The US administration, considers the appointment of Iraqi National Intelligence Service head Mustafa al-Kadhimi as Prime Minister of Iraq as an opportunity to reinforce the US hold in Iraq and counter Iran's efforts to consolidate its influence there. The strategic dialogue expected to take place soon between the United States and Iraq is a critical juncture in their relations, in part because the outcome is likely to affect the future of the American military presence in Iraq. Israel has a clear interest in the success of this dialogue, because an American withdrawal from Iraq will likely leave Iran with no significant rival as the dominant player in this theater. Beyond the need for a dialogue with the United States on the subject, Israel should exercise caution, and take into account the possibility that military operations in Iraq are liable to damage American interests and affect the results of the US-Iraq strategic dialogue.
Iraqi National Intelligence Service director Mustafa al-Kadhimi was officially appointed Prime Minister of Iraq in May 2020, after former Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi served as acting Prime Minister in the preceding months. His appointment was welcomed by the United States, despite support for him by Iran, which managed to thwart the appointment of another candidate regarded as having close ties with the United States. The US administration is in close contact with al-Kadhimi, evidenced by the telephone calls from President Donald Trump and twice from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Immediately following al-Kadhimi's appointment, the administration extended Iraq's exemption from the American sanctions against Iran for an additional two months, so that Iraq could continue buying natural gas from Iran. In April 2020, before al-Kadhimi was appointed, Pompeo declared that the United States and Iraq were planning to conduct a "strategic dialogue" (slated to begin in June 2020) about the future of the bilateral relations.
Prime Minister of Iraq, Mustafa al-Kadhimi. photo: Iraqi PM Office
These events were preceded by a number of developments this year that affect American decisions and policy in the Iraqi theater:
The US-Iranian conflict: Even after the killing of al-Quds force commander Qasem Soleimani in early January, Iraq continued to be a major conflict arena between the United States and Iran. Shiite militias affiliated with Iran continued their attacks against American targets in Iraq as part of their pledge to promote the removal of American forces from Iraq: this is a primary strategic goal for Iran, insofar as an American withdrawal is a key means for Tehran to preserve and strengthen its influence in Iraq. At the same time, the administration has refrained in recent months from measures liable to cause escalation. Despite its warnings, it has responded to the militias' attacks with moderation, even those that involved American fatalities.
Instability in Iraq: Recent months have seen growing unrest in Iraq, following large scale violent protests throughout the country against government corruption – protests that culminated in Prime Minister Mahdi's resignation. The outbreak of the coronavirus reduced the scope of the demonstrations, but at the same time highlighted the deep economic and social problems afflicting Iraq. In response to the attacks by the Shiite militias and due to the coronavirus epidemic, the United States regrouped its forces in Iraq, vacating small bases and concentrating its forces in large bases. Two Patriot missile batteries were deployed in major American bases – al-Asad and Irbil, the first US deployment of such missiles in Iraq. At the same time, the US administration also demanded that the Iraqi government institute comprehensive government reforms, even as the government is working with the international community to arrange financial assistance for Iraq. The United States allocated approximately $500 million in foreign aid to Iraq in 2020, on top of its humanitarian aid to the country, which has totaled over $2.5 billion since 2014.
ISIS activity: Although the Islamic State no longer holds territory in Iraq, the threat of terrorism has not been eliminated. The organization appears to have stepped up its operations recently through the use of hit and run tactics, taking advantage of the internal instability, the redeployment of security forces in Iraq, and the focus on enforcing lockdowns following the spread of the coronavirus. The US forces in Iraq are concentrating mainly on helping Iraqi army and police forces in training and technology, and are not involved in military activity against terrorist groups. The administration has demanded, so far without success, that the Iraqi government take determined action to integrate the Shiite militias in its security forces in order to increase government control over militia actions. It was the Shiite militias that recently took preventive action against ISIS targets.
