Iraq is negotiating with the US, which needs a clear and constructive strategic policy.

Written by – Elijah J. Magnier:

Twenty years have passed since the US occupation of Iraq in 2003. Many have written about its disastrous results, how it cost many lives and a lot of money, and how it was based on the lie that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. No one objected to seeing the end of the Iraqi president who murdered his people, occupied Kuwait, declared war on Iran and used chemical weapons obtained from the West against Iran and the Iraqi Kurds. In fact, after hastily brushing off the grave and illegal occupation carried out by the US and its allies in defiance of the United Nations, most of the grumbling is about the growing Iranian influence in Iraq. The aim is to divert attention from the killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis by the US-led coalition and from the fact that the Western occupation has had no clear policy and has contributed to the creation of ISIS and lasting instability in Mesopotamia.

British former Prime Minister Tony Blair – who vigorously defended the occupation of Iraq in 2003 – apologised for the “misinformation that led 40 countries to invade Iraq under the American flag, claiming it had weapons of mass destruction based on false intelligence”. The word “SORRY”, he offered and may believe, would be enough to comfort the Iraqi families of the 300,000 to 500,000 people killed by the Western coalition. The consequent lack of legal accountability drives the West to occupy with impunity countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya. The forty Western leaders will not go to jail for killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people and can simply turn the page and complain about the growing locally influential militias that are not loyal to the US and the West.

But Iraq still lacks full independence because of the presence of foreign troops who refuse to leave. Meanwhile, intensive Iraqi-American talks are under way. Prime Minister Muhammad Shia’ al-Sudani is negotiating an agreement with the US for the eventual withdrawal of all military forces and only the retention of training and intelligence forces.

The Iraqi prime minister will only be able to address the issue of handing weapons over to the state from the various influential Iraqi organisations if the occupying forces withdraw first. These organisations mean US troops refusing to leave Iraq and threatening the state with various forms of pressure. The US holds Iraqi money from oil revenues that go to the US Federal Bank and can withhold money from the Baghdad government whenever it wants.

America has used this tool of financial pressure, accusing Iraq of providing Iran with facilities to sell its oil and providing the “Islamic Republic” with foreign currency, thus helping to undermine the unilateral US sanctions and making them less effective. On the other hand, the main US message to Iraq’s leaders was that any domestic pressure to promote the withdrawal of American forces would have devastating economic consequences for the country. This is what former President Donald Trump said during