While the federal government in Baghdad is preparing to celebrate next Wednesday, what it describes as “Sovereignty Day,” which marks the withdrawal of the “International Coalition” forces from Iraq, the majority of Kurdish leaders, especially in Erbil, the capital of the region, express strong fears of this withdrawal.
On Sunday, the media office of the Prime Minister of the Kurdistan Regional Government, Masrour Barzani, issued an explanatory statement regarding the report published in the Financial Times, which included phrases attributed to Barzani in which he described the American withdrawal as “shameful” and that it would “leave Washington’s Kurdish allies defenseless.” Despite the different tone in the statement compared to what was reported in the newspaper, it did not go beyond fears that the United States of America, which leads the “international coalition,” would withdraw from Iraq by September 30 of this year.
The statement from Barzani’s office said, “The published report did not seek professional accuracy and objectivity in conveying his statements as they were stated in text. Rather, the author of the report deliberately inserted personal conclusions and interpretations that overshadowed the truth of the stated contents.” Regarding the position of the region and its prime minister, the statement stated that “the withdrawal of American forces and international coalition forces from Iraq comes at a very sensitive time, as the Kurdistan region has been subjected to more than a thousand missile attacks and drone attacks.” In reference to the attacks launched by Iran and its armed factions in Iraq on the region during the past months.
Barzani believes that “leaving the Kurdistan region exposed without providing any defensive systems to protect it is a matter of concern.” He added, "The continued state of security instability in Iraq constitutes a clear threat to the foundations of the federal system." The statement expressed, “The region is proud of its close relations with the United States, and that it is conducting continuous dialogues and communications with officials in the Islamic Republic of Iran. We have repeatedly reaffirmed that the Kurdistan Region is not a party to any war or conflict.” He pointed out that “the presence of Iranian opposition forces in Iraq and the Kurdistan region is not the result of the moment, but rather an extension of many years whose roots go back to the era of the previous regime.” This is the pretext used by Iran to launch its attacks on the region.
In contrast to the celebrations held by Baghdad on the day of withdrawal, which suspended official working hours for four days on this occasion, Barzani’s statement did not contain any words welcoming that withdrawal, but he affirmed his support for the efforts of Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi “aimed at combating corruption, disarming the militias, and settling the outstanding issues between Erbil and Baghdad based on constitutional frameworks.”
Researcher and consultant Kifah Mahmoud believes that the fears expressed by Kurdish leaders are “justified” given the range of risks associated with the withdrawal of America and the international coalition from Iraq, and among those fears is that “ISIS has not ended, as it still has sleeper cells in very sensitive areas, whether in the vicinity of the Kurdistan region or Baghdad, as well as in Anbar, Mosul, and Tikrit.” These cells move from time to time and carry out some operations announced by Baghdad or the Peshmerga forces.” In an interview with Asharq Al-Awsat, Mahmoud believes that “the American withdrawal will encourage these cells to move, and will give them more space for activity.” Especially since the Iraqi air defense system has not been completed yet, and the monitoring and reconnaissance system still needs to be completed. We should not forget that the United States relied on satellites, spy planes, and other reconnaissance means to monitor the movements of terrorists in Iraq and provide the necessary information to the Iraqi forces.” In addition, Mahmoud believes that “the Iraqi military system has not yet reached the level that qualifies it to fully protect the country. There are still shortcomings at the level of armament, equipment, and integration of military ranks, and evidence of this is the state of fragmentation and the presence of multiple armed factions and militias.”
It remains the Iraqi government’s decision to implement the US Treasury Department’s decision. Regarding the Iranian flight ban, the subject of great controversy in light of the refusal of parties from the “coordination framework” forces to adhere to it, in contrast to the declared official position of adherence. According to a government source, Baghdad received a serious American warning against the consequences of receiving any Iranian airline at Iraqi airports, noting that the government of Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi had asked Washington to grant an exception to some airports from the no-fly decision. Including “Najaf Airport” for humanitarian reasons. According to an informed political source, “Iraq is now between the American hammer and the Iranian anvil.” He added to Asharq Al-Awsat, “The matter actually appears to be very difficult, as going along with what Tehran wants by not fully adhering to the no-fly resolution could result in sanctions that can no longer be tolerated by Iraq, especially since a shipment of US dollars will arrive in Baghdad soon as part of the successful discussions held by the Prime Minister, Ali Al-Zaidi, with the American administration, especially President Donald Trump, during his participation in the United Nations General Assembly meetings.”
