Opinions
The US flag flutters next to the Iraqi flag during a handing over ceremony at Camp Victory in February 2009. Photo: Ahmad Al-Rubaye/AFP
A senior diplomat described the current situation in Iraq as "similar to the Titanic after colliding with the iceberg, and water begins to flow in. We see Iraqi leaders competing to rearrange the chairs, forgetting that the whole ship will sink."
The diplomat does not believe that Iraq's leaders are working seriously to save Iraq from suffocating crises, including unexpected phone call between US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Iraqi President Barham Salih, on 21st September 2020 where Pompeo informed the President that the US administration may close its embassy in Baghdad and withdraw its forces due to the security threats against the embassy and other forces. Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi also spoke with Pompeo yesterday, according to sources within the embassy, delivering the news of the decision to close the embassy and instructing embassy staff to start the closure.
The dramatic change in the position of the American administration raised concern on more than one level, and took observers and researchers of US policy in the region by surprise. The reason for this concern is its unexpected timing, in addition to the fact that it comes a few weeks after the return of Kadhimi’s visit to Washington and the strategic dialogue, described by both sides as successful.
What’s changed?
Baghdad’s Green Zone, which includes the American embassy, was subjected to 19 attacks with Katyusha rockets and mortars in September alone, some of which reached their targets inside the embassy’s vicinity, in addition to 25 IED attacks on convoys serving international coalition forces and an attack on a British diplomatic convoy in Baghdad on 15th of September.
Experts on American politics know that no president can risk killing or wounding any American citizen by hostile fire during the presidential election. Also, the continued exposure of the interests of the US to successive attacks without response annoys many in Washington, considering that it possesses the largest military power in the world.
According to reliable sources, the Americans obtained intelligence information about armed groups that frequently target American interests and now possess advanced weapons with precision targeting. They are expecting an escalation in missile attacks in the coming days and weeks, coinciding with the US elections and thereafter.
The source accuses Iran of being behind the arming of these groups, despite Iran publicly denying any role in this regard, reiterating its absolute support for Kadhimi’s government. Furthermore, they say that Iran will not give the Americans the opportunity to strike Iranian interests under this pretext.
It is not clear whether the intelligence information or repeated attacks are the main motives for changing the American position in this remarkable way, but what is emphasized is that it is a dangerous position and has a negative impact on America and Iraq, as the two sides stand to lose a lot from a potential American withdrawal.
Risks and repercussions for Iraq
We cannot underestimate the risk of the US administration implementing its threats to close the embassy and withdraw forces.
Closing the embassy would mean directly severing the diplomatic relationship, even if unilaterally, which would entail the end of all aspects of political, security, military and economic cooperation with Iraq. The withdrawal of military forces means the withdrawal of all international coalition forces, and the cessation of support, arming, training and advisory programs. The most dangerous of all is stopping the war on the remnants of ISIS. Note that the US budget allocated in the military and security field for fighting ISIS amounts to approximately five billion US dollars.
The withdrawal of charitable organizations linked to America, directly or indirectly, means stopping humanitarian and financial aid related of reconstruction projects, returning IDPs to their homes, and stopping stabilization programs focused on the liberated areas.
Stopping economic cooperation would mean the end of support from the World Bank and the IMF for Iraq, because the US has the upper hand in directing their policies in various countries of the world. The decision would end foreign investment in Iraq , leading to great paralysis in the most vital sectors, especially in energy, as well as stopping the financial support of about five billion dollars by EXIM Bank, the US government’s official export credit agency.
It would also signal the end of Iraq's waiver on importing Iranian gas and electricity, which means placing Iraq under sanctions if it continues to import from Iran. as well as denying Baghdad access to Iraqi funds from oil sales and treasury notes deposited in the account of the US Federal Bank.
Reducing the flow of US dollars to Iraq would further exacerbate the current economic crisis, as it may push the dinar to float and thus lose its purchasing power, mirroring what happened during the years of imposing of the economic blockade in the 1990s.
Regional threats and interventions in Iraq would increase, as it becomes unable to protect its borders and would lack the international cover to ward off such threats, in addition to the decline of UN support in Iraq, specifically programs provided by UNAMI and UNITAD.
The American withdrawal would encourage other diplomatic missions to withdraw for fear of losing the protection and logistical support which is usually provided by the US. Sources estimate as much as 12 diplomatic missions to withdraw from Iraq.
US aid amounting to $5 billion would also be stopped, including military aid and contracts for the supply of weapons and equipment, as well as Iraq losing its air capacity and armored weapons through the end of the F-16 program. NATO would also withdraw, leaving Iraq without its training and technical support programs.
