Mediaboss Marketing

The regional hegemonic powers clearly set out to attack Iraqs sovereignty and national dignity. The zero-sum game between Iran and Turkey over influence in Iraq is no longer so surprising. But it raises serious questions about the Arab position on what these two countries are plotting against an Arab state with a long history.What has happened between Iran and Turkey in recent times is not just a verbal squabble that spilled over into a diplomatic crisis, as it may seem. Indeed, there is a strong antagonism between these two countries that masquerades behind the common interest of pursuing their colonial projects while scorning Arab national sovereignty and interests.

Iranian Ambassador to Iraq Iraj Masjedi said that his country does not tolerate the presence of foreign troops in Iraq, nor a military intervention on its territory, alluding to the occupation of Iraqi territory by Turkish forces. Such a declaration would have been fair, if only it had not been made by an official of a state that is literally doing what it accuses others of doing.

Iran and Turkey are foreign powers that have been illegally intervening in Iraq for years. Each is embroiled in a barbarous occupation of parts of Iraq. How can one call the other out and describe it as an occupier? The mullahs themselves openly boasted years ago that they occupied the capital of Iraq among four Arab capitals.

No one can forget the March 2015 statement by Ali Younesi, Irans former minister of intelligence and adviser to the current Iranian president: Iran has become an empire, as it has been throughout history, and its capital is now Baghdad.

Funny how the Iranian ambassador called on Turkey to withdraw to the international border and leave the task of securing Iraq to the Iraqis, but did not tell his own side the same. His country has spread its sectarian militias all over Iraq. It is hampering the unity of the Iraqi people and sabotaging all efforts to restore security on its territory.

Of course, what applies to Iran is sure to apply to Turkey. Both have a strategic expansion project at the cost of Arab states: nibbling away at their territories, plundering their riches and exploiting them in a game of blackmail against the major powers.

cnxps.cmd.push(function () { cnxps({ playerId: '36af7c51-0caf-4741-9824-2c941fc6c17b' }).render('4c4d856e0e6f4e3d808bbc1715e132f6'); });

THIS MAY be the moment of the projects clash, and conflicts of interest may arise after years of pretend cooperation and coordination between them. In repeated joint meetings in recent years, Iran and Turkey have spoken of historic friendships and other rosy phrases that did not weather the first storm that rocked the walls of these frail ties.

He went on to speak inappropriately about what he described as non-ancient Arab countries. The meeting saw a splurge of histrionics from both sides on the Palestinian issue, which they are fighting each other to exploit to conquer the hearts of Arab people, so as to implement their colonial projects through sectarian and terrorist groups and elements, alas, of Arab nationalities.

The conflict between the Iranian and Turkish projects on Iraqi soil is neither new, nor fleeting, nor shocking.

Few have bought the words of phony friendship swapped by the two countries leaders, who have nothing but anti-Arab sentiment. In Syria as in Iraq, there is an intense or temporarily buried conflict between the two countries, marked by divergent sectarian tendencies and a desire to extend ones influence to others detriment.

Since 2003, the two sides have banded together to put a lid on the Kurdish project, consenting to violate Iraqs sovereignty from east to west and to launch strike after strike against the Kurds. Afterward, the mullahs kept silent about Turkeys presence in Syria, especially in Idlib. Turkey turned a blind eye to Irans presence in Syria.

But Turkeys strong incursion into northern Iraq in recent months did not sit well with the mullahs. They did not welcome Turkeys growing role in Lebanon either. The latest spat brings out a repressed anger that is looking for an exit to redefine the dynamics between the two players.

Iran and Turkey, aided by transnational terrorist organizations and groups, have done much to blur religion and politics, playing on sectarianism and seeking to erode national affiliations in favor of confessional affinities.

The mullahs view Iraq as part of the new Persian empire, as declared in 2017by former Iranian defense minister Gen. Hossein Dehghan in 2017, while Erdogans neo-Ottomanism looks at Arabs with the same supremacist gaze as the mullahs.

