GERMANY EXTENDS MILITARY MANDATE IN IRAQ BY 15 MONTHS
Germany’s armed forces will continue their deployment in Iraq for an additional 15 months to help stabilize the country and prevent the resurgence of the Islamic State (ISIS), the German Defense Ministry announced Wednesday.
“The Federal Government has decided to continue the deployment of the Federal Armed Forces in Iraq for a further 15 months,” the ministry said in a statement, noting that the mission “is intended to permanently enable the regular Iraqi armed and security forces to ensure security and stability in Iraq and prevent a resurgence of ISIS.”
The statement added, “The Federal Armed Forces will train and advise the Iraqi armed and security forces to this end.”
The ministry said the extension of the mandate came at the request of the Iraqi government. “The Iraqi government requested the continuation of support from Germany, as the threat of ISIS remains,” it said, adding that German troops in Iraq are “supporting the NATO Mission Iraq (NMI).”
Germany’s military involvement in Iraq began in August 2014, initially providing military equipment – including anti-tank missiles and assault rifles – to Kurdish Peshmerga forces. In October 2014, German troops were deployed to Erbil to train Peshmerga fighters, marking Berlin’s first operational presence in the region.
Germany is also a major contributor to the NATO Mission Iraq (NMI), launched in 2018 at the request of Baghdad. The mission is non-combat and focuses on advising and building the capacity of Iraqi security institutions, enabling them to independently counter terrorism and prevent any resurgence of ISIS.
“The essential content of the mandate remains unchanged, allowing for up to 500 German soldiers to be deployed in Iraq,” the ministry said, noting that the Bundestag still needs to approve the extension.
In addition to military support, Germany has provided substantial civilian aid. The German Foreign Ministry told Rudaw in mid-August that Berlin has delivered over €3 billion in humanitarian, development, and stabilization assistance to Iraq.
This includes €800 million ($933 million) in humanitarian aid and €2.6 billion ($3 billion) for stabilization programs between 2014 and 2022, supporting initiatives such as psychosocial services and rehabilitation programs for survivors of ISIS atrocities.
Most of Germany’s soldiers are stationed in the Kurdistan Region.
Iraq is not in a financial economic position to revalue at this time. There's too many loose ends on the table. One of the loose problems is us. There are millions of dinars outside the country. One of the other major problems is the Iraqi people will not place their IQD into the Iraqi banks.How is a country going to revalue or do almost anything if the population will not put their money into the bank?
They've been talking about deleting the zeros for almost 20 years and it has never happened. They still have not created a new denominational bill. There's been no talk and no budget for recreating currency and you know...I would tell you if that ever happened... There is a misconception going around...about removing zeros from the
currency...They're saying this is evidence of impending revaluation. That is not true. Removing zeros, redenomination, is an administrative process that changes the face value of the currency without changing its actual value. If Iraq removed zeros, 1,000 old dinars would become 1 new dinar. But the purchasing power remains identical.
The value of the currency remains identical.That's why [we] have never taken the removing the zeros as a significant news story to be pounded on as a revaluation. Because it's not.
A SENIOR US EMBASSY OFFICIAL: FORMING THE NEW GOVERNMENT IS AN IRAQI DECISION
The chargé d’affaires confirmed in US Embassy I have Baghdad, Joshua Harris on Thursday, that America remains concerned about irregular financial transactions. Legitimacy inside Iraq, there are no new decisions regarding this matter.
The chargé d’affaires told Alsumaria News in an exclusive statement that Iraqi partners affirm their non-interference and their commitment to not dragging the country into the ongoing conflict in the region, and to maintaining security within its borders, noting that America it works to
increase the activity of American companies within Iraq according to the principle of mutual exchange with Baghdad.
He continued, stating that leading American companies are actively working with Iraqi partners, which will lead to mutually beneficial partnerships. He emphasized that America is not seeking a new conflict, and its vision for the future is peace in Iraq and throughout the world.
He added that Iraqi leaders understand that including factions in the new government is incompatible with the partnership between Baghdad and Washington.
Regarding the possibility of taking escalatory measures against the factions, the Chargé d’Affaires stressed, “We encourage Iraqi state regarding the dismantling of factions, he stated that America will defend itself and its interests in Iraq,” indicating that the decision regarding the form of the new government is purely American.
Concerning the lifting of US sanctions on Iraqi banks, he explained that America remains concerned about illicit financial transactions. Legitimacy within Iraq, there are no new decisions regarding this matter.
Regarding the issue of arming and equipping air defense systems…Kurdistan Region. He stated that America is deeply committed to Iraqi sovereignty and to condemning all threats to the country’s security. He added that they are working with their partners in Baghdad and Kurdistan to find ways to protect infrastructure, but he would not go into military details at this time. He further stated that they are demanding that the governments of Baghdad and the Kurdistan Region quickly hold those responsible for the attack on the Kor Mor gas field accountable.
🏦 Lower Denominations & Exchange Rate — Which Comes First?
