A military agreement between Iraq and Iran enters Washington in anticipation and waiting

A military agreement between Iraq and Iran enters Washington in anticipation and waiting




Iran and Iraq have recently signed an agreement to strengthen military cooperation to combat "terrorism and extremism" and President Donald Trump may not accept this agreement.

According to Iranian media, the memorandum of understanding "includes expanding cooperation and exchange of experiences on combating terrorism and extremism and ensuring border security and information, logistics, technical and military support."
So far, there have been few responses to the memorandum of understanding in the United States. But given what is expected, it is doubtful that the deal will be welcomed in Washington. Trump has recently stepped up tensions with Iran and recently accused the Islamic Republic of violating the "spirit" of the nuclear deal. Last week, Trump agreed to re-ratify the agreement, asserting that Iran complies with the terms of the 2015 multilateral agreement. He did it with great hesitation. "
"The president spent 55 minutes from the one-hour meeting and he told his advisers he did not want to do that," said an official who spoke with the New York Times on condition of anonymity. Trump is still pushing for a new set of sanctions against Iran, which is due to be voted on by the House of Representatives. The law against Iran's destabilizing activities focuses on Iran's ballistic missile program, which was approved by the Senate in June.
In its annual reports on terrorism issued last week, the Foreign Ministry once again described Iran as the "main sponsor state of terrorism." The State Department did not respond to the request to comment on what the signing of Iraq (in which US forces have been fighting for more than 14 years) meant a military deal with the country, which the United States sees as a major global security threat.
Although Iran's presence in Iraq has sometimes been seen as a material threat to US forces, the Pentagon appears to be adhering to the MOU.
"It is not immediately clear that the contents of this MOU will have an impact on US forces," said Pentagon spokesman Major Adrian Rankin Galloway. "We will always take appropriate measures to protect ourselves."
"We have close and ongoing contacts with the Iraqi government, and we are only dealing with the government of Iraq and the security forces under its command and control," Galloway said, adding that "US forces were there at the invitation of Iraqis."
But the role of the United States in the future of Iraq is unclear so far as the Iranian-backed armed factions and the Kurdish Peshmerga fighters have increased their influence in Iraq during the war against a militant organization.
However, Iran's role and popular mobilization now seems clearer than ever before. The 122,000-strong crowd was ready to stand firm even before the deal was signed.
Iraqi Prime Minister Haidar al-Abadi has supported the popular rally in Iraq. After the liberation of Mosul, he said, "It must remain at least for years, because the terrorist threat still exists."
"The Baghdad government has excellent relations with Iran, and when he was about to enter Baghdad, Iranian support was crucial until the United States joined the fighting," said Paul Salem, vice president of the Institute for Policy Analysis, Research and Programs in the Middle East.
"The Americans are fully aware that Iran will try to push Baghdad to demand that the Americans leave after the liberation of Mosul ends," Salem said, adding that "
The danger is that Iran can go back to fighting the United States through armed factions, as it did in the early years of the war. "" It seems that the United States made the wrong decision in 2003, as the US invasion of Iraq handed over the country to Iranian influence . "He stressed that" this memorandum of understanding is merely a continuation of a strong relationship that already exist. "
However , Salem said , that" it does not mean that the Iraqis follow Iran, and the unwillingness of Iran in the presence of US troops, does not mean that Iraq is bound Bataatha. "
offers Michael Gates, a fellow at the Washington Institute, a specialist in military and security affairs Iraq, Iran and the Gulf states view the contrary, and considers that the memorandum of understanding is "a game of public relations to Iran," explaining that "the United States is by far the largest supplier of military assistance to the Iraqi government ...
"We have several months of major combat operations and a very large proportion of the defense budget is allocated to support the Iraqi security forces." He added that "all this means that the United States intends to maintain a large presence in Iraq at least during the next three years," describing the memorandum of understanding that it "does not represent anything , but it 's just a tactic to save water the face of Iran, and perhaps it is a reminder of its relationship with Baghdad."
He noted , "they're very smart Fterahm are not interested in the promotion of military cooperation, they've got many other things more important than the strengthening of the armed forces. This is what the United States is doing and doing its best, "
Michael Knights said." Tehran is not interested in competing with Washington for their strongest position.


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]