Iraqi premier’s US-Iran mediation credited for averting ‘hell’ of war
"Don't forget the cult-like MeK's GOP connections, over decades."
In this article some of the efforts of 'the other side', both to prevent a war and in preparation for, if the Trump administration provoked one.
Of course a war could also be provoked by a radical group not connected directly to either America or Iran. As Bush's Iraq war proved to boost volunteers to Bin Laden's and other's causes no doubt a war with Iran would do the same.
IMAGE - US President Donald Trump, left, and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. (AP)
Updated 19 May 2019
SUADAD AL-SALHY May 19, 2019 02:15
* Iraqi leaders fear that if war broke out, Iraq would be ‘the first point of confrontation’ between US and Iran
BAGHDAD: Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi’s mediation between the US and Iran amid current military tensions was on Friday credited for averting the “hell” of war.
During the past few weeks the premier has been acting as a “postman” for Washington and Tehran, two of Abdul-Mahdi’s advisers told Arab News.
However, Shiite leaders and the commanders of two armed factions linked to Iran have told Arab News that short-range rockets have been handed to two Iraqi groups over the past fortnight “to be ready to strike US targets inside Iraq if the United States were to strike Iran.”
Tensions between the Americans and Iranians have been rising since the US withdrew from a nuclear agreement and imposed tough economic sanctions on Iran, moves which prompted veiled Iranian threats to chokepoint shipping lanes in the region.
The dispute reached a peak over recent days following attacks on four tanker ships and two Saudi oil installations, all blamed on Iranian-backed militia groups.
Iraq has been a major US-Iran battleground since 2003. Iran has significant influence in Iraq and controls dozens of Shiite, Sunni, Christian and Kurdish armed factions it has helped form, fund, train and equip. These fighting forces have been operating as Iran’s proxies in Iraq and Syria, and most of the US’s interests in both countries are located within the range of their rockets.
Mediation role
“(US Secretary of State Mike) Pompeo asked Adel Abdul-Mahdi to be a back channel of communication between them (the US) and the Iranians to convey some messages, and the Iranians agreed to that,” one of the Iraqi premier’s advisers said.
“We will not wait until the gates of Hell open. Transferring messages between the two parties and playing the role of mediation, is a decision taken by the Iraqi leadership to avoid the outbreak of war between the two sides. Iran has agreed also to allow Iraqis to intermediate between the two sides,” the adviser added.
Pompeo made a brief visit to Baghdad two weeks ago, during which he passed on the first US message to the Iranians.
The second of Abdul-Mahdi’s advisers said: “Pompeo asked Abdul-Mahdi to take back the rockets of the armed factions and to tell the Iranians to leave US bases and camps in Iraq out of their calculations and to distance them from what is happening in the Gulf. Pompeo said that targeting any of the American interests inside Iraq would be answered (by hitting targets) deep inside Iran.”
Iran relies mainly on its proxies in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen to hit the interests of its rivals in the region. Intelligence reports have proved that the targeting of four ships in the port of Fujairah early this week by drones, were carried out by Yemeni militias with Iranian encouragement.
Point of confrontation
Iraqi leaders fear that if war broke out, Iraq would be “the first point of confrontation” between the US and Iran. More than 5,000 US troops are deployed in joint camps and military bases with Iraqi forces across the country, which has the largest US Embassy in the world, two consulates in Irbil and Basra, as well as dozens of US oil companies and hundreds of workers in various sectors.
At least three prominent Shiite leaders and the commanders of two armed factions linked to Iran told Arab News that short-range rockets had been handed over to two Iraqi groups over the past two weeks “to be ready to strike US targets inside Iraq if the United States were to strike Iran.”
They added that “a list of US strategic targets in Iraq and the region has been prepared to be within the range of rockets of these factions when needed.”
A commander of an armed faction linked to Iran, told Arab News: “The message carried by Abdul-Mahdi to the Iranian side has temporarily changed the direction of the battle.” He said fighters had been ordered to remain calm, show restraint, and not to hit any foreign targets inside Iraq “until further notice.”
The commanders revealed that Gen. Qassem Soleimani, commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, met with a number of leaders of the Shiite factions in Baghdad two days before the start of the month of Ramadan, and discussions focused on the latest developments in the region and the available options for dealing with US pressure on Iran.
“We will rely on short-range missiles to strike US interests in Iraq if the United States began the war, these are the directives,” another commander said. “The factions have not received any long-range missiles from Iran.”
