Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content

Laid Back

Platinum VIP
  • Content Count

    6,799
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Laid Back last won the day on October 17 2015

Laid Back had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

23,033 Excellent

About Laid Back

  • Rank
    Om sai Ram

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Hanging between trees
  • Interests
    Surf, Yoga, Karate, Meditation, Jogging, Hiking, Camping, Reggae music, Travel, Nature.

Recent Profile Visitors

23,731 profile views
  1. The consequences of the American withdrawal from Iraq. The assassination of Qasim Soleimani and Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis fueled the tense relations between Iraq and the United States to a boiling point. On January 5 this year, the Iraqi parliament voted in an extraordinary session in the presence of Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi on a decision that obliges the government to work to end the request for assistance submitted from it to the international coalition led by Washington, and to end any presence of foreign forces on Iraqi soil. For its part, the US State Department expressed “disappointment” with this decision, calling on the Iraqi authorities to reconsider it, and Washington, which intends to keep its forces in Iraq, announced that it is studying economic sanctions against Iraq. And if the Trump administration imposes economic sanctions, this means undermining the Iraqi economy. We ask here… What are the economic, military and political consequences that would arise if the American forces withdrew from Iraq? In this context, the New York Times published a report by Alyssa Robin, director of her office in Baghdad, in which she confirmed that Iraq is between the two parties, in light of the escalation of tension between the United States and Iran, which reached its climax after the assassination of the Iranian Quds Force commander, General Qassem Soleimani, in a American drone attack last week near Baghdad International Airport. The author confirmed the Iraqi parliament’s vote after the incident of Soleimani’s death in favor of the evacuation of the American forces, while a message came from Tehran’s allies in Baghdad, some Iraqi officials believe that it will be a disaster for Iraq in all respects, particularly the economic and security front, foremost of which is the return of the terrorist organization, ISIS. And she indicates that the economic sanctions that Trump promises to impose on Baghdad, in the event of the evacuation of American forces, as Tehran and its followers want in Iraq, will not affect Iraq alone, but its effects will extend to Iran as well, given the intertwined economy of the two countries, but rather the benefit that Tehran gets more than Baghdad. And although the newspaper does not focus on this dimension, Iran’s benefit from the American presence in Iraq was mainly when it toppled the Saddam Hussein regime, which was a thorn in the throat of the “Guardian Jurist” regime, and brought Tehran allies to rule in Baghdad, and it is notable at the time that Washington justified the invasion of Iraq under the false claim that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and a nuclear program, which it knew was not true, while Tehran was at the time developing its nuclear program! The author says that prominent Iraqi officials, diplomats and researchers have stated that the evacuation of American forces will force Iraq to fall into the arms of Iran, which would deprive it of US dollars and isolate it from the West. And she points out that Trump’s sanctions may deprive Iraq from the main source that feeds it in dollars, due to the assumption of freezing its account with the US Federal Reserve in New York. She notes that Iraq’s revenues from oil sales are deposited in that bank, and the government has used to the withdrawal from it to pay employee salaries and pay its other contractual obligations. The author also states that the United States may also resort to canceling exemptions that allow Iraq to buy Iranian gas, which the state depends on for operating electricity generators in the south, and in providing at least 35% of the energy supplies needed for the whole country, which may fuel the turmoil in the south once Temperatures rise, which will lead to a decrease in electricity supplies, as happened in 2018. Imposing the embargo on Iraqi oil will constitute a painful blow to the country, especially since the proceeds from oil exports are estimated at about 90% of revenues of annual budgets, noting Iraq still suffers from 40 years of continuous wars, International blockade and terrorism and the worst phenomena of public corruption and unemployment. The embargo will leave its mark on Iraqi oil exports, which will mean a decline in Iraqi exports about 3.2 million barrels per day, as well as the embargo on Iraq and the intensification of battles on its lands will mean the withdrawal of oil companies operating there currently, and indeed, some American operating companies have started withdrawing their foreign employees, such as « Exxon Mobil »from the south and“ Chevron ”from the north, which will delay the development of Iraq’s production capacity, currently amounting to about 5 million barrels per day (the second largest producer in the Organization of« OPEC »). In addition to Iraq’s geostrategic and political value, this country is today considered one of the largest oil exporting countries in the world, with huge reserves in the long run. If the presence of United States remains the same, the economies of the USA and Iraq and the global economy will reap these benefits together, but if the US leaves, Iran will actually increase its control over the huge energy and financial resources, and prevent its use in Iraqi development projects in order to avoid sanctions and largely support its ambitions of hegemony. As for the military, it is necessary for the United States to maintain a military presence in Iraq, however modest, to ensure the defeat of the terrorist organization ISIS. On the other hand, if the killing of Soleimani leads to the withdrawal of the American forces involved in local operations against the organization, this would constitute a major blow to the war on terror, even after the terrorist ISIS lost the last strongholds of its alleged caliphate in March 2019, it was still able to carry out 867 terrorist operations inside