Strategic Negotiations for Total Control over Iraq

Since the end of the Obama era, the U.S. has been at an impasse in Western Asia. In response, many have questioned whether the U.S. can even have a coherent strategy lasting more than five to 10 years; the arrival of Donald Trump and his temperamental approach, which veered so far from his predecessors’ goals, seems to have answered that. Under the Trump administration, the U.S. tried to face its global challenges with absolute unilateralism and aggression, but this strategy only turned the rest of the world against it. In order to unravel this Gordian knot in U.S. strategy, Joe Biden has had to balance between halting the growth of Chinese and Russian power on the one hand and confronting numerous domestic and foreign challenges, particularly those in Western Asia, on the other.

In Western Asia, the U.S. can no longer rely on its previous capabilities to deal with the challenges it faces on its own. To add to this, nearly all of America’s regional allies, despite all of the effort and money that they invest, are facing their own strategic threats and won’t be able to bail the U.S. out. But Western Asia is of extraordinary importance, offering potential oil money, energy, infrastructure and geopolitical benefits, and the U.S. with its colonial greed will not let itself be pushed out of the region easily.

Negotiations are ongoing in Washington with Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi following the announcement that U.S. and NATO troops would withdraw from Afghanistan, which it seems will not be a total withdrawal as there are still plans for a lower-level U.S. presence and intelligence sharing in the country. Although the Americans have set up many loyal figures within the Iraqi power structure, and there is no lack of passive, authoritarian figures under their thumb in the country, the U.S. cannot stand up to Iraqi resistance to occupation. This resistance enjoys the support of the Iraqi parliament and is demanded by a wide spectrum of the Iraqi populace; it has increased the pressure on the Americans to withdraw their troops. Any serious reaction by the U.S. to these demands would only further inflame the struggle against its occupation and increase the strategic cost of its presence both in Iraq and possibly in the entire region.

So, during the final months in the term of al-Kadhimi and his cabinet, who are obedient puppets of U.S. and Western intelligence agencies, the U.S. is working to dress up its open military presence in Iraq as a logistic and teaching force. In exchange for this halfhearted promise, the U.S. is hoping to consolidate its control over the Iraqi government by the end of 2021 and obtain a type of comprehensive, soft guardianship over the country through the new agreement that will be signed with al-Kadhimi on Monday. Although many of the actions that the al-Kadhimi government has taken have been against the Iraqi parliament’s wishes, contrary to the popular will and even illegal, he has still announced his own clear preferences for a U.S. withdrawal and an end to all of the problems that the Americans’ occupying presence brings.

Meanwhile, the U.S. is settling into its new status in the region and has tried implementing new tactics in order to manage a lower level of involvement against the growing challenges it faces, while also decreasing its own costs but maintaining the possibility of continued dominance over the region’s riches and control over sensitive strategic points. The U.S. plans to transfer some weapons facilities and bases from Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, instead deploying the relevant systems to support its new focus in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen. This new strategy is entirely based on guaranteeing U.S. support for the Zionists, promoting a new outbreak of terrorism from the Islamic State, further destabilizing Syria and Iraq, implementing soft coups d’état in Iraq and Lebanon and keeping a grip on the region’s wealth. There are no guarantees that this will turn out well for the U.S. The display being put on with the withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq and the transfer of U.S. bases will only mean new resistance, while the cost rises and U.S. power continues to erode.