After repeated threats from President Trump to sanction Iraq, to seize its primary bank account, and cut all military aid, Iraqi PM Adel Abdul-Mahdi has backed away from calls to expel US troops from Iraq.
Iraq’s parliament voted 170-0 earlier this month on the ouster, though US officials have said they don’t intend to leave, and have denied actually being asked. Following the threats, Abdul-Mahdi now says he wants to leave the question up to the next government.
That could take some time. Abdul-Mahdi nominally resigned last month, and there is meant to be work on reforming election law and holding fresh elections, meant to placate the anti-government protesters. There is no timetable for any of this, however, and efforts seem to have all but stopped since the US attack on Baghdad Airport.
The US had cut joint operations with Iraq shortly thereafter, fearing they’d quickly get into fighting after that. The US has announced they are resuming cooperation starting Wednesday, however.
US sanctions could quickly bankrupt Iraq, especially if Trump seized the bank account holding all their oil revenue, which is 90% of their budget. At the same time, not expelling the US after parliament already voted to do so could have major consequences for Iraqi sovereignty, and will likely be addressed again.
the extortionists and bullies in the US have not only threatened to seize all of Iraq’s income, but I wouldn’t doubt it at all if they have threatened Abdul-Mahd’s life…. in one way or another. the scoundrels
the US will pay for all this, in the long run….. That seems pretty certain now that the militias are united against the US presence
They will pay for it eventually . This cannot go on indefinitely, that’s for sure. The ME is changing fast, the masses of Arab people are turning against the US.
Rely on Arab people to turn against each other.
With US in the crossfire.
Rely on any religious factions to turn on each other.
………ever since we intervened in Iraq with Father Bush.
They did threatened his life. He said it himself. Not just his, but defense minister as well. A transcript of his speech in Parliament prior to vote. Some of it on Lew Rockwell.
“They did threatened his life. He said it himself.”
Him saying it only means that he said it, not that they did it.
Let’s extend that principle: Anyone saying anything only means that they said something, not that it is true.
From there, you assess the statement and you consider the source. In this case what is the likelihood that the US, shining city on the hill, champion of world peace and democracy, serial drone-war assassin, sponsor of terrorists, killer of hero-generals, would have threatened to murder a “democratically-elected” leader of a ‘conquered-but-still-not-getting-it” oil-rich vassal nation?
“From there, you assess the statement and you consider the source.”
Precisely.
I assess the prime minister of Iraq as less dishonest, at least on a regular basis, than any US government spokesperson. So in the absence of evidence other than statements from the two, I’m inclined to believe the prime minister.
But “he said so himself” is not, in itself, either evidence or proof.
Of course it is. She means that it is not second-hand reporting or hearsay, but that the Prime Minister “himself” declared he had been threatened.
“They did threatened his life. He said it himself.”
The fact that he declared it to be so does not mean it’s so.
Politicians lie.
In cases like this, all you can really do in the absence of some kind of hard documented evidence is decide which politicians you believe more, and which politicians you believe less.
You make a good point. Though I question whether he would lie about something so serious as a death threat from the US, knowing his overlords are watching. As far as I know Washington has not denied the claim
Like I said, I find him more believable than any US regime representative who might say otherwise.
On the other hand, his overlords may have told or expected him to say it whether it was true or not.
I generally trust US politicians and their spokespeople marginally less than I trust non-US politicians and their spokespeople. But I can’t think of any politician or political spokesperson on the planet I would leave my wallet or my daughter alone in a room with.
Thanks for clarifying your position, Thomas. And thanks to yomama for pinning you down, which is not always so easy.
Iraq is just another Okinawa or Diego Garcia: a slave corral.
A playtoy for a killing ground in Syria.
The Iraqi government may have backed off but the irregular militias have not. Life will get very complicated for US troops in Iraq and Syria as they start shooting down helicopters and supply planes with MANPADS, lobbing mortar rounds and rockets into US oil facilities and threatening tankers in the Persian Gulf. The USA has no good defense against this kind of hybrid asymmetric warfare. Eventually, we will be forced to vacate the premises.
