Carrello

I don't always agree with Kaperoni, but I will say that he has researched the technical and administrative side of the IQD. I wouldn't call Kap a guru but a researched technician. Again, I don't always agree with Kap (the float) but he does know the technical side and history. Laugh at him all you want, but his knowledge you can't deny.

_________ Productions follows IQD and quite a few of respected dinarians are members there. Thanks for all your input, LB. I am looking forward to the IMF report! Cheers!

A strike on Iran could possibly light the entire Middle East on fire, similiar to Hell. Millions of lives would be affected, not just 150. Retaliation is not always the wise path to take, and I would add further sanctions would be much more effective and cost us no lives and no treasure.It won't just be Iran we end up in war with. A war would put the ME's oil on the chopping block for the best protector or aggressor. Much of ISIS's funding came from stealing Iraq's oil and selling it off to the first bidder. Iraq would become a free for all....again. Choke their resources off, don't light them on fire. We are the most powerful military in the world and it's easy just to bomb the hell out of a country. Strategic plans and diplomacy are hard but it doesn't destroy a continent, kill millions through war or starvation, disrupt for decades energy supplies to much of the world, ad nauseum, and BTW, you will never see the IQD revalue. Iraq will be unstable for decades. Just because we are the hammer, doesn't make everything a nail. Aggression is not always be the most intelligent way to go. If we had struck Iran, can someone lead me to information on what the exit plan is. What happens when we strike, then Iran strikes back again? Iran, who is a bad, bad actor, does not trust the US any longer. They were adhering to the JCPOA and we cancelled it, so no one is talking. The dialogue has been closed. Where does it end? I think we have all seen that ME culture does not forget, forgive, or bend.

Yes, it was Putin. trump had a conversation with Putin immediately before the decision to stop the attack: https://nypost.com/2019/06/20/putin-warned-us-before-drone-was-shot-down-not-to-attack-iran/

Laid Back, looks to me that the USA is coming down on the auctions according to the great article you posted yesterday, and the above article sounds like something came out of our Baghdad embassy that put their feet to the fire. Threat of sanctions is working its magic. How do you get a camel to move? Sanction him.

Halabousi: The naming of ministers of defense, justice and education has been resolved .. And the interior is in place 25-05-2019 07:57 PM Baghdad The head of the House of Representatives Mohammed Halbusi, on Thursday, that vacant ministerial posts were resolved without the internal that remained in place. "The US embassy in Baghdad has informed the government that it is the reason for the Iraqi mediation between Washington and Tehran to resolve the issue of sanctions," Halaboussi told al-Madar. He added: 'The issue of candidates for the ministries of defense, justice and education have been resolved between the political blocs, but the interior is in place'. Halaboussi pointed out that 'the post of adviser to the Prime Minister for Security Affairs' will be abolished. May 25, 2019 at 11:11 AM |

The US is deploying a carrier and bombers to the Middle East in a warning to Iran PUBLISHED AN HOUR AGOUPDATED AN HOUR AGO KEY POINTS The United States is deploying a carrier strike group and a bomber task force to the Middle East, U.S. national security advisor John Bolton said on Sunday. This is to send a clear message to Iran that any attack on U.S. interests or its allies will be met with “unrelenting force,” Bolton said. US national security adviser John Bolton in Jerusalem to meet Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on August 20, 2018. Sebastian Scheiner | AFP | Getty Images The United States is deploying a carrier strike group and a bomber task force to the Middle East to send a clear message to Iran that any attack on U.S. interests or its allies will be met with “unrelenting force,” U.S. national security advisor John Bolton said on Sunday. Amid rising tensions between the United States and Iran, Bolton said the decision was “in response to a number of troubling and escalatory indications and warnings.” “The United States is not seeking war with the Iranian regime, but we are fully prepared to respond to any attack, whether by proxy, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or regular Iranian forces,” Bolton said in a statement. It marked the latest in a series of moves by President Donald Trump’s administration against Iran in recent weeks. Washington has said it will stop waivers for countries buying Iranian oil, in an attempt to reduce Iran’s oil exports to zero. It has also blacklisted Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guard Corps. The Trump administration’s efforts to impose political and economic isolation on Tehran began last year when it unilaterally withdrew from the nuclear deal it and other world powers negotiated with Iran in 2015. “The United States is deploying the USS Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group and a bomber task force to the U.S. Central Command region to send a clear and unmistakable message to the Iranian regime that any attack on United States interests or on those of our allies will be met with unrelenting force,” Bolton said. Bolton, who has spearheaded an increasingly hawkish U.S. policy on Iran, did not provide any other details. A U.S. official said the forces “have been ordered to the region as a deterrence to what has been seen as potential preparations by Iranian forces and its proxies that may indicate possible attacks on U.S. forces in the region.” The official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the United States was not expecting any imminent attack on U.S. forces. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/06/bolton-us-to-deploy-carrier-bombers-to-middle-east-in-iran-warning.html

Navira, what is a bro?