The Turkish-Iranian conflict in Iraq is the result, as noted above, of the intersection of Turkish nationalist and Iranian sectarian projects to control and dominate the Arab region and to take advantage of the power vacuum that has existed since the 2011 troubles. We may expect each side to get bolder as it solidifies its positions in Iraq and elsewhere.

THIS ADDS a new burden to Iraq and Iraqis, and weakens the current governments efforts to gradually restore the countrys role and status.

The Arab position on Irans and Turkeys assaults on Iraqi sovereignty is well known. However, Arab rejection of their interference is limited to words, and does not translate into coordinated efforts within a joint Arab diplomatic framework to respond resolutely to these violations.

In fact, the room for maneuver of Arab actors is thin. Perhaps this is due to the circumstances of the Arab regional system or the declining role of international organizations, the lack of effective international cooperation, and the changing interests and priorities due to the circumstances of the coronavirus pandemic.

Nevertheless, it is imperative to provide all possible Arab support to Iraq to free this great Arab country from the straitjacket of the regional power struggle between Iran and Turkey.

The writer is a UAE political analyst and former Federal National Council candidate.

More here:
Iran and Turkey's power struggle in Iraq - opinion - The Jerusalem Post

Baghdad Monday, March 15, 2021 H.E. Minister of Planning, Dr. Khaled Battal Al-Najm received Dr. Salah El Hajj Hassan, Representative of the Food Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) in Iraq and H.E Ambassador Safia Al-Suhail, Permanent Representative of the Republic of Iraq to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

The meeting aimed to strengthen cooperation between FAO Iraq and the ministry of planning. The discussions focused on enhancing the joint framework's implementation for the development of the agricultural sector in Iraq and the collaboration mechanism between the relevant ministries. The joint framework was identified as the appropriate road map for setting each ministry's priorities in detail and align the plan with each ministry's strategic objectives.

In his welcoming notes, Dr. Khaled Battal Al-Najm emphasized the importance of reviving the agricultural sector to be a leader in Iraq's economy and maximize its contribution to national production; he also commended the effectiveness of FAO Iraq in supporting the agricultural sector.

Ambassador Safia Al-Suhail discussed best practices in promoting and activating the cooperation framework, stressing the Iraq's need for the FAO support in programs that target the agricultural sector and farmers, improve the environment, and build or strengthen capacities through programs that provide institutional and individual support.

Dr. ElHajj Hassan stressed the importance of the joint framework as an effective, innovative, and sustainable mechanism for coordinating Iraq's agricultural sector development. This framework will guarantee the best investment of resources in supporting sustainable agriculture growth to achieve food security, employment generation, and climate change resilience. He added that FAO will provide the necessary support to improve Iraq's agriculture sector. At the end of the meeting, the Minister thanked FAO's delegation and highlighted the importance of cooperation and coordination with the FAO to develop Iraq's agricultural sector.

View original post here:
FAO in Iraq with the Minister of Planning and the Permanent Representative of Iraq to FAO in Rome, discussed strengthening the cooperation framework...

Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa Al-Kadhimi renewed Wednesday the governments stance on steering clear from the use of live ammunition against demonstrators.

During a meeting for the Iraqi National Security Council (INSC), the PM rejected attempted attacks on private and public properties and the use of live ammunition to disperse protesters. But he called for providing security forces with the proper equipment to fulfill their duties.

Kadhimi commended their efforts to confront terrorist and criminal gangs and to impose security and stability.

He also emphasized his full support for the army, police, and all security personnel.

The prime minister directed the security commanders to be present at demonstrations in order to protect the protesters, and private and public properties.

A statement from Kadhimi's office said that the meeting discussed the recent developments in the country and measures to improve the efficiency of the security forces as they face enormous security challenges.

The INSC also approved a plan for Iraq to join the Joint Counter-Terrorism taskforce in the Middle East and North Africa.

See the original post:
Iraq's PM Rejects Use of Live Ammunition to Disperse Protestors - Asharq Al-awsat - English

Detroit man cleared in gas station bombing fights for citizenship

A Detroit man, who moved to the U.S. at 6-years-old, says if he would not have been wrongfully convicted 30 years ago, he'd be a citizen today but immigration is still trying ot send him to Iraq where he says his Christian beliefs will get him killed.

