Iran threatened with massive retaliatory action in response to the US escalation (after the obligatory three days of mourning), and that thousands of additional US troops will be deployed in the Middle East to deter an Iranian military response. In October last year, Trump ordered the withdrawal of US troops from northern Syria as part of his aim to pull America out of the “” in the region— a decision that was widely criticized and swiftly to retain a military presence to protect Syria’s oilfields. Following recent events, the US decided to bring more troops to the Middle East: 750 soldiers to Baghdad, with another 3,000 on standby.

Will Iran and the US Go to War?

READ MORE

It is worth mentioning that President Trump’s withdrawal from Syria, which was one of his main campaign promises, was perceived as a weak move by Iran. Yet judging from official numbers alone, the US maintains its strong influence in a number of Middle Eastern countries, such as Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Following Soleimani’s assassination, the Iraqi government asked for all the US troops to be removed, but, according to various media sources, there are no plans to or to evacuate the US Embassy in Baghdad. Iraqi officials accused President Trump of violating their country’s sovereignty and of attacking targets inside the country, thus threatening Iraq’s security.

As per , the United States remains largely disliked across the Middle East. There are suggestions that there is little the United States can do in the region, either in terms of diplomacy or by military means. As in Richard Nixon’s nightmare, America is seen by some as a . Yet if you take a look at hard data, such as on military spending, that isn’t true. What is true is that President Trump’s campaign promise of removing all US troops out of the Middle East is a utopia. The decision to send additional troops to Baghdad is just the latest confirmation of just how unrealistic this promise is.

Another aspect worth contemplating is that both America’s allies and foes in the Middle East are confused about the US government’s long-term plan for the region, and current events have left a further sense of a bewildering chaos.

The Middle East is perceived as a litmus test of American military hegemony in the world. Switching geopolitical planes, if the US would fully retreat from the region, such a move would embolden both Russia and China to seize more land and power, like they have in Crimea, Ukraine and the South China Sea.

If sending more American troops to the Middle East has been part of an endless cycle since 9/11, what does the future hold for the US? We will see even more occupation and troops sent to the Middle East in what has been described as Pax Americana. Last year alone, have been sent to the Gulf region. And yes, this translates into never-ending involvement in the Middle East and increased hostility toward America from the people living in the midst of the chaos. This is due to US policies shifting with each administration — and sometimes even with each day — creating instability. Just consider the blowback from the Soleimani assassination. 

General Soleimani and many other Iranian officials have declared in the past that US forces make for a long list of lucrative targets for Iran’s military and militias, and Iraq is clearly the most probable battlefield for a proxy war. There are many anti- and pro-Iranian forces in Iraq, which means that in the face of Iran’s retaliatory strikes, the US is looking at a long, bloody and protracted conflict in the region. However, not just Iraq but the entire Middle East might see an explosion of violence as Iran does not want to appear weak to its enemies. 

Faced with a retaliatory strike from Iran on US forces in Iraq, including a probable closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the US has two options: to strike Iran’s allies or to strike Iran itself. In either case, it is apparent that more US troops will have to be deployed in the region.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔąĎ’s editorial policy.

The post The US Will Never Leave the Middle East appeared first on 51łÔąĎ.

The security forces and the militias backing the government, some linked to Iran, responded with sniper fire, tear gas and firing live ammunition at the protesters. To date, over have been killed and thousands more injured — a sign of the repressive turn the current regime has taken. 

Though the smaller issues at the heart of the protests are local, the presence of the anti-government wave itself is important on the global stage due to Iraq’s regional positioning. Following the US invasion and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003, the government remains largely ineffective and rife with corruption. However, it is still an important strategic point for the US, which has an ongoing military presence in the country, and has become a key part of Iran’s regional aspirations.  

Can Iraq’s New Foreign Policy Approach Succeed?

READ MORE

This divide also highlights the gamut of responses ranging from condemnation to quiet support, but it ignores the fact that while politicizing seems to be par for the course, there is more that should be said. Indeed, the world should turn its eye on Iraq and truly question, a decade and a half after Hussein’s overthrow, if the current political elite is equipped to lead the country back to stability.  