Frank26 shared his opinion on how the RV rollout should happen:
🗣️ “There should be a showing of the samples and specimens of the lower notes in the banks, quickly followed — within 24 hours — by the introduction of the new exchange rate by lifting the three zeros.”
📌 Key takeaway: Whether lower notes appear first or the rate adjusts first, one automatically triggers the other.
👉 In Frank’s view, the sequencing is less important than the near-simultaneous execution.
🎯 January 1, 2026 — A Target, Not a Promise
Frank also addressed the increasingly mentioned date:
🗓️ January 1, 2026
✔ He is not declaring it an RV date ✔ He believes Iraq is intentionally signaling it ✔ Ignoring the signal would be unrealistic
📌 Interpretation: A target date allows markets, banks, and citizens to mentally and operationally prepare — without a formal announcement.
💎 Asset-Backed Value: Why This Time Is Different
Militia Man highlighted a crucial difference between
💰 During Iraq’s previous higher-rate era ($3.22 / $2.80):
❌ No accounting for massive untapped assets
💎 Today: ✔ ~$16 trillion in natural resources ✔ ~350 billion pounds of silica ✔ Multiple new non-oil revenue streams
📌 Why it matters: These assets directly support a Real Effective Exchange Rate (REER) — something Iraq did not have before.
👉 Strong assets = stronger currency fundamentals.
🔄 Platform Shutdown — A Controlled Test?
Clare shared insight from Iraqi economists regarding the dollar platform:
📰 “A sudden shutdown without official announcement may have been a trial measure to test the market’s ability to adapt.”
📌 Implication:
Demand behavior is being observed
Market resilience is being tested
The CBI is simulating post-platform conditions
This aligns with
pre-adjustment stress testing, not chaos.
🌍 IQD Going International?
Walkingstick added a bold but consistent observation:
🗣️ “The IQD is going international due to no restrictions on their currency.”
📌 Meaning: Currencies cannot internationalize while restricted or artificially suppressed.
👉 Lifting restrictions is often a prerequisite to normalization and valuation changes.
🧠 RV Watcher Summary
All voices align on core signals: ✔ Lower notes discussion is active ✔ Asset-backed valuation is stronger than ever ✔ Market testing is underway ✔ January 1, 2026 is repeatedly referenced ✔ Currency restrictions are easing
❌ No official RV announcement ❌ No confirmed rate
But: 📈 The structural narrative is accelerating
⭐ Featured Snippet
Frank26 and Militia Man say Iraq’s massive assets, lower notes, and January 1, 2026 signaling point to growing readiness for a dinar exchange rate change.
🔮 Final Thought
The RV will not arrive with fireworks. It arrives when structure, assets, and confidence converge.
And right now… 👉 The signals are no longer subtle.
IMO I think there should be a showing of the samples and the specimens of the lower notes in the banks quickly followed, within 24 hours by the introduction of your new exchange rate by lifting the three zeros. That's what I believe should happen. Let's see what happens....Whether it be the rate first or the lower notes first, it doesn't matter because one introduces the other...
They are giving you a target date [January 1, 2026]. It's that obvious IMO. Now I'm not saying that's the date for the new exchange rate, they're suggesting it. It would be unfair to me if I didn't consider it.
Militia Man
When Iraq was back in that 'previous era', let's call it $3.22/$$2.80, they didn't include all these [New revenue streams] that we're talking about.
Didn't include $16 trillion worth of assets, natural resources that they have. They didn't include the 350 billion pounds of silica... That's powerful because that's income that goes to support the value of the real effective exchange rate. Keep that in mind and you can see how this is playing out...
Clare Article: "Economists: A sharp rise in the dollar exchange rate will put the Central Bank and the Iraqi economy in a very difficult situation"
Quote: "...It is also possible that the platform's shutdown without an official announcement was a trial measure to test the market'sability to adapt to the new situation without a platform, and how the demand for the dollar and its exchange rates might be after this sudden platform shutdown."
Walkingstick
The IQD is going international due to no restrictions on their currency.
THE AMBIGUITY IS OVER… JOE WILSON SHOCKS BAGHDAD: LIBERATE IRAQ OR SAY GOODBYE TO AID AND DOLLARS.
American pressure on Iraq is escalating daily, shifting from veiled political messages to direct and explicit rhetoric linking continued support to the form of government in Baghdad and the limits of influence wielded by Iranian-backed armed factions.
The latest indication of this shift came in a tweet by Republican Congressman Joe Wilson , who spoke publicly about the need to “liberate Iraq from Iran’s grip” and tied future US military aid to a set of conditions that touch upon the very core of the relationship between the Iraqi state and these factions.
In parallel, US President Donald Trump’s special envoy to Iraq, Mark Savaya, is acting as the executive face of this vision, amidst a clear discourse based on the principle: no weapons outside the state, no public funds being funneled to factions, and no open checks without political and security conditions.
These developments come at a sensitive moment for Iraq; intensive negotiations to form a new government, widespread controversy over the future of the Popular Mobilization Forces and factions, and economic and financial pressures that make any crisis with Washington more costly than ever.