DETROIT (FOX 2) - A Detroit man who spent 13 years in prison for the bombing of a gas station in the late 1980s but was later exonerated is now facing a possible death sentence in the form of deportation to Iraq.

Waleed 'Tony' Isho was wrongfully convicted of the 1989 bombing of a gas station on Seven Mile and Woodward. He was arrested, tried and, after only 40 minutes of deliberation, Tony was convicted and spent 13 years in prison.

The moment he was released, immigration wanted to deport him.

It took another 18 years before the conviction was removed and he was exonerated by Wayne County Circuit Court Judge Qiana Lillard in 2020.

"When she said you were exonerated vacated, I still get chills- I got chills now talking about it," said Tony.

But with his conviction removed, immigration was still knocking on the door since Tony was brought to the U.S. when he was just 6 years old.

"I've been out here - about 18 years since I've been out of prison - and I followed everything immigration wanted of me. Everything," he said.

If he is deported to Iraq, he'd likely die. Attorney Marvie Neubauer is fighting for his citizenship and says Tony can't hide in Iraq.

"There's persecution for the Chaldeans in Iraq at this point in time. He's marked, he has Christian tattoos, that's not something he can hide," said Neubauer.

The two met at a prayer meeting just two years ago and Neubauer said if she was not convicted, Tony would be a citizen today.

After the meeting, Marvie went on his mission to get Tony exonerated - which happened last year - but the citizenship eludes him for now.

"Citizenship was halted because the US government, as a result of his wrongful conviction, took away his green card - thereby taking away his right to become a citizen," said Neubauer.

Tony is fighting the order from immigration and there's a temporary agreement to keep him in the U.S. due to his innocence.

Tony was on a green card in 1989 and, typically, it takes five years until citizenship is granted. He and his attorney argue that he not been wrongfully convicted, he'd be a citizen today. Immigration says he has to start from the beginning - which means five years on a green card before becoming a legal citizen.

Waleed 'Tony' Isho spent 13 years for a gas station bombing but was later exonerated. But his wrongful conviction could wind up with him being deported to Iraq, despite being on track for citizenship before his arrest.

The rest is here:
Chaldean cleared of Detroit gas station bombing fights deportation to Iraq, likely death - FOX 2 Detroit

MISSOURI, USA: On Aug. 2, 1990, the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein ordered his army to invade and capture Kuwait. This ill-fated decision forever changed Iraq and the lives of all Iraqis and the first coalition war against Iraqi began on Jan. 16, 1991.

Some 30 years later, we are still assessing the consequences of the invasion of Kuwait. As part of its special coverage of the Gulf War, Arab News has done a deep dive into the topic to produce a multimedia feature titled Desert Storm: 30 years on.

Iraq between 1991 and 2003 suffered tremendously under international sanctions. Although the Oil for food UN program was designed to make sure no Iraqis went hungry under the sanctions, Saddams regime prevented food and medicine from reaching dissident populations still under his control (particularly Shiites).

As a result, some 500,000 Iraqi children are estimated to have died preventable deaths during this period. The brutal dictatorship that terrorized all Iraqis finally fell in the 2003 installment of the Gulf War. For a brief moment it seemed life would get better for the citizens of a country with one of the worlds largest proven oil reserves.

The successful coalition military campaign quickly degenerated, however, into a disastrous occupation. One event in particular came to symbolize everything the Americans did wrong in their occupation of Iraq: the scandal surrounding American treatment of Iraqi prisoners in the infamous Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad.

First came the very fact that the Americans chose the Abu Ghraib prison to house close to 4,000 prisoners (mostly Sunni Arabs suspected of participating in the post-2003 insurgency against the coalition occupation regime). Abu Ghraib had been infamous during Saddams reign, akin to Irans Evin prison in Tehran. Long before 2003, getting sent to Abu Ghraib stood out as one of the worst fates someone could face in Iraq.

