A few weeks after Donald Trump returned to the White House, there was media speculation about possible negotiations for Tehran-Washington. Previously, negotiations were held between Iran and global powers with indirect US participation to revive the “Co-Inclusive Plan of Action” (JCPOA). It reimposed unprecedented anti-Iran sanctions in the form of a “maximum pressure” campaign.
On the call for reopened consultations, on Friday, February 7, Ayatollah, the leader of the Islamic Revolution, seyed Ali Khamenei at a gathering of air force and air defense commanders and staff. Negotiations and concessions on Iran will not bring any consequences. “The United States, despite its shortcomings, violated the same agreement and then retreated. Therefore, negotiations with such governments are unwise, ignorant, dishonorable, and should not be negotiated with it. Not,” Ayatollah Seied Ali Khamenei said.
Apart from the JCPOA’s US violation, the record of the US rejecting its commitment to agreements and consultations with other countries around the world reveals the futility and risks of these consultations. In this paper we look at the US agreement with Iraq as a case study.
Why wasn’t the US a trusted ally of Iraq?
Over the past decades, US-Iraq relations have been characterized by military intervention, political agreements, and security agreements. From the invasion of Iraq in 2003 to the withdrawal of US troops and subsequent military agreements, Washington repeatedly violated its commitments, using Iraq as a tool to advance its strategic goals. Not only have these policies created instability in Iraq, they have seriously undermined the trust of Iraqi people and officials in the United States. In this article, we examine the most important violations of the US commitment to Iraq and their implications.
1. Violated promise to establish occupation and stability in Iraq
The 2003 US invasion of Iraq was based on allegations that the country had weapons of mass destruction and that it would maintain international security to overthrow Saddam’s administration. However, after the Iraqi occupation, no such weapons were present and it became clear that the attack was more related to the strategic interests of the region than anything else.
After Saddam’s overthrow, the US promised to establish security and stability in Iraq and rebuild its infrastructure. However, one of the first US actions was the complete dissolution of the Iraqi Army and security forces, leaving hundreds of thousands of soldiers unemployed. This action attracted many of these forces to armed groups, and the country quickly engaged in armed rebellions.
Furthermore, the United States directly interfered with Iraq’s political processes and led the drafting of a new constitution in a way that widened ethnic and religious rifts. What has created many internal conflicts in Iraq is still ongoing.
2-Army agreement status (sofa) and unfulfilled promise of withdrawing completely:
In 2008, the status of the military agreement (SOFA) was signed between Iraq and the United States, with its main purpose being the conditions that determined the legal status of the US military in Iraq and their existence after the country’s formal occupation. It was to decide. The agreement was formed in response to widespread internal Iraqi protests against the presence of American troops and political pressures within the country. Under the agreement, the United States pledged to withdraw its troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. The decision came after a series of negotiations between the governments of both countries, where many Iraqis wanted the complete withdrawal of foreign troops. The sofa originally intended to end the existence of US troops in Iraq and restore the country to national sovereignty.
However, the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq under this agreement was incomplete and conditional. By the end of 2011, American combat forces had officially withdrawn from Iraq, but the country’s US military bases were operating. The Iraqi government called for a complete withdrawal of its troops, but in reality, Washington left a part of Iraq’s army for a variety of reasons, including fighting the threat of terrorists and maintaining influence in the region. Ta. In particular, the United States continued its so-called terrorist and security operations using special forces, military advisors and informal groups.
This incomplete withdrawal not only was a serious violation of the Sofa, but also encouraged mistrust between the two countries. The Iraqi government repeatedly called for the complete withdrawal of US troops and respect for its sovereignty, but the US ignored these demands for strategic interests in the region. The informal presence of the US military and the use of military bases for various operations sparked dissatisfaction among Iraqis and increased rifts in relations between the two countries.