From Wilson’s tweet to the attempt to restrict aid via the Defense Act
In his latest tweet, Joe Wilson not only expressed concern about Iranian influence in Iraq, but also presented what resembled a political and security “statement of conditions.” He praised President Trump’s leadership and envoy Mark Savaya, noting that Congress was prepared to support the president with new provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act that would – for the first time – link assistance to Iraqi security forces to Baghdad taking “real” steps to stop supporting Iranian-backed factions.
The lines of this route indicate:
– Restricting some security and military aid to Iraq to the government’s conduct toward the factions. – Making the factions a direct target of US legislation, through additional sanctions packages or designations. – Incorporating the oil and financial sectors into the conditions, by calling for international audits of oil revenues and transfers, and ensuring that institutions such as the Central Bank and the Ministries of Oil, Transportation, and Industry are not used as indirect funding channels.
In this way, the issue is no longer just a passing political speech, but a legislative approach that seeks to make pressure on the factions a structural part of the Baghdad-Washington relationship.
Complex pressure tactics, not a new “invasion plan”
Inside, these signals are interpreted differently. Political and strategic affairs expert Jassim al-Gharabi told Baghdad Today that American statements like “liberating Iraq from Iran’s grip” are essentially pressure tactics rather than concrete plans ready for implementation.
Al-Gharabi explains that the repetition of this discourse at close intervals carries several dimensions, including:
– Emphasizing that the Iraqi file remains a prominent feature of the US strategy in the Middle East, especially given the interconnectedness of energy, security, and factional issues. – Attempting to reset the rules of political engagement with Iran through Baghdad; the threat of linking aid and financial support to the role played by factions represents a bargaining chip in any broader settlement with Tehran. – Testing the internal Iraqi mood; Washington is monitoring the reactions of political forces, the public, and elites to any external discourse that speaks of “changing behavior” or “reform from the outside.”
Al-Gharabi warns that turning these statements into a point of sharp internal polarization could open the door to divisions between those who see American pressure as an opportunity to strengthen the state, and those who see it as a gateway to a new guardianship, stressing that the reasonable equation is for decisions on reform and sovereignty to remain purely Iraqi, not part of a conflict of messages between Washington and Tehran.
The new government is at the heart of the storm.
On a practical level, this language translates directly into the process of forming the new government. The issue is no longer simply about distributing portfolios among the blocs, but also about how influential capitals – foremost among them Washington – interpret the nature of the names that will assume the sovereign, security, and economic ministries.
Strategic affairs expert Hussein Al-Asaad warned in his interview with “Baghdad Today” of the repercussions of assigning official positions to figures linked to armed factions, stressing that “pushing forward names close to the armed wings within the anticipated ministerial formation will directly affect the stability of the internal situation, and will also weaken Iraq’s position in its relations with the international community, especially the United States.”
Al-Asaad points out that the recent American messages are decisive in refusing to grant any official cover to the factions within state institutions, and that ignoring this may be understood in Washington as a direct challenge, and opens the door to economic, financial and security reactions that the Iraqi economy cannot easily bear, given the sensitivity of the dollar files, oil contracts, and security and intelligence cooperation.
He reminds us that the world is watching the symbolism of appointments; a minister with a background close to an armed faction is not only interpreted locally, but is also recorded externally as a consecration of the influence of weapons in the joints of the state, which is reflected in risk classifications, investment flows, and patterns of international cooperation with Baghdad.
Pressure tactics and limits of Iraqi response
What gives these statements added weight is that they do not come in a vacuum; in recent years the United States has activated a wide range of pressure tools on both Iraqi and Iranian parties, from individual sanctions to tightening restrictions on the banking system, to introducing political conditions into defense assistance programs.
In contrast, Iraqi government circles assert that the issue of weapons and factions cannot be resolved by an external decision alone, but is linked to the nature of internal balances and the future of the foreign military presence itself, indicating that any approach to disarmament or reorganization requires an internal national dialogue concurrent with any understandings with Washington or others.
Between Washington, Tehran, and the Iraqi street… who will write the final equation?
Between Wilson’s tweet, the pressure from Trump’s envoy Mark Savaya, and the warnings from experts in Baghdad, a political and security minefield is forming for Iraq:
Full acceptance of the American conditions could create internal conflict with the factions and their parliamentary and popular support, opening the door to a new internal confrontation.
Ignoring these conditions could lead to a suffocating tightening of restrictions on dollar transactions, oil contracts, and security cooperation, and perhaps even a wave of sanctions targeting institutions and individuals within the state itself.
Between these two extremes, the realistic equation seems closer to searching for an Iraqi “middle ground”: a state that gradually regains its decision-making power from the grip of uncontrolled weapons, an external relationship that does not allow Iraq to be turned into an arena for settling scores between Washington and Tehran, and a political system that tries to reform itself from within before reforms are imposed on it from the outside.
What is clear so far is that the phase of ambiguity in American discourse has ended; the language today is more explicit, and closer to a new “conditional contract” with Baghdad: conditional American support, factions under scrutiny, and a future government that will be tested – from its first day – in its ability to manage this delicate balance, without the country slipping again into chaos that no one can afford to pay for.