Kata’ib Hezbollah-Iraq, one of the most anti-US Shiite armed groups, which carried out deadly attacks on American troops in Iraq in 2007-2011, and Harakat Hezbollah Al-Nujaba (HHN), an offshoot of Asa’ib Ahl Al-Haq (AAH), would “spearhead” any attacks launched by Iran on US interests in Iraq and Syria in the event of war, commanders said.
Rockets were handed to both groups, but AAH and other paramilitaries linked to Iran would only be used as backup during any confrontation, the commanders added.
"Don't forget the cult-like MeK's GOP connections, over decades."
Video Explainer Tensions between the United States and Iran have sharply increased. John Bolton, the national security adviser, has long pushed for regime change in Iran. One of his chosen replacements is the dissident group Mujahedeen Khalq, known as M.E.K. Doug Mills/The New York Times
By Nilo Tabrizy
May 7, 2018
The United States has steadily been ratcheting up the pressure on Iran, including designating the country’s military as a foreign terrorist organization and setting the stage for a potential confrontation in the Persian Gulf.
The man who has reportedly been behind much of this? President Trump’s national security adviser, John R. Bolton.
Mr. Bolton is a longtime Iran hawk who has supported the Mujahedeen Khalq, known as M.E.K. It is a fringe dissident group that calls for regime change in Iran. Mr. Bolton has said he has backed the controversial group for over a decade.
Why does Mr. Bolton support this fringe group and what does that mean now that he’s the president’s national security adviser? Our video traces his past statements and breaks down what’s at stake.
Don’t Fight Iran How a war in the Middle East would wreck Trump’s grand strategy. By Ross Douthat Opinion Columnist May 18, 2019 [...] Sometimes it’s important to write a column about something you’re pretty sure isn’t going to happen. In this case, that thing is war with Iran, which Donald Trump clearly doesn’t want, and which he will therefore probably avoid. But since the president’s current foreign policy is making war more likely, it’s still worth saying clearly that it would be a terrible idea for the United States to enter into a serious armed conflict with the Islamic Republic of Iran. P - In the past I have argued that there is a certain coherence .. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/29/opinion/trump-doctrine-venezuela-afghanistan.html?module=inline .. to the Trump foreign policy, even if it’s just an accidental synthesis of a chaotic White House’s competing impulses. According to that synthesis, recent American presidents have been overly optimistic about democratic transformation, embracing naïvely utopian hopes in the Islamic world and naïvely accommodating the rise of China. So what is needed instead is a retrenchment in the greater Middle East, an abandonment of occupations and nation-building efforts and a return to kill-your-enemies, back-your-friends realpolitik, which in turn will make it easier for the United States to pivot to a more confrontational approach with Beijing. P - In practice, this retrenchment has included backing out (or trying to) from the Bush-era military commitment to Afghanistan and jettisoning the Obama-era effort to woo Iran into détente. Spun in realpolitik terms, the Trump White House’s hard line toward Tehran reflects a belief that the mullahs’ enmity is an ineradicable fact, that deals with them in one area inevitably just enable aggression elsewhere .. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/02/what-if-the-iran-deal-was-a-mistake.html , and that it’s better to just back our Sunni and Israeli allies rather than reaching for an unlikely realignment and just reaping more mischief in return. P - But the (arguable) coherence of this approach has been breaking down as the Trump administration has moved into its “maximum pressure” phase of sanctions against Tehran. Because if you impose maximum pressure on a regional power you are, by definition, no longer trying to maintain a Middle Eastern status quo while pivoting to Asia. Instead, you’re effectively returning to the last two administration’s more dramatic Middle East ambitions: You are assuming either that some great diplomatic coup awaits (so Obama was right to seek détente, just wrong to settle) or that your pressure will lead to regime change and democratization (so Bush was right about the freedom agenda after all). P - I suspect that Trump is making the first assumption, imagining all this pressure as a prelude to a dramatic deal, while John Bolton and Mike Pompeo are making the second one, imagining the Iranian regime suddenly buckling like the Soviet Union in 1991. P - But whatever the core assumption, the maximalist approach inevitably increases the risk of war. If the White House is wrong about the Iranian regime’s willingness to make more concessions, then they’re turning a dial that can produce only two policy responses: endurance or armed reaction. And if they’re right that regime change is a possibility, then the regime they’re trying to change will become more likely to lash out the closer it gets to its own breaking point. P - Either way, there is nothing about the current situation in the Middle East, or globally, that makes the chance of war with Iran worth taking — as hawks as well as doves concede. .. bit more - https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=148909383
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
