Connect with us

Middle East

A 24-hour ‘civil war’ trial in Iraq

Published

on

Hundreds of supporters of Sadr raided the Presidential and Government Palace in the Green Zone in the capital Baghdad yesterday, and nearly 30 people lost their lives in the clash with the militia. Activists entered the buildings of rival Shiite organizations, set fire to some of them, and detained militia forces until Sadr’s announcement to end the protest today.

Muqtada es-Sadr, who emerged as the first party in the October 2019 elections and obtained the majority of seats in the Assembly, challenged the ethnic and sectarian political system established by the US after the invasion, and he announced that he would establish a government of reconciliation that would include all national parties, Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish. No matter how many votes they received, they were, however, accustomed to being attached to the government according to the quota system, and some faced obstacles from other Shiite groups directly affiliated with Iran. Led by Nuri al-Maliki, the Coordination Framework, using its effectiveness in the judiciary, passed the “two-thirds” decision, which made it impossible for Sadr to form a government. The Sadr group, which refused to agree with the Coordination Framework, resigned from the Parliament and turned to street protests. Sadr supporters, who held a protest in front of the Federal Supreme Court, which discussed the sit-in action in the Green Zone, the raid of the Parliament and the Presidency and the latest application to dissolve the Parliament, did not back down on the following three issues:

  • We will not agree to a compromise that includes the “evil trio” (Nuri al-Maliki, Qays al-Hazeli and Ammar al-Hakim).
  • Parliament shall be dissolved.
  • Early elections shall be held.

Why did Sadr withdraw from politics?

While awaiting the decision of the Federal Supreme Court’s Assembly, Sadr announced that he had withdrawn from the political arena with a sudden decision, within 24 hours of the call “Let’s build a new Iraq without militias, uncontrolled weapons, violence, war, sectarianism, tried parties and sectarian quotas”. So what prompted Sadr to make this statement, which led many cities, especially Baghdad, to turn into battlefields?

The fact that the Shiite Taklid Merci Kazim al-Hairi called for Sadr supporters to follow the Iranian religious leader Ali Khamenei while he was retiring, citing health problems, was undoubtedly the most important factor that prompted Sadr to make this statement. The statement by Hairi, who is the second-ranking religious leader, is not commonplace, as it is not only a sign of disrespect for the biggest Taklid Merci Ayatollah Sistani, but also different from the usual practice of his colleagues, who normally leave the matter to the conscience of the people. Hairi, who had a very limited following apart from the Sadr movement, aimed to undermine Sadr’s legitimacy with this statement he made under pressure from Iran, according to some commentators.

However, Sadr movement is a political and social formation rather than a religious movement in the classical sense, which will be resolved with a fatwa of Hairi, which they follow as a religious authority. Therefore, Hairi’s statement does not seem to have affected Sadrists, except Sadr, who is known to be emotional. Moreover, it is also a mystery whether Sadr took this decision “emotionally” or whether he was at any stage of a grand plan. If someone comes out and says that they watched the trailer of what Sadr can do as a show of strength, there wouldn’t be too much of an objection.

The country done through a 24-hour hell

As a matter of fact, about an hour after Sadr’s decision, yesterday, thousands of Sadr supporters entered the Green Zone and stormed the Presidential Palace. Upon the entry of the Sadr Movement’s armed force Seraya es-Selam (Peace Brigades) into the Green Zone with heavy weapons, Prime Minister Kazimi canceled its routine program, while the Joint Operations Command declared a nationwide curfew ‘until further notice’. Hashd al-Shaabi units within the Coordination Framework against the Peace Brigades, wearing the uniforms of the security forces, opened fire on the demonstrators. In the videos circulating on social media, it was seen that the demonstrators were targeted and killed by snipers. The clashes in which nearly 30 people, most of whom were pro-Sadr lost their lives and more than 150 were injured, continued today.

The Peace Brigades raided the offices and headquarters of the “evil trio” and especially Kays al-Hazeli, not only in Baghdad but also in many places such as Basra and Najaf. Sources close to Sadr said that around 300 headquarters and offices of Maliki’s Dawa Party, Kays al-Hazeli’s Asayib Ahl al-Haq Movement and Ammar al-Hakim’s National Wisdom Movement and their armed militias were raided and some set on fire.

Making a statement at noon today, Sadr asked his supporters, who were clashing on the street, to return to their homes within an hour. Sadr said, “I apologize to the Iraqi people for the conflicts. This revolution is not a revolution the very moment it ceases to be peaceful, thus I cannot call it a revolution. Down with such a revolution.” With Sadr’s call, the curfew in the country was lifted as his supporters returned to their homes.

On the other hand, it should be noted that while the country is going through a 24-hour hell, there has been no call for calm or any statement from the leaders of the Coordination Framework, who are candidates to form a government and run the country.

Why cannot Sadr get along with the “evil trio”?

Sadr’s animosity with Maliki, one of the leaders who formed the Coordination Framework, dates back to 2008. Maliki, together with the US troops, attacked the Iraqi army against Sadr’s Mahdi Army and smashed the Sadrists. Especially the massacres in Basra were engraved in the memory of the Sadr members.

The Asayib Ahl al-Haq Movement and its leader Hazeli, which was founded in 2006-07 by leaving the Mahdi Army, argued that Sadr’s resistance should be suppressed by force after the election. Asayib Ahl al-Haq, which is close to Iran and partially financed by Iran, also came to the fore as an organization that used disproportionate violence to the public in the protests in 2019.

