Saturday, the leader of a powerful political coalition in Iraq’s parliament said US forces will be driven out of the Iraqi territory following the vicious, cowardly US operation.

“We offer our condolences to the adherents of Hashd al-Sha’abi and all Iraqis over the martyrdom of Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, General Soleimani and a number of young valiant men. This is the path of martyrdom, and we hereby declare that we will continue to tread it. We have no reservations whatsoever in this regard,” Hadi al-Ameri, who is the head of the Fatah (Conquest) Alliance, told reporters as he participated in the funeral ceremony for the fallen heroes in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, on Saturday.

“We will defeat Americans and drive them out, as we did earlier in the face of Daesh. We will expel Americans right before Iraqis’ eyes as they will be frustrated and humiliated.”

“We will press ahead with this struggle. We don’t have any option but to fully restore Iraq’s sovereignty,” added Ameri, who is also the secretary general of the Badr Organization.

Back on August 27 last year, the Fatah Alliance called for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, following a series of airstrikes targeting Hashd al-Sha’abi forces in the country that have been blamed on Israel.

The parliamentary bloc said it held the United States fully responsible for the Israeli act of aggression, “which we consider to be a declaration of war on Iraq and its people.”

The US, backed by the United Kingdom, invaded Iraq in 2003 claiming that the former regime of Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.

No such weapons, however, were ever found.

The invaders withdrew from Iraq, after nearly nine years of a military campaign that cost tens of thousands of Iraqi lives.

Leading a new coalition of its allies, the United States returned to Iraq in 2014, when Daesh unleashed a campaign of destruction in the Arab country. Widespread reports, however, said the Washington-led operations largely spared the terrorists and led, instead, to civilian deaths and inflicted damage on the Iraqi infrastructure.

Iraq’s army troops, backed by volunteer Hashd al-Sha’abi forces, managed to liberate all Daesh-held areas thanks to military advisory assistance from neighboring Iran.

Baghdad declared the end of the anti-Daesh campaign in late 2017.

January 5, 2020 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , | 13 Comments

US assassination of Soleimani will lead to expulsion of US troops from Iraq: Experts

Press TV – January 4, 2020

The assassination of Iranian Lieutenant General Qassem Soleiman in Iraq by US forces will likely lead to the expulsion of American troops on Iraqi soil and strengthen Iran’s allies in the country, according to Western analysts.

The assassination of Iranian Lieutenant General Qassem Soleiman in Iraq by US forces will likely lead to the expulsion of American troops on Iraqi soil and strengthen Iran’s allies in the country, according to Western analysts.

Soleimani, the commander of the Quds Force of Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC), and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the second-in-command of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Units (PMU), were killed in US airstrikes in the Iraqi capital Baghdad early on Friday.

The Pentagon confirmed the strike, saying it came “at the direction” of President Donald Trump.

Iraq’s Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi condemned the US assassination, calling it an attack on his nation’s sovereignty.

Iraq’s government will come under mounting pressure to expel the 5,200 American troops stationed in the country following the attack, The Associated Press said in a report, citing international experts.

That would push Iraq closer to Iran, alongside Syria and Lebanon, the AP said in its analysis.

Restricting or expelling US troops from Iraq is a likely immediate impact option, said Renad Mansour, a research fellow at the London-based international affairs think tank Chatham House.

“I think it would be hard for any Iraqi government official making a claim to keep American troops after this,” Mansour told the AP.

The US has ordered all citizens to leave Iraq and closed its embassy in Baghdad following the strike.

“There will be for sure a reaction from Iran’s side and the axis of resistance, but the question is where, when and how,” said Ibrahim Bayram, an analyst with Lebanon’s daily An-Nahar. “I think the Iranians are precise and know how to direct the hit.”

US legal experts say Soleimani assassination violated international law

The assassination of Soleimani in Iraq violated American and international laws, according to US legal experts and a senior UN rights investigator.

The Trump administration on Friday sought to justify its killing as an act of self-defense, using baseless claims to deflect accusations that it violated international law.

But some US legal experts argued Trump lacked the legal authority to kill Soleimani on Iraqi soil without the permission of Iraq’s government, and said the attack was unlawful under international and US law.

Oona Hathaway, an international law expert and law professor at Yale University, said 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 UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, Agnes Callamard, said the US assassination was outside the context of active hostilities.

“The targeted killings of Qassem Soleiman and Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis are most likely unlawful and violate international human rights law: Outside the context of active hostilities, the use of drones or other means for targeted killing is almost never likely to be legal,” she wrote on Twitter.

US Democratic lawmakers and presidential candidates on Friday condemned Trump for ordering the air strike, saying the president’s decision was reckless and could lead the US to another war in the Middle East.

Soleimani had survived several assassination attempts against him by Western, Israeli and Arab agencies over the past years. In November 2018, The New York Times revealed a March 2017 meeting in the Saudi capital of Riyadh regarding assassination of Iranian officials, namely Soleimani.

January 4, 2020 Posted by | War Crimes | , , | 3 Comments

US Long-Planned Assassination of Soleimani Lacks Legal, Strategic Justification – Ex-Envoy

Sputnik – 04.01.2020

WASHINGTON – The Trump administration’s unlawful execution of Iranian Quds Force Commander Qasem Soleimani is a strategic blunder of mammoth proportions that has now turned every American military official into a target, former US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia Chas Freeman told Sputnik.

