Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality

Welcome to the Neno's Place!

Neno's Place Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality


Neno

I can be reached by phone or text 8am-7pm cst 972-768-9772 or, once joining the board I can be reached by a (PM) Private Message.

Join the forum, it's quick and easy

Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality

Welcome to the Neno's Place!

Neno's Place Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality


Neno

I can be reached by phone or text 8am-7pm cst 972-768-9772 or, once joining the board I can be reached by a (PM) Private Message.

Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality

Many Topics Including The Oldest Dinar Community. Copyright © 2006-2020


    "Halfa Baghdad and NATO" .. Grimman common interests exchange compromise and Iraq in the middle

    Rocky
    Rocky
    Admin Assist
    Admin Assist


    Posts : 274092
    Join date : 2012-12-21

    "Halfa Baghdad and NATO" .. Grimman common interests exchange compromise and Iraq in the middle Empty "Halfa Baghdad and NATO" .. Grimman common interests exchange compromise and Iraq in the middle

    Post by Rocky Thu 26 Apr 2018, 10:42 am

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


    "Halfa Baghdad and NATO" .. Grimman common interests exchange compromise and Iraq in the middle


    The regional and international dignitaries do not miss a suitable occasion, but they rush to Baghdad, and this exposes an alliance and the other presents a project for it. Is this policy confusing? And what did the Iraqis gain from entering into two opposing alliances?
    The recent Iranian-Russian-Syrian move toward Baghdad was not liked by many in the region and was quick to describe it as the "new Baghdad alliance", similar to the old "Baghdad pact" that was concluded in the royal era in 1955 and quickly failed due to the mass mobilization against it at the time, On the other hand, the NATO alliance, which is headed by Washington, and the two sides naturally flounder and are present in Iraq strongly.  
    "We will do whatever is necessary to defend our vital interests, which is the reason for our military forces, and will remain so long as there is as long as human nature has not changed, Washington has entered NATO militarily to sustain its external spread,"  former US national security adviser Anthony Lake said, In Iraq, as a "new fundamental pillar" of transatlantic security, as he put it.
    On the other hand, another coalition, most of which is totally opposed to Washington, namely Tehran, Moscow and Damascus, is moving actively towards Baghdad and is keen to communicate with it closely through a vigorous Iranian effort to strengthen its military presence in the region in general and Iraq in particular.
    There are observers who see that the presence of "NATO" in Iraq, ostensibly, helps the Iraqi army logistically and increases its combat capability through support and training, and elsewhere, but it has caused regional sensitization, especially from Iran, which declared its explicit rejection of the alliance's efforts to establish a permanent military base in Iraq.
    According to the adviser to the Iranian leader for international affairs Ali Velayati, "It is not possible for the Americans to be present in the east of the Euphrates," stressing that "the resistance front does not allow the existence of a NATO base in the Middle East."
    As the US and US President Donald Trump to contact Iraqi Prime Minister Haider Abadi to inform him of the facts of the matter, while Tehran sent a high-ranking military delegation to Baghdad, headed by Defense Minister Amir Khatami to strengthen military and security cooperation between the two countries and coordinate efforts to establish security and stability in the region.
    According to analysts, Russia and Iran have an interest in a "quadripartite alliance" in Baghdad to confront the US-led international coalition, attributing the reason that the president's confused, confused and contradictory US policy worries both countries about the real intentions of Washington, which is openly seeking to curb their influence. In Syria and elsewhere.
    "So Iraq is in the middle of the game of dragging the rope between the big players in the region, and everyone wants to pull it to its side," says political analyst Amjad Wissam.
    "Iraq is in an unenviable situation," Wissam told the Journal News. "It is in a heated conflict between the United States, which is associated with a strategic agreement on the one hand, and Tehran, which has very influential playing cards on its side, on the other. Exchanges of feuds and punches constantly, "noting that" Iraq can take advantage of this conflict between the two sides through the adoption of a completely independent policy and pay attention only to the national interest required by each party. "
    Wesam explains that "the race to win Iraq was not new, where the great powers represented by the Soviet Union and the United States over decades in the last century to win," noting that "the former was a communist and the second capitalist, but Iraq was cleverly able to benefit from Their rivalry without turning into the arena of settling accounts that burn green and land. "
    Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi repeatedly stressed that "Iraq is keen on its national interests and the interests of its people, and does not want to engage in the policy of axes in the region and the world."
    The Old Baghdad Alliance is one of the Cold War era alliances. It was established in 1955 to counter the Communist tide in the Middle East and was formed alongside the United Kingdom from Iraq, Turkey, Iran and Pakistan.
    The United States of America was the initiator of the alliance, promising economic and military assistance to the members, but not directly involved, but Britain did.

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

      Current date/time is Sat 20 Jul 2024, 9:05 pm