Trump Threatens Iraq Sanctions ‘Like They’ve Never Seen Before’

Says sanctions will 'make Iranian sanctions look somewhat tame' Jason Ditz Posted on January 5, 2020

https://news.antiwar.com/2020/01/05/trump-threatens-iraq-sanctions-like-theyve-never-seen-before/

President Trump reacted furiously at the news that Iraq’s parliament voted to expel US troops on Sunday, saying that if they actually ask the US to leave “we will charge them sanctions like they’ve never seen before ever.” He added it would “make Iranian sanctions look somewhat tame.”

Iraq, of course, was already under heavy US sanctions from 1989 to the 2003 invasion and occupation. The sanctions are estimated to have killed 1.6 million Iraqis, a great many of them children. Those sanctions were to punish Iraq for weapons of mass destruction that they didn’t have.

Trump’s threat is meant to imply he’ll inflict something even worse on Iraq this time. This is perhaps even more galling in that the threat is the result not of anything wrong that Iraq has done, but just because Trump is very cross with them.

The US troop presence in Iraq, as US officials are so often eager to remind us, is at the voluntary request of the Iraqi government. Currently, that is predicated on fighting ISIS, even though ISIS isn’t really active in Iraq anymore. There had already been talking, before the US started attacking the Baghdad airport and assassinating people, that the invitation had worn out its usefulness.

Parliament voted today to end that invitation, pending the prime minister’s signature. Trump’s threats are meant to give the impression that the Iraqis have no real choice, and that the US government would inflict genocidal levels of sanctions on them if they rescind their voluntary invitation.

That, of course, means the presence is not voluntary but is being committed to by Iraq under extreme duress. The extreme level of a threat, coming just days after US attacks on the Iraqi capital, suggests a particularly ugly American military occupation, and that any claim to legality through coerced invitation would be immensely dubious.

Iraqi Parliament Votes to Expel All American Troops and Submit UN Complaint Against The US for Violation of Sovereignty

"What happened was a political assassination. Iraq cannot accept this."

by

Jake Johnson, staff writer

Published on

Sunday, January 05, 2020

by

Common Dreams

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/01/05/iraqi-parliament-votes-expel-all-american-troops-and-submit-un-complaint-against-us

Update:

Iraq's parliament voted in an extraordinary session Sunday to expel all American troops from the country and file a United Nations complaint against the U.S. for violating Iraq's sovereignty with its assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in Baghdad.

Ahead of the vote, chants of "No, no, America" rang out inside the hall.

"Iraq called on the U.N. Security Council to condemn the bombing and assassinations," Iraq's foreign ministry said in a statement following the vote.

Earlier:

Speaking before an extraordinary session of parliament Sunday, Iraq's outgoing Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi recommended that the nation's lawmakers approve a measure to end U.S. troop presence in "immediately" following the assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in Baghdad.

The prime minister's remarks came before Iraqi lawmakers are set to vote on a resolution to end permission for American troops to remain in Iraq.

The U.S. assassination Soleimani on Iraqi soil was met with fierce condemnation from Iraq's foreign ministry and the prime minister, who called the drone strike a violation of the nation's sovereignty.

"What happened was a political assassination," Mahdi said. "Iraq cannot accept this."

The Risks of Wider War with Iran, Explained

THE INTERPRETER

NYT

January 3, 2020

In the hours after an American drone strike in Iraq killed Iran’s most important military leader, Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, a question has dominated discussion in the Middle East, in Congress, and on social media. Could this lead to war between the United States and Iran?

In a sense, it already has. Mr. Suleimani’s killing meets virtually any definition of an act of war, a categorical difference from the shadowy conflicts that the United States and Iran have engaged in for years. To Iranian eyes, it is akin to Tehran ordering the death of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

But it remains uncertain where this attack, which follows weeks of tit-for-tat escalations between the two countries will lead.

Most analysts call an outright shooting war between the United States and Iran unlikely, if impossible to rule out. Most also see little hope for the United States’ stated aim: that this will deter future attacks, forcing Iran to finally back down.

But there is a wide range of possible outcomes between those two, many of them far bloodier and more volatile than the proxy conflicts of recent months. What follows is a guide to the risks of greater conflict between the United States and Iran, how the killing of Mr. Suleimani plays into those risks and what might come next.