Furthermore, the US rejected its promise, indicating that despite the signing of a formal agreement, the US still does not want to reduce its presence in the region, and that it would use Iraq as the basis for its regional goals. It was shown that he liked to maintain his influence. Ultimately, these instability policies and violations of US commitments along SOFA have led Iraq to become increasingly within the impact of US and other regions’ authority, and to the political and security of the country. I’ve moved away from my goal of independence.
3. Violate Iraq’s sovereignty with military operations and assassination of resistance commanders
One of the most prominent violations of Iraq’s sovereignty by the US was military operations without consultation and approval from the Iraqi government. These military interventions continued, particularly after the formal withdrawal of US combat forces in 2011, clearly violating Iraq’s sovereignty and independence. One of the most important examples of this sovereignty violation was the assassination of a senior Iraqi commander without the knowledge or consent of the Baghdad government. In this regard, in January 2020, by US drones near Baghdad Airport, the IRGC’s Quds force commander, Lt. Gen. Kasem Soleimani, and Vice-Chief of the popular mobilising force, Abu Madi al-Mundis. The assassination was a prominent and controversial action that violated most Iraq’s sovereignty by the US drones near Baghdad Airport.
These operations were not only a significant violation of international law, but also had a direct impact on our relationship with Iraq. The Iraqi government and people reacted strongly to the assassination, and a resolution was passed in Congress calling for the complete withdrawal of foreigners, especially Americans, from the country.
The incident made many Iraqis feel that their sovereignty was threatened by foreign military forces and that military operations were being carried out in the soil without respecting the principles that respect the rights of sovereign states. The Iraqi government was in a difficult position in this situation. Because Iraqi people and officials also opposed such actions, increasingly realising that Washington’s policies were more concerned with their own interests than maintaining Iraq’s independence and security.
4. Abuse of economic pressure and financial impacts
In addition to military intervention in Iraq, the US is also widely using economic and financial tools to put pressure on the Baghdad government and manage the country’s economic policies. One of the most prominent examples of this economic pressure was the sanctions and economic threats against Iraqi officials and various institutions. By freeze Iraqi assets at American banks and threatening to prevent the country from accessing the global financial system, the US has tried to put pressure on the Iraqi government and force it to accept its policies. These pressures rose sharply, especially after the assassination of martian Soleimani and escalated tensions between the two countries, causing Iraq to experience serious economic problems.
5. Use Iraq as a means of local tensions
One important aspect of the US Iraqi sovereignty violation is the use of the country as a tool for regional tensions. Iraq has always been used as an important tool in the region’s US policy due to its strategic location in the heart of the Middle East. After the collapse of the Saddam administration in 2003 and the occupation of Iraq in 2003, the US used the country as a base to counter regional threats and promote geopolitical interests.
By using Washington’s own interests in regional tensions, particularly in relations with the United States with Iran, Syria and local armed groups, Iraq is directly involved in conflicts and competition outside the region and seriously imposed its sovereignty by using Washington’s own interests in regional tensions. It’s becoming more and more detrimental to. Iraq has also become a tool to strengthen the US influence in regions of the economy. Washington sought to expand its influence in neighboring countries by using Iraq as a market for American goods and as a trade exchange center for the region.
Conclusion
Since the 2003 US invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq, relations between the two countries show that Washington has repeatedly violated its commitments and uses the country as a tool to promote strategic interests. . During the promise of occupation and reconstruction of Iraq, during the withdrawal of troops, or during military attacks and economic pressures, the United States has shown that it will not respect Iraq’s sovereignty and independence. A policy that raised the distrust of Iraqis in the United States and paved the way for greater relations with other parts of Iraq and international authority.
Ultimately, will the future of US-Iraqi relations be willing to respect Iraq’s national sovereignty and stop its interference in internal affairs, or will it violate its commitment to cause further regional instability? It depends on what you say.
Given the violation of the US two-year promise in relations with Iraq and its disregard for Baghdad’s sovereignty, the question now is:
MNA/6373996