And where are US troops in Syria?
A sliver on Iraqi border, and about 30 square miles on Jordanian border (Al-Tanf base). I somehow do not see US forces getting into conflict there. Local population in no uncertain terms told them that they would prefer being integrated into Syria government territory, so any make-believe excuse for protecting x,y,z endangered people was a non-starter narrative. But so far, licals have been patient.
There are always things that can go wrong. In the border area in North East they are too close to Syrian-Russian forces. And the anger over situation may result in an irrational response.
Trump says they’re there to help grab the oil. It has nothing to do with what the Syrian people want.
And, what about Syrian forces driving them out, eh, Thomas? Remember, these Syrian forces are battle hardened .. The US forces there aren’t .. They more or less stay in their bases and do little patrolling.
How much longer will they be within Syria’s oil fields? Certainly, not much. They haven’t extracted the oil from the refineries, simply because the Syrian forces are right nearby, ready to kick ass, if the US troops there start extracting the oil. DJT has made a huge mistake in even sending the troops into the oil fields in the first place.
I doubt you know what the troops are doing there…
NO, we will not. Once in a country it is like the forces are held there by Gorllla Glue.
Thomas, precisely my thought.
There is no Iraqi government, it’s all been an elaborate ruse. Their exercise in Democracy was just that, going through the motions. The decisions that matter to the US colony called Iraq are made in Washington.
Trump has exposed the root meaning of American democracy: extortion.
Threats, intimidation, drones…………………
Big mistake by Iraqi leadership. This moves sends out signals to the world as to how weak they are. Iraq has seen sanctions, but this time around is is not about Saddam, it is an American President asserting an occupation in the name of keeping U.S. armed forces in Iraq when they are clearly not welcome.
They should fight this. If not, they should all resign or be paraded down Main Street on a rail, tarred and feathered. To roll over and accept an occupation is unacceptable.
Terrible weakness.
Then again, were they guaranteed sacks of $$$$$$$$$$$$$.
”Military wanted to resume operations against the Islamic State as soon as posssible to blunt any momentum the group might have and to stifle any propaganda claim the US ha suspended operations suspended its operations” says the link.
Abul-Manhi is (unfortunately) temporarily stuck.
Not one single undemocratic coutnry has been turned into a genuine Democracy. Iraq is their playtoy, and they wanted to destroy Syrian Sovereigny as their playtoy. Iran is only seen as a competitor, their ‘excuse’. If you expose ‘secrets’, they* will throw you in jail ad infinitum (Chelsea Manning – a slave to what ever faction controls the US presidency or state government), or turn you into a fugative like Juilian Assange.
*War Party-Deep State-Empire.
Or Snowden.
Like Europe, Iraq is backing down. Blackmail and destruction of countries really work. The land of the free is spreading democracy far and wide.
Trump said the war against Iraq was wrong before he was elected. He kept troops there and refused to make them leave after Iraq voted to expel them.He withdrew from the JCPOA but negotiated with Kim Jong Un after his war of words failed. His talks with Kim were good but staying in Iraq & withdrawing from the Iran Deal & killing Soleimani were wrong. Like Obama, Trump does 1 or more bad things for every good thing he does.
He said the war on Iraq was wrong because we didn’t “take their oil.”
I suspect Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr will have something to say about this.
I can only imagine when he was signed off as an “imminent” threat. Have we labeled him a “terrorist”? Or is that something we can do after we off him? I think it’s open season from now on.
This threat against Iraq by US should, but most likely won’t, put to rest the arguments by those that claim US is not the occupiers of Iraq and that Iraq is a sovereign nation.
The Empire that US has become now can bring any nation to its knees, as it does not depend solely upon its military but by its control over worlds banking systems and financial interest.
The perception that China and Russia are seeking to directly compete militarily and economicly by having a seperate monetary system is but rhetoric put forth by US and it’s allies for popular consumption: for in truth what China and Russia realy want is to be a strong partner within this new world wide economic restructuring.