Soleimani, considered the second most powerful person in Iran’s leadership structure, was killed in a US drone strike in Baghdad on Thursday in the wake of attacks on the American embassy in Iraq. Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the deputy head of the Iran-backed Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), was also killed in the strike.

“This was not retaliation as claimed, but the pre-planned exploitation of a pretext to assassinate a foreign official designated as an enemy,” Freeman said on Friday. “It was an act of war that will inevitably evoke reprisal.”

President Donald Trump claims he ordered the strike because Soleimani and the militia chief had allegedly been plotting “imminent” attacks against US interests.

Freeman, who also served as US Assistant Secretary of Defence for International Security Affairs, said there is no concrete evidence to corroborate Trump’s claims or justify preemptive action.

“The charge that these two were planning attacks on American soldiers and officials could equally well be leveled at US Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, White House officials, and US military commanders at all echelons,” he said.

Freeman called the attack an “extrajudicial execution” and further departure from the rule of law in the United States.

The former diplomat observed how the escalation began Sunday with suspicious US strikes against Iranian-backed militia groups in Iraq, which sparked the attacks against the embassy in Baghdad.

“[Soleimani’s death] was preceded by three airstrikes on elements of Kataeb Hezbollah for the death of a civilian contractor in Kirkuk. None of these [US] airstrikes was anywhere near Kirkuk,” Freeman said. “They bore the marks of a pre-planned operation looking for a pretext to launch.

“Meanwhile, Iran has already promised to exact “savage” retribution, he noted.

“Soleimani was the equivalent of the US national security adviser or the commanders of CENTCOM, SOCOM, and SOCCENT. All are now potential Iranian targets,” Freeman warned.

Meanwhile, Kataeb Hezbollah is likely to be joined in its campaign against US forces and officials in Iraq by other patriotic militias including some historically hostile to Iran, the former envoy added.

Although likely a welcome distraction to the impeachment proceedings, in foreign policy terms Trump’s decision “makes no sense at all,” he said.

“It is not a deterrent to Iran so much as a provocation. It pushes Iraq further into the arms of Iran and invites the humiliating expulsion of US forces from Iraq. It makes every American in Iraq a target for murder or hostage taking,” Freeman said.

Trump’s “strategy-free” decision is tantamount to beginning a game of chess with only an opening move in mind, he said.

“It is thus a reminder to the word of the witless hubris and violence with which the United States now conducts its international relations,” Freeman concluded.

January 4, 2020 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes | , , | 1 Comment

US Military ‘Despised Across the Region’ as Iran, Iraq View Strikes as Acts of War

Sputnik – 04.01.2020

US President Donald Trump argued Friday that the killing of Qasem Soleimani, head of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Quds Force, was to “stop a war” from breaking out. However, the governments of both Iraq and Iran regard the act as the opposite, and one analyst tells Sputnik that the US has actually united the Middle Eastern countries.

Mohammad Marandi, an expert on American studies and postcolonial literature who teaches at the University of Tehran, joined Radio Sputnik’s Loud and Clear on Friday to discuss the motivation behind the US’ attacks in the Middle East and express his thoughts on what’s to come.

Marandi explained to hosts Brian Becker and John Kiriakou that it’s not only the Iranian government who considers the killing of Soleimani to be an act of war, but Baghdad as well.

“The Iraqis consider this to be an act of war because the United States also murdered Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the deputy head of the … Popular Mobilization Forces that spearheaded the fight against [Daesh] in Iraq,” he said, adding that al-Muhandis and Soleimani “were the ones who saved Iraq from [Daesh].”

“The United States has been acting with impunity in Iraq from day one of occupation,” Marandi asserted.

However, the US’ recent strikes against Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces that resulted in the deaths of at least 25 fighters and injured dozens, were particularly sinister, the academic noted.

He highlighted that not only did the strikes take place on the frontlines of the battle against the Daesh on the Iraqi-Syrian border, but the area targeted was hundreds of kilometers away from the nearest US base in the region.

“They did that … to weaken the fight against [Daesh] because the Americans would like to see [Daesh] regain the border between Iraq and Syria, so that Syria would not be able to trade with Iraq,” Marandi argued.

“The Americans ignore the sovereignty of Iraq; they ignore [Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi]; they ignore the will of the Iraqi people; they murder the heroes of the war against [Daesh]; and they wonder why they are so widely despised across the region.”

He went on to say that Washington has gotten to a point where they believe their own propaganda and continue to perpetuate the idea that there is nothing but hatred between Iranians and Iraqis.

“The Western media does not show the huge crowds in Iraqi cities that are protesting against this US act of aggression,” Marandi said, speaking of the strike which killed Soleimani and al-Muhandis.

“The Western media propagates a narrative, then they believe their own narrative, and then they make calculations based on that false narrative,” Marandi noted, saying the US is confronted with repeated setbacks “because their calculations are based on illusions.”

In keeping with this trend of Washington damaging its own goals, “the murder of General Soleimani … served to unite the Iranian population against the United States,” according to Marandi. “And the murder of [Soleimani and al-Muhandis] served to turn the bulk of the Iraqi population against the United States, and it outraged those 400,000 armed forces that led the fight against [Daesh] in Iraq.”

January 4, 2020 Posted by | War Crimes | , , , | 1 Comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »