Will Tehran’s allies push Washington to reconsider its military presence in Iraq?
The Iraqis welcomed the new year with big questions about the fate of their country, which is still witnessing ongoing confusion at the security and political levels, with the return of Tehran’s allies to escalation against the American presence in the country, and the escalation of calls to end the role of the international coalition in Iraq and the complete withdrawal of American forces from the country.
Although the pro-Iranian groups, whether political or armed, have announced their insistence on resolving the issue of removing American forces from the country, this matter faces political, security, and economic obstacles that complicate the possibility of resolving it.
It appears that there are no American signs of withdrawal despite the escalation in the intensity of attacks launched by pro-Iranian militias, especially after the widespread threats made by the administration of US President Joe Biden to the militias.
Kurdistan…a new area of tension
The limits of tension did not stop at the area where the American presence in the country was targeted, as tension once again came to loom over the relationship between the Kurdistan region and Baghdad, following the targeting of headquarters of the Kurdish “Peshmerga” forces with drones. Kurdistan Regional Government spokesman, Peshwa Hormani, said in a statement, “The federal government (in Baghdad) bears responsibility for these attacks, because these outlaw groups are funded by the federal government, move with their knowledge, transport weapons, missiles, and drones, and carry out terrorist attacks on institutions.” Official and military.
These statements prompted the Iraqi government spokesman, Basem Al-Awadi, to respond in a statement in which he described these accusations as “unrealistic,” considering that they are “lies and contribute to the complexity of the political and governmental scene.”
In the same context, the head of the “Iraqi-Australian” center, Ahmed Al-Yasiri, saw that the recent bombing that targeted Erbil Governorate represents a “dangerous development,” indicating that it “breaks the state of balance between the Iraqi components.” He added, “If the state of balance is not controlled, this may mean that Washington will intervene directly, especially since controlling the balance with the Kurdish and Sunni forces in Iraq, the signs of which do not appear to be achieved, guarantees that the situation will not collapse and ISIS activity may return.” He pointed out that “the continuation of the armed factions loyal to Iran to threaten the balance will push Washington to take firm political measures against the Sudanese government of (Mohamed Shia).”
The “coordination framework” is escalating
The “Al-Fatah” coalition, the parliamentary bloc forming the government, which includes blocs of armed factions loyal to Iran, has always demanded the withdrawal of American forces from the country, as a number of the bloc’s leaders supported military operations targeting the American presence in the country.
The head of the “Nabni” coalition, Hadi Al-Amiri, demanded more than once that a timetable be set for the exit of American forces from the country, pointing out that the presence of those forces “constitutes a factor of destruction to our country and the killing of our children.”
The leader of the same coalition, Ali Hussein, said earlier that “diplomatic methods to remove American forces from Iraqi territory are useless steps,” indicating that “the best way to remove those forces is through continued strikes and targeting of their bases that are located in Iraq illegally.” “.
On the other hand, a representative in the Iraqi parliament for the “coordination framework” indicated that targeting American forces “will not end until they leave Iraq.” Representative Waad Al-Qaddo pointed out in a press statement that “the escalation has entered a new phase, and this is explained by the increase in the number of attacks in the last week, by 60 percent more than the previous period.”
An extension of the Iranian project
Perhaps what reinforces the hypothesis that the attacks by Iran’s allies were unable to force Washington to withdraw is the change in the US rules of engagement, which went through several stages, the first stage of which was responding to those militias in Syria, and then responding to the perpetrators of the attacks directly, until it reached the borders. Targeting the headquarters and strategic centers of these groups, as happened during the past weeks when the headquarters of the “Hezbollah Brigades” militia were targeted.
The head of the “Iraqi-Australian” Center believes that what is happening in Iraq represents “an extension of Tehran’s old project to remove the American presence from the country,” noting that “many political and security obstacles have postponed the possibility of its implementation in the past.”
Although Tehran’s allies have shown great enthusiasm in the recent period to remove American forces from the country, this matter may witness “broad political opposition,” as Al-Yasiri states that several political blocs “fear that Tehran will completely tighten its control over the country in the event of the withdrawal of American forces.”