Does This Increase Risks of Conflict?

Mr. Suleimani’s killing all but forces Iran to retaliate, most analysts say. That’s not primarily out of national pride or saving face, but because of the fundamental drive of any state: self-preservation, which includes preserving its top leadership. Iran has an extraordinarily difficult needle to thread. It will likely aim for counterattacks damaging enough to convince the United States that killing Mr. Suleimani was not worth it — a high bar, given his value and the United State’s far superior strength — but not so damaging as to trigger further conflict. The past month suggests that both the United States and Iran are already failing to properly calibrate their counterattacks. Each cycle of tit-for-tat escalations has, rather than forcing the other side to back down, instead led the other to ramp up, triggering another round more costly than the last.

Is Escalation Inevitable?

Another dynamic makes this cycle even harder to control: American intentions have at times been unclear. Official statements have described limited aims, such as deterring Iranian attacks. But senior officials have also described more sweeping goals like expelling Iran from the wider region or even toppling its government. Faced with a potentially existential threat, any state has two options: stand down and negotiate or hit the source of that threat hard enough to make it back down.

What Could Escalation Look Like?

Iran is a regional power with far more sophisticated military capabilities than any country that the United States have gone to war with since World War II. It is a far cry from Saddam Hussein’s crumbling Iraq or armies of North Vietnamese irregulars. And it has invested years of preparation into enduring a possible war. Iran’s escalations are expected to be asymmetric, which means using proxies or small attack groups to target American forces, allies or economic interests. That might mean attacking one of the American military bases scattered throughout the Middle East, for example, or using its navy to close oil shipping lanes. Iran has also shown a willingness to target civilians. The greatest risk may be that asymmetric Iranian warfare reaches a point where the United States feels compelled to strike Iran directly. Analysts fear that this could lead to direct, sustained war, but no one can say for sure how easily that might happen. And while the United States often seeks to wage wars purely from the safety of the air, virtually every air war has quickly sprawled to a ground war. Iran’s nuclear program appears dormant, according to international inspectors. Even if Iran attempted to sprint for a working warhead, estimates say it would not acquire one for a year or more. Still, the mere possibility of a nuclear breakout heightens the odds of unintended escalation. The United States might feel pressure to strike nuclear infrastructure early. And Iran might feel pressure to restart development while it still can. While the possibility of an unintended slide to war is impossible to rule out, fears of World War Three — a phrase that trended overnight on social media — are overblown. Russia and China might strenuously object to American attacks, but they are no more likely to join the fight than they were when the United States invaded Iraq or helped to topple Libya’s government.

Is Either Side Ready for What’s Next?

The suddenness of this escalation makes it difficult to know how fully Mr. Trump’s administration has thought through and planned for the potential consequences. Iran’s willingness to take risky actions — perhaps driven by a perception that the scale of the American threat leaves it with no other choice — increases the danger to all sides. But, under any conflict, Iran is exposed to far more harm than the United States. Violence is likely to center on its borders or in its territory. It is already under tremendous economic strain.

China-Russia unity can resist US pressure

By Oleg Ivanov Source: Global Times Published: 2020/1/2 

One can hardly predict what will happen and when, but we can highlight global and regional trends and directions of where world politics has been moving and will continue to move in 2020. The center of gravity of the world's geopolitics and geo-economics will keep drifting toward the Pacific.

This is the region where the interests of leading powers like China, Russia, the US, and others, on the one hand, are intertwined but on the other, they clash. The significance of the Pacific will increase both in terms of opportunities and risks in 2020.

The US will continue to pursue the following goals that form parts of its strategy. First, it will go out of its way to preserve its dominating position in the region and the world on the whole.

Second, the US will do its best to prevent China from becoming an equal rival and thwart the development of a group of states like BRICS or SCO that can alter the balance of power and challenge US supremacy. However, rising China and the growing role of BRICS and SCO is an objective factor that will be taken into account in 2020, whether anyone likes it or not.

Another trend that revealed itself in 2019 is the attempt of the collective West, headed by the US, to impose "the concept of the world order based on the rules" versus the one based on international law.

This concept will remain the top priority of the Western global agenda which is aimed at replacing the UN as the main international institution formulating the rules of behavior in international politics by the collective West. Russia and China will continue to resist this Western approach which will be another bone of contention in 2020.