Follow our special coverage of Iraq

Instead of assuaging already suspicious Iraqis and reassuring them that post-Saddam Iraq would be different, the Americans simply took over Abu Ghraib and began using it much as Saddam had. Coalition forces likewise installed themselves in Saddams palaces (including the Green Zone in Baghdad), turning them into their new administrative headquarters for the occupation.

For many Iraqis, the message seemed clear: The Americans were the new Saddam, except this time Sunnis would take the place of Shiites and Kurds as Iraqs oppressed groups. Just in case anyone remained unsure about Iraqs new dictators, the Abu Ghraib scandal broke in April of 2004.

It began with the death of an Iraqi detainee being interrogated at the prison. Soon after, a US soldier discovered a CD-ROM disc in the prison with photos of prisoner abuse. He reported this to his superiors, who began an investigation (as is standard operating procedure for such reports).

The news program 60 Minutes soon obtained the graphic photos of detainees being tortured by their American guards and broadcast a story on the matter.

The photos of the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib shocked the world. CNN summarized the types of abuse as follows:

Although most people think of Iraq as a very hot country, much of this torture occurred in December 2003 when temperatures in an unheated prison get quite cold and damp. Keeping the prisoners naked under such conditions, in addition to various forms of humiliation, stress positions, sleep deprivation, cold-water, high-pressure hoses, physical abuse and psychological abuse, certainly amounted to torture.

By early May of 2004, George W. Bush, then US president, appeared before news cameras around the world disavowing the abuse of prisoners and his regret for the humiliation suffered. The damage had already been done, however, as the evidence of torture and humiliation of Iraqis swelled the ranks of militant groups and fueled the insurgency in the country.

If the torture of prisoners in Abu Ghraib was intended to save coalition lives by forcing prisoners to divulge information about the Iraqi insurgents, it had very much the opposite effect. Responsibility for the whole sorry episode never ended up reaching very high up the American chain of command.

Although Donald Rumsfeld, who was secretary of defense at the time, testified before the US Congress and Senate, neither he nor President Bush or Vice-President Cheney were ever really blamed.

The narrative that emerged instead was one of a few bad apples on the night guard shift at Abu Ghraib. Low-level soldiers and civilian contractors received demotions, reprimands and prison sentences of a few months. The highest official sanctioned for the abuse was Janis Karpinski, the brigadier general in charge of several prisons in Iraq. She was rotated out of Iraq and demoted to colonel.

Follow our special coverage of Iraq

For a country that prides itself on its human-rights standards and frequently chides foreign leaders from a moral high ground, this looked like a hypocritical outcome. Many thought it unlikely that higher level officers and government officials did not know what was going on in Abu Ghraib prison.

At the very least, President Bush, Vice-President Cheney and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld created the kind of standard operating procedures and climate that allowed Abu Ghraib to occur. They insisted on calling captured militants enemy combatants rather than prisoners of war so that they could send them to Guantanamo Bay without formal charges or Geneva Convention protections.

On other occasions they sent the captured fighters on secret flights to Egypt or secret CIA detention centers in Eastern Europe so they could be tortured there, far from the light of the world. They engaged in various forms of sophistry to classify things like water boarding enhanced interrogation rather than torture.

In the end, all of this hurt rather than helped the American cause. Such abuses gave the insurgents in Iraq the oxygen they needed to survive several more years than they should have. Some of the insurgents even eventually morphed into the self-proclaimed Islamic State or Daesh.

To be certain, some of the outcomes from Saddams 1990 blunder turned out for the better. Iraqi Kurds in particular found an opportunity to emerge from the ashes of Saddams genocidal policies against them in the 1980s.

The unacceptable risk that Saddams nuclear weapons program would have posed to the world a program which was just a few years short of completion in 1990 receded. However, as with almost all watershed moments in a countrys historical trajectory, the positive changes found themselves weighed down by the bad.

David Romano is Thomas G. Strong Professor of Middle East Politics at Missouri State University

Excerpt from:
How Abu Ghraib became a byword for the disastrous occupation of Iraq - Arab News