He pointed out that what drives the pro-Iranian movements to try to remove American forces at this time is due to their feeling of “achieving a historic gain in the recent local elections that will enable them to monopolize power and remove the last obstacles to absolute Iranian hegemony.”
“Despite the awareness of the loyalist movements of the danger of removing American forces through hostile action, and that it may raise widespread economic and political problems for Iraq,” Al-Yasiri expressed his belief that this matter “will not stop their attempts in this context, especially since these movements believe that it is possible to implement an American withdrawal, as happened.” In 2011.”
In contrast to the attempts of Tehran’s allies to push American forces outside the Iraqi geography, Washington seems determined to strengthen its presence in the region, as Al-Yasiri pointed out that “what refutes the possibilities of American withdrawal is the establishment of a new military alliance against the Houthi group in Yemen.” He concluded that “any withdrawal of American forces from their areas of presence in the Middle East will reflect negatively on Washington’s influence in the region,” adding that what is happening now “goes beyond the boundaries of the American-Iranian bilateralism in Iraq, and is part of the conflict and conflict between the two parties in the region and the equations of regional balance.”
Although the pro-Iranian groups have recently shown unprecedented enthusiasm in dealing with the issue of removing American forces from the country, Prime Minister Muhammad Shiaa Al-Sudani still condemns any armed activity outside the military establishment, despite not taking any measures against the pro-Iranian militias, the government’s largest supporter. current. In addition, observers believe that the fears of decision-makers in Baghdad that the American withdrawal from the country could lead to economic collapse makes the government reluctant to push in this direction.
In this context, academic researcher Hamid Habib believes that “the presence of American forces in Iraq represents a strategic issue for Washington,” indicating that this matter “categorically obstructs the possibility of ending this military presence.”
He added, “The statements issued regarding the American forces in the country are nothing more than propaganda attempts by pro-Iranian groups,” pointing out that “major parties within the government and parliament strongly oppose the file of removing American forces from Iraq, specifically the Sunni and Kurdish political leaders.”
For the political forces opposed to Iranian influence, the presence of American forces represents “a kind of multidimensional guarantee and protection,” according to Habib, who continued, “These forces do not want to repeat what happened after 2011, as America’s withdrawal at that time enabled Tehran to fill the areas of influence that were “Operated by Washington.”
However, Habib is unlikely that Washington will strengthen its presence in Iraq, especially since any additional forces would represent “a provocation to the parties loyal to Iran, in addition to there being no need to strengthen those forces at the present time.”
He pointed out that what gives the impression of the “lack of seriousness” among Iran’s allies in removing American forces from the country is the fact that “the prominent feature of the operations in Iraq is that they are still within acceptable limits and are not comprehensive by both parties.”
He concluded that a large part of what is happening in Iraq falls within the scope of “political gain and promotion,” as many of the large factions, since the return of the wave of targeting of American forces, have taken a policy of “distancing themselves from the ongoing conflict and are content only with political statements.”
Repeating the Afghan scenario
On the other hand, political science professor Haitham al-Hiti said, “The new scenario adopted by Iran’s allies in Iraq, through the use of the huge stock of medium-range missiles, makes the course of the conflict in Iraq unpredictable, especially if the intensity of the attacks escalates in the coming period.” He added that Washington is now facing a “complex war in Iraq,” especially with “the freedom of movement enjoyed by pro-Iranian militias and the inability of the Iraqi government to intervene.”
He added that the circumstances facing Washington in Iraq may push decision-makers in the White House to “repeat the scenario of withdrawal from Afghanistan,” which is “the main goal of the militias behind the repeated strikes.”
He concluded that any possibility of an American withdrawal from the country would represent “a major blow to Washington’s influence in the region,” pointing out that what is more beneficial for decision-makers in the United States is “to move toward more feasible political options, especially since Washington was a party in enabling Tehran’s allies to gain power.”
rawabetcenter.com
No comments:
Post a Comment