US dealing with Iraq; From Baghdad’s “independence” and “sovereignty” to repeat the absurd promises of exit
= “Saba-backlink” href = “https://www.mehrnews.com”> Mehr News Agency , International Group: In this few weeks of Donald Trump’s reliance on The US presidency is going on, the market of debate about possible Tehran-Washington talks is hot; Negotiations that have previously began indirectly and led to a “comprehensive agreement of the Joint Action” (Brajam), but Trump out of its first presidency, despite Iran’s constructive cooperation. Imposed on Tehran in the form of “maximum pressure”.
In this connection, the Supreme Leader of the Revolution on Friday morning (February 7th) with the Army Air Force commanders and staff, use the “two-year negotiating and negotiation experience. They considered the concession and the shortage but the failure to do so “and added:” The United States violated the same treaty despite its deficiencies. ” Therefore, negotiating with such a non -firm state is, inappropriate and unmistakable, and should not be negotiated with it.
In addition to the brigade, with a historical look at US commitments and treaties with other countries around the world, it can be found to be useless and even harmful to these conversations that violated and violated treaties are violated. America with Iraq is an example of those items.
Why was America not a reliable ally for Iraq?
US-Iraq relations have always been influenced by military interventions, political agreements, and security treaties in recent decades. From the occupation of Iraq in 2008 until the withdrawal of US troops and subsequent military agreements, Washington has repeatedly violated its commitments and has used Iraq as a tool to advance its strategic goals. These policies have not only caused instability in Iraq, but have greatly reduced the trust of the people and officials in the United States. In this article we will examine the most important violations of US obligations to Iraq and its consequences.
1 occupation of Iraq and the promise of stability Strong>
US invasion of Iraq in year 6 claimed that it had weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam Hussein’s regime must be overthrown in order to maintain international security. However, after the occupation of Iraq, it became clear that such weapons were not existed and that the attack was mostly related to US strategic interests in the region.
After Saddam’s overthrow, the United States promised to establish security and stability in Iraq and rebuild its infrastructure after the overthrow of Saddam. But one of the first US actions was the complete dissolution of the Iraqi army and security forces, which led to hundreds of thousands of unemployed military. This has led many of these forces to be attracted to armed groups and the country quickly involved armed uprisings.
In addition, the United States was directly involved in the political process of Iraq and led the new constitution to exacerbate ethnic and religious differences; This has led to internal conflicts in Iraq to date.
۱ The Status Agreement (Sofa) and incomplete exit
“Status Agreement” The Status of Forces Agreement ( Sofa ) between Iraq and America in the year Signed and its main purpose was to determine the legal status of US troops in Iraq and their presence after the official occupation of the country. The agreement came in response to Iraq’s widespread domestic protests against the presence of US troops and political pressure inside the country. In the agreement, the United States pledged to withdraw its troops by the end of the year. The decision was made after a series of negotiations between the governments of the two countries, and at that time many Iraqis demanded the complete withdrawal of foreign forces. The status of the situation was originally regarded as the end of the US military presence in Iraq and its return to its national sovereignty.
However, US troops’ departure from Iraq was incomplete and conditional. Although US combat forces officially withdrew from Iraq by the end, US military bases remained active in the country. The Iraqi government sought to complete the troops, but in practice, Washington left some of its forces in Iraq for various reasons, including the fight against terrorist threats and the preservation of its influence in the region. In particular, the United States used special forces, military advisers and informal groups to continue the counterterrorism and security operations.
This incomplete exit was not only a clear violation of the situation of the troops but also fueled distrust between the two countries. The Iraqi government has repeatedly called for a complete withdrawal of US troops and respect for its sovereignty, but the United States did not pay attention to these requests because of its strategic interests in the region. The unofficial presence of US forces and the use of military bases for various operations caused Iraqis dissatisfaction and increased gaps in the relations between the two countries.
, on the other hand, this indicates that even with the signing of official agreements, the United States was reluctant to reduce its presence in the region and preferred to use From Iraq to maintain its influence as a base for its regional purposes. Finally, these unstable policies and violations of US obligations to agree to the situation of the troops have made Iraq increasingly in the circle of US influence and other regional powers and away from the goals of its political and security independence.
1 violate Iraqi sovereignty with military operations and assassination of commanders /strong>
One of the most prominent violations of Iraq’s sovereignty by the United States was military operations without consultation and approval of the Iraqi government. These military interventions continued, especially after the official withdrawal of the US combat forces in 2008, and explicitly violated Iraq’s sovereignty and independence. One of the most important examples of this violation was the assassination of senior Iraqi commanders without the knowledge or consent of the Baghdad government. In this regard, the assassination of Martyr Qasim Suleimani, commander of the Quds Force of the Revolutionary Guards and Abu Mahdi al -Mahmand, was one of the most prominent and full -fledged Iraqi actions in January by US drones near Baghdad Airport. Shadowed.
These operations were not only explicit violations of international law but also directly influenced Iraqi-US relations. The Iraqi government and people strongly responded to the assassination, and in parliament, a resolution was adopted that demanded the complete withdrawal of foreign forces, especially the Americans.
This caused many Iraqis to feel that their country’s sovereignty is threatened by foreign forces and without respect for the principles of sovereignty, military operations in their country. It becomes. The Iraqi government was in a difficult position in this situation, as Iraqi people and officials were opposed to the move, and more and more realized the fact that Washington’s policies were more concerned with its interests than maintaining Iraqi independence and security. / P>
1 Economic pressures and exploitation of financial influence
In addition to military intervention in Iraq, the US has widely used its economic and financial tools to pressure the Baghdad government and control its economic policies in addition to military intervention in Iraq. One of the most prominent examples of these economic pressure was sanctions and economic threats against Iraqi officials and various institutions. The United States has sought to pressure the Iraqi government and force it to accept its policies by threatening to block Iraqi assets in US banks and prevent its access to the global financial system. These pressures, especially after the assassination of Martyr Suleimani and the increased tensions between the two countries, increased sharply, causing Iraq to have serious economic problems.
1. Tool of Iraq in regional tensions
One of the important aspects of the US violation of Iraq’s sovereignty is the use of its tool in regional tensions. Iraq has always been used as an important tool in US policies in the region because of its strategic position in the Middle East. Following the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime and the occupation of Iraq in 2008, the United States used the country as a base to counter its regional threats and advancing geopolitical interests.
This use of Iraq in regional tensions, especially in US relations with Iran, Syria, and regional armed groups, led Iraq directly to conflict and transnational competitions. Become and its sovereignty is severely damaged. Iraq has also become a tool to strengthen US influence in the region. Washington tried to expand its influence in the surrounding countries by using Iraq as a market for American goods and as a trade center in the region.
Conclusion
since Iraq was occupied by the United States, their relations show that Washington has repeatedly violated its obligations and used it as a tool to advance its strategic interests. It’s done. Whether at the time of the occupation of Iraq and the promises of rebuilding, at the time of the departure of troops or at the time of military attacks and economic pressures, the United States has shown that it does not respect Iraq’s sovereignty and independence; Policies that have increased the distrust of the United States in Iraq and paved the way for expanding Iraq’s relations with other regional and international powers.
Finally, the future of Iraq-US relations depends on whether Washington will be willing to respect Iraq’s national sovereignty and intervene in internal affairs. Kill, or continue to violate their obligations and cause further instability in the area.
Now, given the two-decade-long US covenant in relations with Iraq and ignoring Baghdad’s independence and sovereignty, the question comes to mind that Trump can be trusted and for Trump. Getting points, sitting at the negotiating table?
