The United States and Iraq have reached a preliminary agreement for the full withdrawal of US-led coalition forces from Iraq by the end of 2026, Reuters reported on Friday, amid continued attacks by Iran-backed militants against American troops.
This withdrawal would mark a significant shift in Washington’s military posture, though US officials acknowledge that their presence in Iraq serves not only to counter the Islamic State but also to monitor Iranian influence in the region.
The phased exit is seen as politically beneficial for Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani, as it aligns with Iraq’s balancing act between the US and Iran while addressing ongoing instability. However, it might also signal a victory for Iran and its proxies in the Arab country which have long been pushing for the full withdrawal of US and coalition forces from both Iraq and Syria.
I feel strangely about this. On one hand, this is exactly what we wanted from america. On the other, Iraq in its current state is no less than an Iranian satrapy, and the tentacles of the persian state and economy will continue to suck the country dry after America’s exit.
Motherfuck George Bush and the State department and motherfuck Iran.
the tentacles of the persian state…
As a supporter of the Iranian opposition, I’d like to correct you about this description. The Islamic Republic have nothing to do with Persian ethnicity or Iranian nationality. Only 50%-60% of Iranians are Persian, it’s a very ethnically and culturally diverse nation. The Islamic Republic is a theocracy that oppresses the people of Iran. They destroy secularism and minority cultures in favor of Shia-style Islamization.
What would you estimate as the percentage of the population who are pro-theocracy?
I’ve heard different answers to this question. Conducting a poll is obviously a hard task to pull of in an authoritarian country, considering the censorship by the state.
A quick search got me to this poll: Article, ArchiveSo the answer would be that only 15% of the population are pro-theocracy.
In response to the question "Islamic Republic: Yes or No?” 81% of respondents inside the country responded “No” to the Islamic Republic, 15% responded “Yes,” and 4% were not sure.
Thanks, that’s good news. I don’t know much about Iran since the Islamic period but it’s truly a shame to see one of the greatest nations of history reduced to what it is today. At least there’s a rough framework of democracy that can hopefully be built upon once the current regime is finally gone.
Historically, that depends if the US is threatening to invade them or not.
Upvoted for correct use of ‘satrapy’.
I had thought I never had to hear John Yoo’s fucking name again, then, shocker, he’s in Trumpland arguing for Executive Supremacy.
Gee, of course the legal architect of Bush’s war crime torture program is all on board with Trump being an untouchable Executive.
It’ll be interesting to see how Al-Sadr et co shakes out in the power vacuum by the US withdrawal. And by interesting I mean ‘may you live in interesting times’ style interesting, not ‘this is a nice thing’ interesting.
It’s more-or-less geographic destiny that Iran and Turkey will become the dominant powers in Western Asia.
They both basically ruled the area for most of history.
The best we (the West) could do is nudge them towards human rights and peace and friendship. For Turkey, that’s mostly a done deal.
For Iran, that was exactly what Obama tried to do. And it’s also what Iran has been trying to get for the past 25 years.
Iran is inherently on a path towards secularisation and more dovish policies. It’s the threat of war by the US and Israel that keeps the defense hawks in power.
Iran, especially, will never fully trust the USA - and for good reason. But they do want better relations with the USA. They just don’t want to get burned or bombed.
I get that but you dont understand what the Iranians have done to Iraq. Iraqi domestic industry is almost nonexistant due to flooding of cheap goods from Iran, and Iraqi businesses are often sabotaged by pro iran militias. This type of warfare seeks to make Iraq fully dependant on Iran, something that Saddam, the sadistic fucker that he is, was able to stave off.
The only country that can be blamed for destroying Iraqi industry is the USA. Two decades of war, one decade of sanctions and another decade of war (by Saddam against Iran) sponsored by the USA in the 1980s.
Obviously, Iranian industry will outcompete Iraqi industry at this point in history.
Iraq needs to rebuild and they need outside help.
I’m not gonna defend Iranian war mongering. And neither will I defend Turkish war mongering, or IS, USA or Israeli war mongering.
But the only path forward for Iraq is by making peace with the two power brokers in the region: Turkey and Iran.
And that’s what the current government is trying to achieve. The Turkey-Iraq corridor and the new port they are building are going to lay the foundation for their future prosperity.
As for Iran, Iran is desperate for allies. It won’t be that difficult to find some mutually beneficial relationship with them.
Not at all. Iraq’s broken economy is due to Bush trying to force Iraqi economy to privatize after 2003. Iraq made a trade deal with Iran that they bragged would be very lucrative for both countries. It’s not warfare like you called it.
you’re right about the first part but still wrong about the second. Iraq’s current government in no way had the interests of the iraqi population at heart.
I wish he would have gotten nailed by one of the shoes the Iraqi reporter threw at him.
Complaining about Iran having too much influence in Iraq is like complaining that the Vatican has too much influence in Ireland.
Iraq is not the same as Iran. While the countries now have close economic ties, Iraqi politicians have bo interest in changing Iraq’s government to copy Iran’s.
We’ll be back in 2030
Internet Archive - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Internet Archive:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
https://web.archive.org/web/20240907035059/https://www.iranintl.com/en/202409063349
Iran International (Persian: ایران اینترنشنال) is a Persian-language news television channel headquartered in London aimed at Iranian viewers, and broadcasting free-to-air by satellite. Iran International was established in May 2017 and has broadcast its programmes from both London and Washington, D.C. In February 2023, Iran International moved its headquarters temporarily to Washington, D.C. due to increased threats from the Iranian government against their UK-based journalists, but back to London in September 2023.
Programming:
According to Middle East Eye, Iran International is a media platform for the Iranian opposition. Kourosh Ziabari of Al-Monitor wrote it “does not shy away from presenting itself as an opposition media organization” and frequently gives the microphone to guests who criticize the Iranian government. The channel has been referred to as an “Iranian exile news outlet” by Borzou Daragahi of The Independent.
Ownership:
Iran International is owned by Volant Media UK Ltd . . . Corporate documents for Volant Media shows that another Saudi national, Fahad Ibrahim Aldeghither, was the major shareholder of Volant Media before Adel Abdukarim. Aldeghither owned over 75% of the shares of Volant Media from May 2016 to May 2018. Fahad Ibrahim Aldeghither was the chairman of Mobile Telecommunication Company Saudi Arabia (Zain) from March 2013 to February 2016. Zain Saudi is the third-largest telecoms provider in Saudi Arabia.
Editorial Independence:
Though the TV station states that it “adheres to strict international standards of impartiality, balance and accountability”, questions have been raised regarding its editorial independence.
In October 2018, a report by Saeed Kamali Dehghan in The Guardian linked Iran International’s funding to Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Salman. It also interviewed an unnamed insider who said that the editorial content had been influenced by its investors. A source was reported by The Guardian as saying that Iran International received $250m from Saudi Arabia for launching the channel. The insider and an unnamed ex-employee expressed dismay that Saudi funding had been concealed from the employees. Iran International denied The Guardian’s report . . . Azadeh Moaveni of New York University has charged the channel is an arm of Saudi Arabia: “I would not describe Iran International as pro-reform, or organically Iranian in any manner”.
In October 2018, a report by Saeed Kamali Dehghan in The Guardian linked Iran International’s funding to Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Salman.
Lmao is there anything more enduring than middle-eastern infighting? They invented the state and have been undermining each other ever since.