The dollar exchange rates have recently witnessed a sharp rise in Iraqi markets. Which had a negative impact on the daily life of the Iraqi citizen in light of Iraq’s inability to export all of its oil from the “Strait of Hormuz.” Because Tehran refused to grant him an exception; Which led to a delay in paying the salaries of about 8 million employees and retirees who depend on the state’s general budget. The informed political source said, “The leaders of the (Shiite) Coordination Framework are trying to hold the stick from the middle during their discussion of the matter in the presence of Al-Zaidi and with him, in terms of not going too far in challenging the American decision, and at the same time declaring their support for the attempts made by the Prime Minister in order to obtain one exception, even for Najaf Airport only.”
An official government source confirmed, on Sunday, that Baghdad “received a serious and direct American warning that continuing to receive any Iranian airline at Iraqi airports exposes the airport and the entities and companies that provide services for these flights to American sanctions.” The source said in a press statement, “The American side made it clear to the Iraqi government that the punitive measures will not be limited only to the Iranian airline companies covered by the sanctions, but may also affect any destination or airport that provides services or facilitates the operation of these companies’ flights, including landing services, ground handling, refueling... and other services related to flights.” The same government source added, “This warning put the Iraqi government in front of a single choice; It is to avoid exposing Iraqi airports, the air sector, and the entities operating in it to American sanctions, and thus continue to stop receiving flights belonging to Iranian airlines at Iraqi airports.”
The source pointed out that “the decision was not linked to an Iraqi political position regarding air traffic with Iran, but rather came as a result of the legal and economic risks resulting from the American sanctions, especially since the continued provision of services to Iranian aircraft exposes the Iraqi parties dealing with them to punitive measures.”
In addition, at a time when the final US withdrawal from Iraq is approaching on September 30, the process of “confining weapons to the state” has begun to witness a clear decline, after several factions refused to adhere to the deadline set for that, in parallel with the escalation of American pressure to push Baghdad to adhere to its pledges in this regard. Professor of Political Science, Dr. Talib Muhammad Karim, told Asharq Al-Awsat, “The Iraqi government seems clearly determined to achieve the principle of the state’s monopoly on force, not only as a security issue, but also as part of rebuilding the state and arranging its political and international relations and economic partnerships.” He adds, “The rules of the game itself are beginning to change. From the logic of balance between multiple armed forces, to the logic of integrating power within state institutions, and in parallel with that; “Redefining Iraq’s relations with the United States, the European Union, and the countries of the region.”
In the same general context, it was noteworthy to many observers in Baghdad that the violent attack launched by Ali Akbar Velayati, advisor to Iranian leader Mojtaba Khamenei, on the “coordination framework” and his description of it as “empty,” did not receive any response from that “framework,” which includes the most prominent Shiite leaders. Including 4 Prime Ministers; 3 of them are former, they are: Nouri al-Maliki, Haider al-Abadi, and Muhammad Shiaa al-Sudani, and a fourth current one is Ali al-Zaidi.
The Lebanese team supporting the “framework agreement” with Israel attaches special importance to the upcoming meeting between Prime Minister Nawaf Salam and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, on Monday, in Washington, as it constitutes an essential stop for exploring the American position a month before the Knesset elections in Israel. The meeting comes in light of the rising level of Lebanese fears about the possibility of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu expanding the security zone in southern Lebanon, during the period that separates him from its appointment, by targeting the highlands located between Iqlim al-Tuffah and Jabal al-Rayhan, in the event that he becomes certain that he needs to expand it to ensure his return to the presidency of the government.
These Lebanese fears remain more legitimate than ever, if Salam confirms that there is an intention by the American administration to postpone the Lebanese-Israeli negotiations, under American auspices, until after the elections in Israel. This coincides with what the Israeli army announced about its targeting of the town of Sajad and its destruction of a Hezbollah warehouse in which various combat means were stored, in light of what the Israeli Channel 12 reported about the army’s completion of the destruction of the party’s military infrastructure in the area located, within the “yellow line,” south of the Litani River, and its readiness now to move to a new phase of fighting. Monday's meeting between Salam and Rubio comes to explore the reality of the American position in the event that the eighth round of negotiations is postponed until after the elections in Israel, contrary to what Lebanon has repeatedly been informed that Washington is determined to continue negotiations at the beginning of next October. On the other hand, its ambassador to Lebanon, Michel Issa, who is currently in Washington, expected the tour to be postponed to a later date, without setting any new date.