Thank Laid Back. He's the one that brought in the info, but thank you. 😎

August 2019

Laid Back didn't say anything about August 24th. He said 24 months out would put the review at August 2019. I think the 137 page report must have some good info it and I'm going to read it. Thanks, Laid Back!

The HCL and census maybe required by the constitution, but what does that have to do with the value of Iraq's currency? Alaska basically has the same oil sharing program for their residents, but our dollar value is not affected. Iraq's currency has value today without the HCL, and has risen over several years with no HCL. Perhaps the constitution requires a revaluation? Hmm. I just never have bought into no HCL, no RV theory.

Another opinion by someone who studies the ME Iraq’s choice: US air strikes or Iranian air conditioners? by Tanya Goudsouzian, 19 March 2019 Iraq’s choice: US air strikes or Iranian air conditioners? ↑ As American delegations swoop in and out of Iraq attempting to persuade, cajole or bully Iraqi politicians to limit relations with Iran, there is a running joke in the region: ‘With summer around the corner, must we choose between American air strikes and Iranian air conditioners?’ As ISIS is afar in Syria and no longer an existential threat to Iraq, this is hardly a choice. In fact, the choice may not be in Baghdad at all, but in Washington: demand that Iraq adheres to draconian Iranian sanctions and let people from Basra (in the south) deep-fry again this summer; or embrace a broader strategy that relies less on military support and diplomatic demands, and more on humanitarian, commercial and economic assistance. The first (let them fry) will lead to more unrest and further calls for the US forces to leave; the latter could help to reverse the trend of declining American influence. In the battle for influence, the US is being challenged by an increasingly ambitious Iran which sees Iraq as a (re)developing country, not as a proxy battlefield with the US. While it has provided significant military support in the anti-ISIS fight, Tehran has recently shifted its focus towards broadening its relations with Baghdad. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s first visit to Baghdad on 12-13 March was billed by mainstream western media as an attempt to increase its influence in Iraq, and regional media spoke of the Islamic Republic’s aspirations to deepen economic ties and ‘strengthen brotherly ties’. And then there were the unassailable optics of the trip. It was hard not to compare Rouhani's daylight trip, touring every part of Iraq and warmly greeting Iraqi politicians and clerics, to Donald Trump’s clandestine three-hour nighttime visit to Al-Asad airbase in Baghdad last December, which did not involve any meetings with Iraqi leaders. Rouhani earned praise for boosting business and diplomatic relations; Trump earned opprobrium for violating Iraqi sovereignty and disrespecting national leaders. Worse, Trump’s widely panned gaffe on 3 February about using US troop presence in Iraq surprise visit was seen as a further affront to Iraqi sovereignty and drew condemnations from across the Iraqi political spectrum. Another surprise visit this time by Acting US Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan in an apparent bid to patch up the damage, did little to help. And Shanahan’s efforts were insufficient to deter the influential political blocs Sairoon and Fatah from drafting a bill calling for the eviction of all foreign troops from Iraq. If the US is trying to maintain or enhance its influence in Iraq, there is a significant disconnect between its words and actions. While its words may speak of a strong bilateral relationship, its actions suggest that Washington’s concerns are not to address the needs of Iraq, but to use Iraq as a platform to carry out US policy against Iran that is best described as ‘Iran foe: Iraq pawn’. Any irony seems lost on Washington. Money talks louder than ultimatums What also seems to be lost on Washington is the level of popular discontent throughout Iraq and the potential for follow-on instability. From mid-July to the end of 2018, violent protests swept across Basra and Baghdad as people lamented the absence of employment opportunities and basic services. ISIS was, and is, low on the list of concerns, especially as victory had been declared in December 2017. With few significant attacks, bombings or televised atrocities, ISIS seems a distant problem. Basic services, by contrast, are problematic, immediate and widespread. Yet, the Americans continue to trumpet their accomplishments in the war against ISIS and, although the fight has moved on from Iraq to Syria, still believe the anti-ISIS coalition retains enough leverage with the people of Iraq to not only justify a continued US military presence in the country but for Iraq to join with the US to ‘keep an eye on Iran’. For the Iraqis, drinking fetid water and sweltering in the heat, and for the leaders who carefully calculate the threat of popular discontent, these are the most important and most immediate problems. While this may be lost on the US, it is not lost on the Iranians, the Chinese, and a host of other countries which see leverage in humanitarian assistance, reconstruction, economic