Iran is trying to exploit the visit of US President Donald Trump to the military base of Ain al-Assad in western Iraq on December 26 to open a new front in the power struggle against the United States of America, this time a legislative law is its field, and the Iraqi Council of Representatives is its tool. Tehran encourages its political allies, who form a balanced bloc in the Council to enact a law obliging the Baghdad government to end the US military presence on Iraqi territory.
To achieve this goal, on 19 this month, MP Sabah al-Saadi sent a letter to the President of the Iraqi Council of Representatives included “the proposed law to terminate the security agreement”, a proposal based on the second item of Article “60” of the Iraqi Constitution, and Article “120” of the rules of procedure of the Iraqi Council . This letter included the signatures of a number of members of the Iraqi Council of Representatives. In this report, Rawabet Center encloses herewith, the letter sent to the Speaker of the House of Representatives including the signatures of the members of the House of Representatives as follows:
With this “proposed law”, the parliamentary scene can be read as follows: The reform bloc (Islah Bloc ) is competing with the building block (al-Bina bloc) within the Iraqi Council of Representatives in the matter of whichever is more loyal to the Iranian influence in Iraq. In this context, the leader of the Iraqi “Asaib Ahl al-Haq” Qais al-khazali expects that the Iraqi parliament will vote next month asking Washington to withdraw its forces from the country, likely the possibility of the expulsion of these forces by force. Al- Khazali pointed out , whose movement is among the most important elements of the Iraqi “popular crowd,” in an interview with the Associated Press, that there is no longer any ground for the survival of thousands of US troops in Iraq after defeating the organization “Daash”, stressing that these forces may be expelled by force if it does not respond to the will of the Iraqi people. AL-Khazali added in an interview with the agency in Baghdad office on the Tigris bank opposite the US embassy “If the most important goal of their presence here is to confront the military threat posed by the ‘Da’ash,’ this danger has been eliminated,” In this case, what is the ground for the survival of these forces now? “Al-Khazali suggested the possibility of remaining of a small number of advisers and military trainers in the country to carry out logistical tasks, but their number and places of deployment must be determined by a special joint committee, adding that any presence out of this scope will be considered a violation of sovereignty by the parliament and the people and political factions, including “Asaib Ahl al-Haq”, and continued: “We will not allow it.” Khazali expressed his conviction that the House of Representatives will vote in favor of the request from Washington to withdraw its troops from the country, saying: “I think that more than Half of the members of the House of Representatives reject in principle the US military presence .. If the United States wants to impose its presence by force and ignoring the Constitution of the country and the resolutions of the parliament, Iraq can deal with it similarly by expelling it by force… but the first stage will be political.
As for the Sunnis of Iraq, it is not new that their parliamentary status is very modest, perhaps half of them will vote in favor of the “proposed law”. The Kurds of Iraq are against the removal of US forces from it, because they consider the presence of these forces on Iraqi territory in general and the territory of the Kurdistan region in particular as a guarantee for the security of Iraq, and thus will vote against that proposal, which makes them under the Iranian political pressure and security . But Iran, in contrast, after the withdrawal of United States from the nuclear deal and imposed economic sanctions on it, has become in dire need of enhancing economic cooperation with the KRG.
Although the United States did not support the Kurdish referendum in September last year, this does not disturb the relations between the two allies. The Kurds can not dispense with the American ally, because this would expose the Kurdistan region to existential danger. Washington stood by them strongly in defeating the terrorist ISIS , and it will also stand by them if the region is exposed to any imminent threat from any other terrorist organization.
In order not to stop the US-Kurdish relations at the dilemma of the referendum, because the Kurdish ally is very important in the policy of the United States of America in the Middle East, and to calm the atmosphere between the two allies, and strengthen relations between them, a number of US officials have visited Erbil and on the forefront is Mike Pompeo, secretary of state who met with Massoud Barzani, Nechirvan Barzani and Masrour Barzani. According to special information obtained by the Rawabet Center for Research and Strategic Studies, that Tehran is very upset about the US Harir camp in the Kurdistan region of Iraq, where the importance of this camp to the American side and the Iranian fears of it, that there are special forces and aircraft and the airport in it , and it is the closest American , Western camp along the Iranian border. So such a camp would worry Tehran a lot .
It is likely that in February next year the Iraqi House of Representatives will vote on the proposal of “law”, and this vote has two possibilities: the first, to vote the House of Representatives in the form of “decision”, and in this case it is likely that the Prime Minister does not implement the decision, because it is issued in the form of recommendation. If the proposal is issued in the form of ” a law ” , it is very difficult for the president to ratify it, and then will be under American and Iranian pressure . The question that arises in this context is why the president does not wish to ratify the law and the prime minister does not want to implement it. Is it a foolish and unwitting desire? Not at all, but from a deep vision of the dire consequences of passing the law, how so?
No one can deny the American military, intelligence and air force factor in defeating an oppressive organization ISIS in Iraq, and those who deny it wil ignore the truth. The departure of the United States from Iraq may activate the return of the terrorist organization ISIS to destabilize Iraq, or perhaps another terrorist organization will emerge, no less horrifying.
Economically, the Iraqi economy may fall apart, once the US Federal Reserve does not protect Iraq’s money obtained from the sale of Iraqi oil, noting that Washington also protects Iraq from its creditors as an ally. But if the situation changes , I t is certainly the US will leave it as we see that Iraq, without losing the United States, has a budget deficit of between $ 19 billion and $ 23 billion, based on current oil prices of between $ 59 and $ 60. Politically, Iraq may lose a lot because it is known that Washington is sponsoring this system at the Arab, regional and international levels. The passage of the proposal of “law” has serious negative repercussions on the political, economic, military and security aspects of Iraq, and those who do not feel it may be living in a coma from the Iraqi reality.
The bottom line is that it is not in Iraq’s interest as a state and society to pass a proposal of a “law” whether in the form of a resolution or a law. The Iraqi citizen suffers from political, security and military crises, especially the economic crisis in all parts of the Iraqi state in terms of financial and administrative corruption , bribery and nepotism , this is inherent from the previous governments , in addition, there is a popular move in southern Iraq, which can be extended to the rest of Iraq if these crises continue, especially economic ones, and then fear that the Iraqi society will explode and thus it is very difficult to control it that the Iraq’s economy is unable to withstand any economic crisis more than three months . As for Iran, which aspires to remove US forces from Iraq, and in a realistic view, it is not in Iran’s interest after the economic sanctions imposed by the United States of America, that Iraq to be in a poor economic situation, because Iraq has always been the exit of Iran from all economic crises, especially in the stage after the year 2003.
Iraqi Studies Unit
Rawabet Center for Research and Strategic Studies