If it is confirmed that Washington supports postponing the negotiations, Lebanon, as a ministerial source told Asharq Al-Awsat, will enter a political phase dominated by wasting time at the lowest security cost. This is what is supposed to be at the forefront of the Salam-Rubio meeting, in addition to knowing whether the American administration will intervene to pressure Israel to establish the ceasefire, ensuring that it is included in the cessation of hostilities, especially since Hezbollah is still committed, to date, not to respond to Israel’s violations and attacks, even if it threatens not to return to the stage before last March 2.
The ministerial source asked: How will Rubio act, and what will he say to Salam to reassure him, especially with regard to pressuring Israel to prevent it from expanding the security zone, instead of asking it to expand the “experimental zone” to include occupied cities and towns, and resolving the controversy surrounding the formation of a “verification mechanism” for the deployment of the Lebanese army there and ensuring that it is free of “Hezbollah” weapons and fighters? The meeting is also supposed to discuss the alternative that will succeed the International Emergency Forces (UNIFIL) immediately after the end of its mandate, to support the Lebanese army in its deployment south of the Litani, at the end of this year. The Lebanese-American consensus on the alternative coincides this time with Salam’s confirmation, in his speech before the United Nations, of Lebanon’s adherence to the “Armistice Agreement” and “Resolution 1701,” even though they were not included in the core of the “Framework Agreement.” This prompted supporters and opponents of the agreement to wonder how it would be implemented, about the alternative force that would be tasked, on behalf of UNIFIL, with implementing it, and about Washington’s position on it, especially since its cancellation cannot be done with the stroke of a pen, but rather requires the issuance of an alternative resolution by the UN Security Council that ends its effects on the ground.
Returning to the resumption of negotiations, a ministerial source confirmed that Salam will bring certain news about its fate to Beirut, despite the fact that Lebanon has not yet been informed from Washington of the date of the eighth round in Rome nor of the date of the meeting of the two delegations at the military level in Florida, as is reported from time to time. He said that Lebanon is in dire need of achieving progress in the negotiations, enabling it to strengthen its position in the face of Hezbollah and drop the pretexts it clings to to keep its weapons and refuse to confine them to the hands of the state. This is what concerns the Lebanese and raises their concerns, in the event that Netanyahu leans towards military escalation by targeting the heights controlled by Hezbollah, which are located between Iqlim al-Tuffah and Jabal al-Rayhan. On the other hand, the question remains: Does his threat fall within the framework of pressure to make voters in Israel feel that they need him to return to the presidency of the government, in a way that reassures the settlers in northern occupied Palestine that they are safe, especially after his army confirmed that it had destroyed Hezbollah’s infrastructure along the Yellow Line that it occupies?
The source pointed out that Salam is seeking to obtain from Rubio guarantees in the event that the negotiations are transferred that the Israeli army, at the request of Netanyahu, will not expand the security zone, believing that it is imposing a new map as a fait accompli after its control of the “Ali al-Tahir” hills, and before the elections are held, in order to include it as a basic item on the agenda of the negotiations, in the event that it is decided to resume it later after confirming its transfer. He said that Lebanon can no longer bear to keep the negotiations stuck and suspended until after elections are held in Israel and a new government is formed. He stressed that the mere agreement of Washington to freeze it would open the door to ensuring that the confrontation between Hezbollah and Israel does not ignite if it insists on expanding the security zone by annexing the heights of Iqlim al-Tuffah and Jabal al-Rayhan to it. Because by expanding it, the party will be forced to put all its weight into defending it, as it is a battle for existence and constitutes an important strategic location for it, and the mere fact that Israel controls it means, from its point of view, that it has abandoned its last lines of defense against Israel.
The question remains: Will Israeli pressure continue by expanding the security zone, as part of pressure on the state to hand over these heights, similar to what Netanyahu did when he was forced to control the “Ali al-Taher” hills after Hezbollah refused to give them up to the army? Accordingly, will the Rubio-Salam meeting achieve the desired results, allowing the President of the Republic, General Joseph Aoun, who is supervising the negotiations, to build, in cooperation with the government, on what has been achieved? Or will the negotiations be postponed until after the Israeli elections, which will keep attention focused on the Washington meeting, perhaps paving the way for the completion of the implementation of the “Framework Agreement”?