development and government grants. Indeed, for average Iraqis, the equation is simple. US military support does nothing to improve basic services or quell popular discontent. Iraq relies on foreign countries for financial and economic assistance, and depends on Iran for day-to-day needs from fresh produce to natural gas and automobiles – trade which has grown to almost $12 Billion a year. For energy needs alone, despite US efforts to push for Saudi Arabia to replace Iran as a supplier to meet Iraq’s energy needs, the solution is years away. The need is now. ‘The [US] ultimatum is not going to work because Iraq’s situation is more than black and white,’ said Farhad Alaaldin, chairman of the Iraq Advisory Council and former political advisor to President Fuad Masum. ‘Iraq needs Iran and has strategic relations with it, long border, common culture, common faith and shared interest, but also desire to be independent if it can help it. Breaking Iraq away from Iran takes a lot more than just waving a stick.’ According to Ali Allawi, a former minister of both trade and finance, the US approach is ‘a losing strategy because there is no long-term basis of US support outside of the Kurdish area.’ By contrast, ‘Iran has a large natural constituency of support inside the country and have made themselves indispensable players across all of Iraq’s communities,’ he said. ‘The Chinese wield huge economic power and are able to marshal it and focus it on specific programs and projects that are of interest to Iraq.’ For example, in May 2018, the Iraqi oil ministry and China’s ZhenHua oil company signed a contract to develop part of the East Baghdad Oil Field. Earlier this month, Iraq and China were reportedly set to finalise a major bilateral agreement that would give investors access to roughly $10 billion worth of financing. An infusion of foreign investment of this magnitude is expected to help prop up the Iraqi economy and fund much needed reconstruction projects in the country, and adds another major player in the battle for influence. Short term victory, long term defeat If the US merely seeks to use Iraq as an element in its anti-Iran strategy, there is little benefit to expanding its assistance efforts in Iraq. Yet if America is genuinely interested in retaining a first-among-equals influence with Iraq, there has to be a major shift in its approach. Military support alone (perhaps tempered with a bit of nostalgia and guilt for assistance in days long past) is a losing strategy. ‘The US has to carve for itself a mutually supportive relationship with Iraqi political parties and groups,’ said Allawi. ‘A longer term strategy is to preside over the economic regeneration of the country. However, unlike the Far East experience, Iraq’s economic regeneration cannot be based on access to US markets or the inflow of US direct investments.’ Alaaldin shares these sentiments: ‘The Americans have helped immensely in the past but they never presided over the economic regeneration. We didn’t have regeneration at all, we simply have oil to sell and if the prices are high then Iraq’s economy is excellent and if they go low then Iraq’s economy is in trouble.’ Influence matters. So does leverage So how does the US up its game? ‘Inflow of US money has stopped a while ago,’ said Alaaldin. ‘The US only injects money in what they call “stabilisation effort” and it is limited to the war struck areas such as Ninawa and other provinces. US investment is near non-existent, although a recent visit by some 50+ businesses to Baghdad have rekindled some interest from US corporations to come to Iraq, but I think this is sometime away.’ Yet, as is evident of late, the Iranians, Chinese, and Koreans are already on the doorstep. Achieving influence in Iraq will be gained through resolving near-term shortfalls in basic services and, in the long run, addressing economic, humanitarian and reconstruction needs. In this, Iran, China and other countries are gaining while the Americans are well behind. To the Iraqi on the street, military support against ISIS and the Great Game competition between the US and Iran is far less consequential than human needs, and it seems everyone but the US is leveraging those needs into palpable influence. While the US and Iran were both essential to the Iraqi victory against ISIS, the effectiveness of the post-ISIS follow up by Iran and others seems lost on the US. In Baghdad, leverage matters. Iraq is still dependent on outside powers for critical needs and will be for years. If the US continues to see and use Iraq only as a pawn in its fight against Iran, it should expect significant pushback. If it fails to up its game in Iraq through increasing commercial, diplomatic, economic and humanitarian support, it will cede influence to others with a better sense of Iraq’s needs and wants. If the US believes military support and diplomatic pressure will remain the primary source of leverage in Iraq, it better get used to disappointment. Tanya Goudsouzian Tanya Goudsouzian is a Canadian journalist who has covered Iraq and Afghanistan for over 15 years. She is former Opinion editor of Al Jazeera English Online. Follow her on Twitter: @tgoudsouzian. https://mondediplo.com/outsidein/iraq-s-choice

Maybe the CBI has pumpers too.