The strategic dialogue between the United States and Iraq scheduled to take place soon is a critical juncture in the future of relations between the two countries. Until now, relations were based on agreements signed in the previous dialogue of November 2008, which defined the outline for strategic relations in the security, economic, and cultural spheres. This agreement provided that American forces in Iraq would be withdrawn gradually, up to the end of 2011. After the United States withdrew most of its forces from Iraq in 2011, however, it failed to reach agreement with the Iraqi government in 2014 on the renewal of the US military presence following the increase in activity by ISIS. Today, the 5,000 American troops in Iraq are there at the request of the Iraqi government. In recent months, especially following the killing of Soleimani in Iraqi territory, the internal discourse in Iraq on the future of the American forces in the country has increased, and many political groups are demanding that US forces leave Iraq. The Baghdad parliament passed a non-binding resolution calling on the government to demand the withdrawal of American forces.
Overall, the US administration attributes great importance to its relations with Baghdad, and regards Iraq as a key element in its ability to realize its objectives in the Middle East. This applies to the conflict with Iran, stability in the Gulf, and reduction of the risk of a reemergence of the Islamic State. Furthermore, it appears that some political elements in Washington, headed by Secretary of State Pompeo and the team responsible for Iraq, especially the new US ambassador in Baghdad, believe that the appointment of al-Kadhimi constitutes a genuine opportunity to reinforce the American presence in the country in order to influence developments there. At the same time, it is clear that at issue is a limited period only, because elections for the Iraqi parliament are scheduled for a year from now. Washington therefore attributes great importance to the strategic dialogue. Despite its wish to avoid being dragged into a military conflict in Iraq, it appears that the defense establishment in the United States regards a military presence in Iraq as a major component of its ability to safeguard American interests in the Middle East.
President Donald Trump. Photo: Sarah Silbiger/Pool/ABACAPRESS.COM
In contrast, however, is President Trump's desire to reduce the US military presence in the Middle East. It is likely that after the administration completes the agreement on the withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan, it will also take steps to withdraw them from Iraq. Furthermore, according to Iraqi media reports, the US ambassador stated in mid-February 2020 at a meeting with one of the candidates for prime minister of Iraq, that there was pressure in the United States for a withdrawal of its forces, and that the administration planned to complete this withdrawal in the next two years.
At this stage, President Trump is allowing the US military presence in Iraq to continue. He continues to vacillate between a withdrawal of forces and the strategic considerations in favor of maintaining an American military presence in Iraq. Despite the calls for termination of the American presence, the Iraqi leadership also faces a dilemma between the realization that an American presence is important for its ability to cope with terrorist threats, and perhaps also to balance Iran's determination to increase its influence in the country, and national sensitivity, which previously prevented agreements with the United States on this subject.
It appears that the outcome of the strategic dialogue between the United States and Iraq, and perhaps also on the future of the American military presence in the country, will be determined by the two countries' ability to the overcome emotional and practical inhibitions that now divide their interests. At least from a practical standpoint, the crucial points for the United States will likely be Iraq's willingness to take concrete measures that will guarantee US interests in Iraq, with an emphasis on the security of the American forces and Iraq's ability to integrate the Shiite militias into its security forces and control their actions. The measures by Iraq to establish its independence against Iranian efforts to enhance its influence in Iraq and the adoption of political reforms aimed at increasing stability are also of decisive importance.
From Israel's perspective, the decisions by the United States about the future of its ties with Iraq, especially the US military presence there, will impact directly on Israel's interests. In particular, an American withdrawal from Iraq, which is a strategic goal for Iran, will leave Iran the dominant player with uncontested military (through the militias), political, and economic influence in Iraq. Israel therefore has a clear interest in the success of the dialogue. Even if it emerges that US forces will be withdrawn in the future, it is important to take steps to promote economic investments in Iraq by the Gulf states, headed by Saudi Arabia, in order to offset the Iranian presence. In any case, beyond the need to progress in a dialogue with the United States on this issue, Israel should act cautiously, and recognize that military operations in Iraq are liable to damage American interests and affect the results of the US-Iraq strategic dialogue.
No comments:
Post a Comment