This year, our common task and responsibility will be the search to accommodate divergent interests of Russia and China versus the interests of the US and its allies in order to avoid conflicts. To safeguard peace and security, both Russia and China will unite their efforts and keep on seeking more military cohesion through joint exercises and missions as they did with joint air patrols in July of 2019.

In foreign policy, Russia and China will coordinate their actions to come up with new initiatives. In December 2019 both nations demonstrated their capability and willingness to work together when they put forward a joint proposal for a UN resolution to ease sanctions on North Korea. This kind of coordination is highly likely to take place in the future. Steadily growing trade turnover between Russia and China reached $100 billion in 2019 and will continue to increase. The launch of the new gas pipeline "Power of Siberia" will boost closer cooperation between the two countries.

Obviously, the kind of Russian-Chinese practice of working together will be confronted by the US and its allies. The US won't lift sanctions against Russia because it regards sanctions as proper leverage to punish Russia and at the same time sanctions are considered an instrument to get rid of a competitor in the energy market. However, the US will be more cautious in imposing sanctions or tariffs against China as they may backfire because of significant economic interdependency.

The upcoming US presidential elections will bring more changes. It is likely that Russia and China will become a part of the election campaign in the US. Russia may be accused of meddling and China may be blamed for conducting unfair foreign trade policy. If President Donald Trump's approval rating goes down, he is likely to take a tougher stand on Russia and China to win the support of US voters. If not, he will pursue basically the same policy toward both countries.

Strategic stability will be put to the test in 2020. The New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) between Russia and the US will expire in February 2021. As the US is unwilling to conclude a new one, Russia has proposed to extend the current treaty.

So far, the US position is unclear. If the New START goes away there will be no limitations in the sphere of nuclear weapons. The US will have a free rein to increase its nuclear potential. Such evolution will push other nuclear countries to follow the US path. As a result, the world will face a nuclear arms race which will take us back to the 1960s. There will be more uncertainty, more mess and more danger with regard to international security.

As the strategy of containment by the West toward Russia and China will persist in 2020, it will require more coordination and joint work between Russia and China so our cooperation will be indispensable not only for our countries, but for international stability on the whole that goes beyond bilateral relations.

The author is Vice-Rector of Research, Moscow-based Diplomatic Academy. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn

The Occupation of the American Mind

MEF Digital

https://vimeo.com/277492186

The Occupation of the American Mind documentary Over the past few years, Israel's ongoing military occupation of Palestinian territory and repeated invasions of the Gaza strip have triggered a fierce backlash against Israeli policies virtually everywhere in the world -- except for the United States. The Occupation of the American Mind takes an eye-opening look at this critical exception, zeroing in on pro-Israel public relations efforts within the U.S. Narrated by Roger Waters and featuring leading observers of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and U.S. media culture, the film explores how the Israeli government, the U.S. government, and the pro-Israel lobby have joined forces, often with very different motives, to shape American media coverage of the conflict in Israel's favor. From the U.S.-based public relations campaigns that emerged in the 1980s to today, the film provides a sweeping analysis of Israel's decades-long battle for the hearts, minds, and tax dollars of the American people in the face of widening international condemnation of its increasingly right-wing policies. Narrated by Roger Waters / Featuring Amira Hass, M.J. Rosenberg, Stephen M. Walt, Noam Chomsky, Rula Jebreal, Henry Siegman, Rashid Khalidi, Rami Khouri, Yousef Munayyer, Norman Finkelstein, Max Blumenthal, Phyllis Bennis, Norman Solomon, Mark Crispin Miller, Peter Hart, and Sut Jhally.

En una década ingresaron ilegalmente a México 2 millones 500 mil armas de fuego

En ese periodo han ocurrido 228 mil 584 homicidios dolosos

https://www.jornada.com.mx/2020/01/02/politica/008n1pol

Gustavo Castillo, Eduardo Murillo y César Arellano

Periódico La Jornada
Jueves 2 de enero de 2020, p. 8

Autoridades mexicanas y estadunidenses estiman que en la década reciente han ingresado ilícitamente a territorio mexicano más de 2 millones 500 mil armas de fuego, y que ese trasiego, al igual que el incremento en la adquisición legal de armamento para abastecer a corporaciones estatales y municipales, beneficia a organizaciones delictivas y potencia los niveles de violencia en el país.