Iraq alone during the remained period of the year, and the number and intensity of these attacks will undoubtedly increase in the absence of the military pressure exerted by the American and allied forces, and the ongoing operations against the strongholds in which the organization operates in equal measure in Syria will also be mortally undermined, UN estimates that ISIS still has a reserve of $ 300 million to support its terrorist campaign, while Kurdish officials point out that today, the organization has reassembled its ranks in Iraq equipped with “better techniques and methods.” That is why Ahmed Al-Masari, the deputy in the Iraqi parliament and a leader in the Salvation and Development Front led by Osama Najafi, demanded the American administration not to withdraw its forces from Iraq, especially the Sunni cities and governorates occupied by ISIS, and he said, “We as Sunni blocs did not vote in Parliament to remove foreign forces and we will stand against it today and tomorrow due to the real concerns that ISIS will return to our Sunni cities in the event of the Americans withdrawing, because we still need their military and intelligence support, and because ISIS fighters still pose a threat to the security of our liberated areas. He added: “The American side has the technological capability to confront the sleeper cells of the ISIS organization, which is superior to the Iraqi military forces.” He added, “If the political partners in the country succeed in removing the American forces, the Sunni Arabs have one option to protect themselves and their regions, which is the application of the federal system, in order to seek international support and provide a new ally and resort to it a constitutional and legitimate right to protect the component and liberated cities, and to face challenges whether the threat from ISIS or the incursion of armed militias loyal to Iran ». He emphasized that “the image of the Americans in the minds of the Sunni people as occupying forces is completely different. They now welcome them and view them as a true supporter and a strong friend in the face of Iranian influence and armed terrorist organizations.” And that “the areas destroyed by the war cannot be reconstructed and defended from any potential evil, as well as bringing investment projects, ending unemployment and providing job and job opportunities for unemployed youth, except by strengthening the relationship with the American side, we need their help.” He explained: «The Iraqi government does not have the right to demand the United States of America to withdraw from Iraq, because it is a caretaker government that has no authority, and that these forces came at the time of a government that was fully completed, but in the event of early elections resulting in a parliament that creates a new government, that the elected government will study where is the interest of Iraq, is it in the withdrawal of Americans or their stay?” He concluded, “It is shameful for the ruling political class that is now calling for the departure of the American forces at a time when these people are satisfied with the Americans when they were actual occupiers of the country.” Politically, if American forces remain in Iraq, it will greatly enhance the position of the United States in this country , and contribute to countering the harmful influence of Iran throughout the region, but its exit means that Iraq will be in danger of slipping back into the devastating isolation that it previously lived, knowing that it would then be less able to resist Iran’s fierce politics. In fact, most Iraqis are wary of this idea, and it is true, and the best evidence for this is the hundreds of thousands of anti-Iran demonstrators who have gone to the Iraqi streets in recent months, especially in Shiite areas, they prefer a largely an Iraq that is sovereign, peaceful, pluralistic and fully integrated into the international community, and the continued American diplomatic and military presence would help to enhance those hopes. As such, it is reasonable for Washington to expect the Iraqi government to put forward conditions to make this presence beneficial to both parties. There is a direct link between Soleimani’s assassination and the established priority in his policy of forcing the United States to get out of Iraq, and if Washington withdrew now, Soleimani would have accomplished by his assassination what he tried in vain to achieve in his life, and this matter will be much more than a symbolic and moral failure, but rather it will be a great political defeat for Washington, and a victory for Iran, and Iraq awaits a very dangerous fate, but if American leaders maintain their position in Iraq, they will confirm the failure of Soleimani’s plans, which would erode Iran’s international standing, strengthen Washington’s position, and maintain the stability of Iraq at the same time. Iraqi Studies Unit Rawabet Center for Research and Strategic Studies
  2. I don’t see an RV happening till all corruption in the CBI is wiped out. Trump should remove all dollars and put economic sanctions on Iraq. No dollars, No corruption No dollars, No money laundering No dollars, No terrorism support No dollars, Iran is totally F*ck No dollars, Iraq will suffer and learn the lesson jmho.
  3. 6ly410, Looks like the videos are part of the information campaign to the citizens. Thanks.!
  4. Its funny how all the Gurus have a contact in the GOI or CBI. With all due respect, I recommend you to do your own research.
  5. Abadi should be Prime Minister again. He love and protect the country and his people. Go Abadi for PM
  6. “He pointed out that "these revenues result from the export of 100 thousand barrels per day and will be spent to finance infrastructure projects in Iraq." interesting.! iraq is paying China with oil to finance infrastructure projects in Iraq. This is very good for Iraq, because production cost per barrel in Iraq is really low. Around $10pb.
  7. I don’t know but the balance owed to Kuwait will be included in the 2020 Budget. I think the UN, WB and IMF will be very happy with this. Let’s hope 🙏🏼
  8. I believe the last payment to Kuwait included in the 2020 budget is crucial to let the dinar go international.... IMF Art 8 acceptance. jmho.
