TEHRAN, February 14 (MNA) – The United States invaded and occupied Iraq promising to bring stability and reconstruct it but it made the country an unstable nation that had to grapple with internal conflicts ever after 2003.A few weeks after Donald Trump returned to the White House, there have been media speculation about possible Tehran-Washington negotiations; negotiations had previously held between Iran and the world powers with the US indirect participation to revive the "Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action" (JCPOA), from which Trump unilaterally pulled out his country during his first term in office, despite Iran's constructive cooperation, and reimposed the unprecedented anti-Iranian sanctions in the form of "maximum pressure" campaign.
As regards the calls for resumed talks, on Friday February 07, the Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei in a gathering of commanders and staff of the Air Force and Air Defense, considered it necessary to use the experience of "two years of negotiations, concessions on the part of Iran but without yielding results." “The United States violated the same agreement despite its shortcomings and withdrew from it.
Therefore, negotiating with such a government is unwise, unintelligent, and dishonorable, and one should not negotiate with it,” Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei said.
Apart from the US violation of the JCPOA, a look at the record of US reneging on its commitments to agreements and talks with other countries in the world reveals the futility and even risks of these talks.
This paper takes a look at the US agreements with Iraq as its case study.
Why wasn’t the US a reliable ally for Iraq? In recent decades, US-Iraq relations have been marked by military interventions, political agreements, and security pacts.
From the 2003 invasion of Iraq to the withdrawal of US forces and subsequent military agreements, Washington has repeatedly violated its commitments and used Iraq as a instrument to advance its strategic goals.
Not only these policies have created instability in Iraq, but also have also severely undermined the trust of the Iraqi people and officials in the United States.
In this article, we will examine the most important violations of US commitments to Iraq and their implications.
1. The occupation of Iraq and the breached promise of establishing stability
However, after the occupation of Iraq, it became clear that such weapons did not exist and that the attack was more related to US strategic interests in the region than anything else.
After the overthrow of Saddam, the US promised to establish security and stability in Iraq and rebuild its infrastructure.
However, one of the first US actions was the complete dissolution of the Iraqi army and security forces, which caused hundreds of thousands of soldiers to be unemployed.
This action caused many of these forces to be attracted to armed groups and the country quickly was engaged in armed insurgencies.
In addition, the US directly interfered in the political process in Iraq and guided the drafting of the new constitution in a way that broadened ethnic and religious cleavages; something that has created lots of internal conflicts in Iraq which still continue.
2- The Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) and unfulfilled promise to fully withdraw troops: The Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) was signed between Iraq and the United States in 2008, and its main purpose was to determine the legal status of American forces in Iraq and the terms that determined their presence after the formal occupation of the country.
The agreement was formed in response to widespread internal Iraqi protests against the presence of American troops and political pressures within the country.
In this agreement, the United States pledged to withdraw its forces from Iraq by the end of 2011.
This decision was made after a series of negotiations between the governments of the two countries, during which many Iraqis wanted a complete withdrawal of foreign troops.
The SOFA was originally intended to end the US military presence in Iraq and return the country to its national sovereignty.
However, the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq under this agreement was incomplete and conditional.
Although by the end of 2011, American combat forces had officially withdrawn from Iraq, American military bases in the country remained operating.
The Iraqi government sought a complete withdrawal of troops, but in practice, Washington left some of its forces in Iraq for various reasons, including combating terrorist threats and maintaining its influence in the region.
In particular, the United States used special forces, military advisers, and informal groups to so-called continue counterterrorism and security operations.
This incomplete withdrawal was not only a flagrant violation of the SOFA, but also fueled distrust between the two countries.
The Iraqi government repeatedly called for the full withdrawal of American forces and respect for its sovereignty, but the United States ignored these requests due to its strategic interests in the region.
The informal presence of American forces and the use of military bases for various operations caused dissatisfaction among Iraqis and increased the rift in relations between the two countries.
Furthermore, US reneging on its promises indicated that even despite the signing of formal agreements, the United States was still unwilling to reduce its presence in the region and preferred to maintain its influence by using Iraq as a base for its regional goals.
Ultimately, these unstable policies and the violation of US commitments in line with the SOFA prompted Iraq to increasingly fall within the sphere of influence of the United States and other regional powers and move away from its goals of political and security independence.
3. Violating Iraqi sovereignty with military operations and assassination of resistance commanders
These military interventions continued, especially after the formal withdrawal of US combat forces in 2011, and clearly violated Iraq’s sovereignty and independence.
One of the most important examples of this violation of sovereignty was the assassination of senior Iraqi commanders without the knowledge or consent of the Baghdad government.
In this regard, the assassination of Lieutenant General Qassem Soleimani, commander of the Quds Force of the IRGC, and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, deputy head of the Popular Mobilization Forces, in January 2020 by US drones near Baghdad airport was one of the most prominent and controversial actions that flagrantly violated Iraqi sovereignty.
These operations not only was a gross violation of international law but also directly affected Iraqi-US relations.
The Iraqi government and people reacted strongly to this assassination, and a resolution was passed in parliament calling for the full withdrawal of foreign forces, especially Americans, from the country.
This incident caused many Iraqis to feel that their country's sovereignty was being threatened by foreign forces and that military operations were being carried out on their soil without respecting the principles of respect for sovereign nations’ rights.
The Iraqi government was in a difficult position in this situation, because the Iraqi people and officials were also opposed to such an action and increasingly realized that Washington's policies were more concerned with its own interests than with preserving Iraq's independence and security.
4. Economic pressure and abuse of financial influence
One of the most prominent examples of this economic pressure was sanctions and economic threats against Iraqi officials and various institutions.
By threatening to freeze Iraq's assets in American banks and prevent the country from accessing the global financial system, the United States has tried to pressure the Iraqi government and force it to accept its policies.
These pressures increased sharply, especially after the assassination of martyr Soleimani and escalated tensions between the two countries, and caused Iraq to experience serious economic problems.
5. Using Iraq as an instrument in regional tensions
Iraq, due to its strategic location in the heart of the Middle East, has always been used as an important tool in US policies in the region.
After the fall of Saddam's regime and the occupation of Iraq in 2003, the US used the country as a base to counter its regional threats and advance its geopolitical interests.
Using Iraq in line own interests by Washington in regional tensions, especially in US relations with Iran, Syria and regional armed groups, caused Iraq to be directly involved in trans-regional conflicts and rivalries and severely damaged its sovereignty.
Iraq also became a tool to strengthen US influence in the region in economic fields.
Washington tried to expand its influence in surrounding countries by using Iraq as a market for American goods and as a center for trade exchanges in the region.
Conclusion Since the US invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq in 2003, relations between the two countries have shown that Washington has repeatedly violated its commitments and used the country as a tool to advance its strategic interests.
Whether during the occupation of Iraq and promises of reconstruction, during the withdrawal of troops, or during military attacks and economic pressures, the US has shown that it does not respect Iraq’s sovereignty and independence; policies that have increased Iraqis’ mistrust in the US and paved the way for Iraq’s expansion of relations with other regional and international powers.
Ultimately, the future of US-Iraq relations depends on whether Washington is willing to respect Iraq’s national sovereignty and stop interfering in its internal affairs, or it goes on with violating its commitments to cause further instability in the region.
Given the US's two-decade-long breach of promises in relations with Iraq and its disregard for Baghdad's sovereignty, the question now is: Can any country trust Trump at the negotiating table? MNA/6373996