De acuerdo con cifras gubernamentales y de organizaciones civiles nacionales y de Estados Unidos, se considera que en México, de enero de 2009 a octubre de 2019, se han registrado 228 mil 584 homicidios dolosos, la mayor parte de ellos cometidos con armamento considerado de uso exclusivo de las fuerzas armadas, las cuales ingresaron ilícitamente al país y llegaron a manos de miembros de la delincuencia organizada.

Fue este panorama el que llevó a los gobiernos de ambos países a aplicar el operativo Frozen, que comenzó el 21 de diciembre pasado, con el objetivo de tratar de contener el flujo transfronterizo de armas.

En días pasados el secretario de la Defensa Nacional (Sedena), general Luis Cresencio Sandoval González, afirmó que de más de 2 millones de armas que se estima ingresaron ilegalmente al país se recuperaron 332 mil 689 mediante operativos de combate a los grupos delictivos, así como en las campañas de entrega voluntaria y a través de las cuales los ciudadanos intercambian despensas por sus rifles, armas de asalto, pistolas y cartuchos.

En ese panorama, faltan por asegurar o recuperar un millón 679 mil 884, la mayor parte consideradas de grueso calibre y de uso exclusivo de las fuerzas armadas. Se estima que son utilizadas por grupos como el cártel Jalisco Nueva Generación (CJNG), cártel de Sinaloa, el cártel del Golfo y la organización de Los Zetas (en la cual uno de sus grupos se ha identificado como cártel del Noreste).

Datos de la Sedena refieren que en diez estados se concentra 71 por ciento de las armas que circulan ilegalmente en el país: Tamaulipas, Ciudad de México, Sonora, Jalisco, Michoacán, Baja California, Guerrero, Guanajuato, Sinaloa y Chihuahua.

La mayor parte de estas entidades destacan por sus altos niveles de violencia generados por los grupos delictivos señalados, así como por La Familia Michoacana (y sus derivaciones como Los Caballeros Templarios, la Nueva Empresa y H-3), el cártel de Juárez (con su brazo armado La Línea), Los Rojos, Guerreros Unidos y Los Ardillos, que surgieron de escisiones del cártel de los hermanos Beltrán Leyva.

Los informes gubernamentales nacionales refieren que 70 por ciento de estos artefactos provienen de Estados Unidos y el 30 por ciento restante de países europeos, destacando entre estos últimos, empresas que tienen sus centros de producción en Italia, España y Austria.

Reportes de noviembre pasado dados a conocer por la Sedena señalan que grandes cantidades de armas y cartuchos ingresan a través de los corredores San Diego-Tijuana; El Paso-Ciudad Juárez; Laredo-Nuevo Laredo, McAllen-Reynosa y Brownsville-Matamoros, y las investigaciones estiman que 41 por ciento de estos equipos se adquirieron en tiendas o ferias de armas en Texas, 19 por ciento en California, 15 por ciento en Arizona y el resto de otros puntos de Estados Unidos.

El tráfico de armas y dinero ilícito se realiza por las mismas rutas que los cargamentos de droga que son enviados desde México a Estados Unidos, ocultos en contenedores de enseres domésticos o productos enviados en ferrocarril y por carretera ocultos en camiones y vehículos particulares, ya sea en compartimentos especiales o dentro de los neumáticos.

Las armas procedentes de Europa ingresan por vía marítima en embarques que arriban a los puertos de Lázaro Cárdenas, en Michoacán, Altamira, en Tamaulipas, y Manzanillo y Colima.

El investigador y activista de los derechos humanos y la desmilitarización de la política estadunidense en América Latina, John Lindsay Poland, de la organización Stop US Arms to México, publicó recientemente un estudio denominado Cómo Italia alimenta la conflagración en México, en el cual dice que “en los pasados 12 años dicho país ha sido el segundo exportador de armas no-militares, rifles y municiones a México; muy lejos están otros exportadores importantes tales como República Checa, España, Francia, Austria, Bélgica, Corea del Sur e Israel. En promedio, entre 2007 y 2018, México ha sido, después de Brasil, el segundo mayor cliente latinoamericano de armas militares producidas en Italia. Aparte de los sistemas grandes de armas fabricadas por Leonardo, el Grupo Beretta domina las exportaciones militares italianas a México.