  9. Iran and drink the second poison cup. Muammar Faisal Khouli It was not surprising that the Iranian media escalation against the background of the assassination of Qassem Soleimani was much stronger than its military response to the two American bases in Iraq. This response means that Iran is still very rational and prudent in its external behavior in dealing with Western countries, particularly the United States of America, especially if it comes to carrying out any direct military action. Yes, the size of the Iranian loss of the assassination of Qassem Soleimani is very large, which it has not suffered since the end of its war with Iraq in 1988, but the Iranian political regime is not that naive in taking a provocative military move that would cause severe embarrassment to the United States of America, which may open the door of military confrontation widely. The Iranian political regime may bitterly accept to lose that a military leader who was able to establish Iranian influence in several Arab capitals, instead of losing the rule of the Iranian state, because any direct military confrontation whose results may be known in advance due to the difference in military, economic and technical capabilities between the United States of America And Iran. So … Tehran’s fear of military confrontation with Washington prompted it to do so very modest attack, because its political system is deeply aware of the historical and contemporary strength of the United States of America. In contemporary history, no country has entered into a war or conflict against the United States of America except that it was defeated and disintegrated. The Japanese aggression on the American Pearl Harbor base in Huawei and the killing of 2,400 people cost the occupation of Japan in August 1945 and the establishment of American military bases there. The Iranian political system, experiencing the American-Soviet conflict, which ended in its disintegration into fifteen republics in 1991. Iran’s current and defiant power of the United States of America!! If compared with the historical strength of Japan and the Soviet Union, it is negligible!! As for the contemporary strength of the United States of America is clear and does not need an evidence. In an attempt by Iran to absorb the criticism leveled against it, Ali Haji Zadeh, the commander of the Air Force in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, said that we could have “killed 500 American soldiers at Ein al-Assad base.” We ask: What prevented you from doing this? Are human values ?! Which you buried when you killed and displaced millions of people from Iraq and Syria? !! Or is the role of the Revolutionary Guards ended at this level, after which their allies would take over in the Levant’s environment, and this is what Haji Zadeh implicitly indicated by saying: “The targeting of Iran to one of the most important American bases in the region is the beginning of a larger process that will continue in the whole region, and that the next steps will be taken by what he called “the resistance front.” The modest Iranian response to US military bases can be explained that it does not rise to the level of revenge for a military commander with the weight of Qassem Soleimani, who was described by the Western media as the second most powerful figure in the structure of Iranian rule after the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the response that seemed to be an attempt by Iran to save Its face and an attempt to alleviate the crisis and appease local voices in it that call for revenge and show the strength of Iran’s allies in the region. Accordingly, a modest military response can be interpreted, based on three assumptions, as follows: The first: It says that Qasim Soleimani, after increasing his internal influence by expanding his popularity in Iran, and at external level by having an external network of influence in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen, he became a threat to religious symbols such as Ali Khamenei, and the military as Hussein Salami, the leader of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, so getting rid of him became an imperative necessity, but In a way that preserves the Iranian political system, its stability, increasing popularity, and showing Soleimani as a national hero. Whether the attempt to storm the American embassy was the idea of Soleimani that precipitated his assassination, or from the idea of the Iranian leadership in order to get rid of him, this matter means nothing g for the Americans who viewed the attempt to storm as a qualitative development in changing the rules of engagement with Iran, and that it crossed the red lines, and underestimating American power , so Iran had to pay the price of that folly, and perhaps this price won the admiration of the Iranian leadership , Khamenei- Salami equation, by assassinating Soleimani, by getting rid of a potential internal enemy !! As for the second assumption : It says that Iran preferred revenge politically, not militarily, from the United States of America, by investing Iran’s most powerful political allies in the country. It also includes a mixture of threats and promises aimed at Iraqi politicians to force them to remove American forces from the country. Although this strategy is being implemented now, Iran can increase its pressure to ensure the Iraqi government’s commitment to removing US forces from the country. Iran’s allies are already in a good position for such an option, and the sudden rise of the anti-American anger caused by the “attack against Soleimani and al-Muhandis – along with Iran’s strong influence in the Iraqi media market – will further enhance such an option. As for the third assumption: which says that Iran cannot sacrifice its historical investments in Damascus, Baghdad, Beirut and Sana’a, and enters into direct war with the United States of America, that is why the Iranian bombing came to show Iran’s resolve and strength, but it was not determined to inflict material and human losses, in order to avoid the strong reaction from the USA, which will be in the form of drinking a second poison cup by Iran. The near future , or even in intermediate one , is the one who will answer any assumptions that the Iranian leadership have adopted – even if I adopt the third assumption – in its modest response to the assassination of Qassem Soleimani. Rawabet Center for Research and Strategic Studies
  10. I think you are right, keeping the dinar as an asset for currency swap.!
  11. Ron, thank you for the detail information from the past. I agree with your comment 👍🏼
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.