Protecting Government Interests 

The protesters are, first of all, fighting against endless corruption: ranks Iraq 168 out of 180 countries. The people of Iraq are also frustrated with a lack of public services and inability to find jobs. According to the World Bank, the current is 9.9%, while is at 25%. A large portion of the population lives , spending less than $2.2 a day.

To add fuel to the fire, in the country continues to provoke public anger. Iran’s aim is to keep Iraq aligned with Iranian interests and, by essentially having unrestricted access to key state institutions as well as playing a significant role in decision-making, Tehran has been successful so far. However, many believe that Iran’s presence is suffocating Iraq, and protesters are demanding that Iran leave Iraq alone and stop using violence to the demonstrations. 

The government struggled for days to quell the unrest, even going as far as suggesting sweeping changes, such as a of Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi’s cabinet, land distribution and . However, these were shot down by protesters due to the government’s inability to tackle the root cause of the problem — corruption — that distorts the development and economic prosperity of the country. 

Although Abdul Mahdi did not directly order the militias to suppress protests — indeed, the militias are not technically affiliated with the government — they were acting to protect his position and that of the current  in power, which is made up of , Al-Islah, led by Muqtada al-Sadr’s Sairoon, and Binaa, led by Hadi al-Amiri’s Fatah. This coalition is problematic because while Sadr’s bloc is against Iran’s involvement in the country, the Fatah bloc is pro-Iran, making parliamentary decision-making difficult and often leading to deadlocks.

Because the Iraqi government has been heavily influenced by Iran and riddled with corruption for as long as memory can reach, the demands put forward by the protesters are difficult to implement. The ensuing bloodshed was described by Abdul Mahdi as a “bitter medicine” necessary to stop ongoing unrest, although he did not condemn the violence outright.  

The World Reacts 

The protests — and especially the violence that followed — have brought condemnation from some familiar actors. The UN was  of the Iraqi government’s response, with the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq casting serious accusations. The mission claimed that Iraqi authorities committed severe human rights violations in their efforts to quell protests, including mass arrests and multiple reports of the use of excessive force.  followed up with several calls for authorities to stop mass arrests and censorship, which included cutting off the nation’s access to the internet.  

However, as the country’s government slides back into repressive tactics reminiscent of Saddam Hussein’s regime, the governments of the world must be more forceful in their response, albeit careful in their actions. Iraqis have  against what they perceive to be political meddling from Iran.  

The current Shia majority government, which has strong backing from Iran, must not be left blameless for the administration’s unnecessary and lethal reaction. Even  in Iraq have spoken out against the government, with Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani urging authorities to give in to protesters’ demands or face escalating tensions. Shia opposition parties have called for the government to be dissolved and for elections to be called.

So far, the US expressed concern over the situation, urging restraint from the Iraqi government. However, if Washington wants to maintain presence in the region, it is important that it takes appropriate actions to preserve its interests.  

Lack of a broader response from world powers shows an unwillingness to enter the quagmire created by constant interventions by foreign powers in Iraq over the past decade. The European Union released a statement in early October that  while at the same time praising Abdul Mahdi’s actions at that point, which included proclaiming his support for freedom of expression, but remained noncommittal.  

If the US and its allies wish to see Iraq remain a point of strategic relevance, their responses must be more forceful while being respectful of Iraq’s sovereignty. The current regime inherited a complex combination of politics and instability, but has done little to improve it, pushing protesters to call for the formation of a new government. The violent and repressive response hints at the potential future for Iraq should attacks on democracy continue in the face of silence from world leaders. 

The governing coalition has proven that it is either unwilling or unable to fix the situation — either case raises serious questions about the future. By not responding to the brutal quelling of protests, the US and its allies are giving a green light to Iran and silently sealing Iraq’s fate.  

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔąĎ’s editorial policy.

The post As Iraq Burns, World Leaders Stay Silent appeared first on 51łÔąĎ.