Y añade: En el mismo periodo, Beretta vendió armas con un valor de por lo menos 50 millones de euros a las fuerzas armadas mexicanas, y en su mayoría los embarques sirvieron para dotar de armamento a corporaciones municipales o estatales, pero destaca que parte del mismo llegó a grupos delictivos o fue utilizado en contra de integrantes de movimientos sociales.

En ese contexto, Lindsay Poland asegura que “los usuarios finales de armas Beretta incluyen a policías con historiales documentados de violaciones de los derechos humanos y de colusión con grupos de delincuencia organizada. Un ejemplo son los policías municipales que atacaron y desaparecieron a los 43 estudiantes de Ayotzinapa, Guerrero, en 2014. Según el expediente judicial, estos policías estaban armados con 74 rifles de asalto SCP70/90 de Beretta.

Recibos de comercialización de armas divulgados por Sedena indican que más de 6 mil 500 armas de Beretta fueron vendidas a policías en Guerrero entre 2007 y 2014. Esto, a pesar de la documentación de la colusión entre autoridades y células del crimen organizado, así como de los extensos abusos por parte de policías en ese estado, refiere John Lindsay Poland, quien desarrolló la investigación junto con Carlo Tombola, del Observatorio Permanente de Armas Largas y Políticas de Seguridad.

Los investigadores destacan respecto al armamento que se adquiere a Beretta a través de la Sedena, que hay un aspecto aún más desconcertante: desde 2006, más de 20 mil de esas armas han desaparecido, es decir han sido robadas y muchos de ellos hayan caído en manos de criminales.

Estudios de organizaciones de México y Estados Unidos, como Stop US Arms to México, Center for American Progress y la Comisión Mexicana de Defensa y Promoción de los Derechos Humanos, coinciden: existe una correlación directa entre la importación de armas y el crecimiento en el número de homicidios cometidos en nuestro país a lo largo de la década pasada.

Sin embargo, los analistas señalan que sería poco efectivo que México tomara medidas más estrictas de control, pues este tipo de políticas no han funcionado para combatir otros tráficos ilícitos en la frontera norte, como es el trasiego de drogas, y para ello se requiere que Estados Unidos modifique su legislación e impida la venta de armas de grueso calibre a sus ciudadanos.

Trump’s ‘Maximum Pressure’ Campaign Is Blowing Up in Iraq

Trump threatens Iran after protesters storm Iraq Embassy

Jason Ditz Posted on December 31, 2019

https://news.antiwar.com/2019/12/31/trumps-maximum-pressure-campaign-is-blowing-up-in-iraq/

President Trump’s go-to policy on Iran, the “maximum pressure” campaign, has been based on blaming Iran for every single thing that goes wrong in the region, and threatening to make them pay, as Trump put it today, “a very BIG PRICE!”

The threats hadn’t accomplished anything, despite confidence from the administration that they eventually will. Instead, they seem to have brought US ties with neighboring Iraq to the verge of collapse, with the US attacking Iraqi militia Ketaib Hezbollah, presenting them as “Iranian,” and then threatening more attacks.

Sunday attacks on bases inside Iraq led to protests at the US Embassy in Baghdad. The embassy was stormed, and the US responded by blaming Iran some more and threatening to make them pay. Because that’s the sum total of the maximum pressure campaign.

But that campaign against Iran is bringing US ties with Iraq to the brink of outright collapse, with influential Iraqi politicians at the protests and warnings that US attacks and sovereignty violations are forcing Iraq to revise the relationship.

Making America’s policy around the Middle East so Iran-centric, and making the Iran policy so one-note and bellicose, they have made relations and interests across the Middle East vulnerable not just to thinks Iran actually did, but to anything that officials perceive as Iran’s fault.

It is also exposing the US position in the Middle East as hollow and surprisingly unable to adapt to even minor issues. There are troops in Syria trying to steal oil, troops in Turkey facing the risk of expulsion, and Iraq’s parliament is probably going to be addressing kicking the 5,000 US troops out of there before long at this rate.

All the US has to show for it is the hostility to Iran that they’ve always had, and threats to escalate that into another disastrous war. Everything else in the region is tenuous, and as shown in Iraq can be mucked up by a long weekend of bad policy decisions.