Risks and potential repercussions for the US
If America decides to withdraw from Iraq diplomatically and militarily, as the US Secretary of State threatened, the repercussions of such a decision will not be easy for America in the short and long term.
Exiting Iraq means a direct recognition of US policy failure in Iraq after 17 years, and an increase in the possibility of ISIS returning with force, and the failure of the international war against ISIS.
Iran will fill the security vacuum very quickly and become dominant in all regions of Iraq, and will threaten US interests more strongly than before. America would then lose its reputation as a superpower because it will emerge defeated from Iraq, and Iran will work hard to announce it as a landslide victory. Iraq will no longer feature in US strategic plans in the region.
US forces will be forced to completely withdraw from Syria if they leave Iraq. America will not be able to keep these forces without their presence in the Iraqi base of Ain al-Assad. America must choose between staying in Ain al-Assad after their official withdrawal, which would violate international law, or also withdraw from Syria.
Leaving two vital states such as Iraq and Syria would create a big gap in the US’s geopolitical presence and if they plan to comeback to the region, it will take many years to comeback.
Iraq would have to resort to US competitors such as China and others for economic support, which will weaken the US position in the region. Saudi Arabia and Gulf will be under direct Iranian influence, and America will not be able to stop this unless it is present in the region.
Iraq must do its part
As soon as the president conveyed the Secretary of State’s message to political leaders, statements of denunciations of targeting diplomatic missions poured out from most leaders and were welcomed by the Iraqi government. However, the US officials thinks it is nothing more than mere ink on paper, unless it is followed by actions on the ground that reduce the attacks they face.
Observers believe that dealing with security breaches is not difficult for the government if it is accompanied by political support.
The government of Iraq and the prime minister himself, who is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, must follow a serious and effective policy that includes addressing security, economic and financial problems in an urgent and thoughtful manner.
Iraq must adopt a rapid strategic action plan to remedy dangers, and present the plan to the main political parties representing all components of Iraq, as well as sending a high-level delegation to Iran and informing its leadership of the implications of the US withdrawal. The withdrawal would have negative effects on Iran too, as Iraq is its first trading partner. The Iranians must stop supporting factions and groups that target foreign interests inside Iraqi territories if they wish to continue their trade partnership with a capable Iraq.
Iraq must also instruct PMF factions to support the government's effort to stop the attacks that take place in their name, in addition to revealing the identity of those involved. The PMF needs to be restructured to include all factions within its formations to hold their actions accountable.
The presence of combat forces inside the cities must end, especially in Baghdad, all of them need to be sent to outside and the security of inner cities be handed over to the Ministry of Interior.
The government must also draft a strict law by the Council of Representatives to criminalize and punish all those who attack diplomatic missions in Iraq, harm the reputation of Iraq and endanger the country’s interests.
Activating and updating the protection apparatus for the diplomatic missions, as well as forcing security and intelligence agencies to carry out their duties efficiently, quickly and accurately, and redeploy them inside Baghdad.
Providing adequate protection for diplomatic missions in general is the only guarantee for the survival of Iraq within its international surroundings, and saving it from becoming a rogue state, which could bring with it tough sanctions. The people of Iraq are no longer able to bear them in light of what they are suffering and have suffered in the past.
It is not unreasonable that some governorates may take certain steps to protect themselves if Baghdad is unable to offer them protection. It is not far-fetched to imagine rogue elements starting to disturb peace in the main cities and between governorates. It is not unthinkable that the Sunnis in the west and the Kurds in the north might start to take measures to protect themselves from any chaos that might descend on the rest of Iraq.
Iraqi leaders must not forget that the stifling financial crisis wrapped around the neck of the Iraqi economy, which tightens the stranglehold in the absence of any initiative to reach feasible solutions to the dire crises. In conjunction with the spread of COVID-19, which paralyzed the largest global economies, it portrays a very sad state of affairs and reminds us of the tragic scene from Titanic: wealthy passengers hurrying to find safer seats for themselves without noticing that the entire ship is sinking.
Farhad Alaaldin is the Chairman of the Iraqi Advisory Council. He was the political adviser to former Iraqi President Fuad Masum, the former chief of staff to the KRG prime minister from 2009 to 2011, and former senior adviser to the KRG prime minister from 2011 to 2012.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of Rudaw.
Comments
Rudaw moderates all comments submitted on our website. We welcome comments which are relevant to the article and encourage further discussion about the issues that matter to you. We also welcome constructive criticism about Rudaw.
To be approved for publication, however, your comments must meet our community guidelines.
We will not tolerate the following: profanity, threats, personal attacks, vulgarity, abuse (such as sexism, racism, homophobia or xenophobia), or commercial or personal promotion.
Comments that do not meet our guidelines will be rejected. Comments are not edited – they are either approved or rejected.
Post a comment