Ammar al-Hakim, who has political weight, seems to be on Sadr’s list due to his inability and indecision to stand up to the Maliki-Hazeli duo, who advocated the use of harsh force against the Sardis.

Why is Sadr against Iran?

Sadr, who marked the recent history of Iraq with his anti-US sentiment, took part in the Shiite governments established after the occupation until 2018. Sadr, who had the most seats in the 2018 elections, which was similar to what happened in the October 2019 elections, could not form a government again due to the obstruction of other Shiite organizations. From the side of Sadr, who is also a Shiite, the picture was as follows: Shiite organizations, some of whom were directly led by Iran, and others close to Iran, blocked Sadr’s path.

While these were happening in the political arena, the economic crisis peaked in the country, which was struggling with problems after ISIS, and the names of politicians began to be mentioned with scandals such as corruption and bribery. All these developments led to the most extensive and widespread protest actions in Iraq after 2003. In addition to economic reasons such as unemployment, lack of basic infrastructure and lack of livelihood, the Iraqi people also took a stance against foreign interventions. The Sadr movement, which could not form a government in the parliament and went into opposition, rose to a position leading this popular movement from the grassroots, thanks to its power in the streets. Now, Sadr has developed a discourse that opposes not only the US intervention but also the total “foreign intervention”. However, the real “relation severing” development in Sadr was the US murder of Iranian Quds Force commander Major General Qassem Soleimani and Hashd al-Shaabi commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis near Baghdad International Airport with a drone attack on January 3, 2020, and then a week later. Iran has also had missile attacks targeting the US presence in Iraq. In summary, Iraq, which is in political instability and economic bottleneck, has also become a piece of land where the USA and Iran openly share their trump cards.

When Sadr hosted Ismail Kaani, who replaced Qasem Soleimani as the leader of the Quds Force, he made his position clear by openly telling him, “Don’t interfere in Iraq.” After the 2021 elections, he refused to meet with the Quds Force commander, who came to Iraq to “mediate” between Sadr and the Coordination Framework.

Is Iran against Sadr?

Sadr’s opposition to foreign and therefore Iranian intervention is understandable. So, how much is Iran against Sadr? First of all, every country, if it has such an opportunity, wants political forces directly connected to it or closer to it to be in power. The same is true for Iran. However, it would not be the right approach to try to read Iran’s attitude through figures like Hazeli, who are close to Iran. Because in this case, it becomes impossible to explain the attitude of Hadi al Amiri, who is undoubtedly the closest name to Iran, towards Sadr. The leader of the Fatah Alliance, Amiri, the most important name of the Coordination Framework, is the name that broke the hard power insistence of the Maliki-Hazeli duo against Sadr. Amiri, who is also the leader of the Badr Organization, which was established directly by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards of Iran, is at the forefront of the policy based on reconciliation and dialogue towards the Sadr movement, and Sadr is careful to keep Amiri apart in his speeches where he criticizes the Coordination Framework. Putting all the facts at the bottom, Tehran’’s stance becomes even clearer: Putting up with Sadr rather than fighting Sadr. Tehran knows that a possible Shiite-Shiite conflict will cause great harm to itself along with Iraq.

But why?

It seems that Sadr, who refused reconciliation, is responsible for all these events, but the main reason is the freak system that the USA brought with the occupation. The insistence of the “corrupts”, who have been benefiting from this system for 20 years, to keep their lucrative positions. The fact that the faces whose corruption and failures are revealed deserve to rule. The endless love of armchairs for those who do not take the country a mile further, those who draw weapons against the people who object, those who leave the cities to terrorist organizations, and those who render the state apparatus inoperable…

Sadr is challenging this political order. However, his open-ended rhetoric, sudden decisions and his refusal to even sit at the table harm both Sadr himself, his movement and the Iraqi people. Sadr, who is an important and trusted figure not only for Shiites but also for Iraqis from other sects and ethnic backgrounds, can be successful not today, but in the near future, if he acts within the framework of a program, not with sudden decisions or sudden outbursts. Maybe Sadr should roll up his sleeves to overthrow the sectarian political system with a “non-sectarian political party”. The rule of a political party that includes Shiites, Sunnis, Turkmen and Kurds will automatically lift the system in which Sadr rebelled into the dusty pages of history. As Gandhi said, “If you want to change the world, start with yourself.”

Middle East

Iran resumes ballistic missile assembly using stockpiled parts

Published

on

Iran has resumed ballistic missile production in underground facilities, despite statements by Israeli and US authorities asserting that this capacity had been completely eliminated.

According to a report by The Wall Street Journal citing US and Middle Eastern officials, the Tehran administration is utilizing pre-stockpiled components in the manufacturing process.

Officials report that despite strikes on missile sites and industrial installations at the beginning of the war, Iran continues the assembly of both solid- and liquid-fuelled missiles.

Intelligence data indicates activity at numerous underground centres, including the Khojir complex in the southeast of the country, along with efforts to establish additional underground assembly points to protect against new air strikes.

Current assembly operations are being maintained at lower volumes compared with pre-war levels, as US and Israeli operations destroyed several facilities and a naval blockade has impeded the import of components and solid-fuel ingredients.

Assessing the process, Tal Inbar, a senior analyst at the US-based Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, stressed that damaged infrastructure can be repaired during periods when facilities are not targeted, and parts procured from other countries can be stored there.

Inbar noted that it would be naive to believe Iran is not rebuilding its missile production capacity.

Arguing that the facilities were destroyed and Tehran has suffered severe losses, the official stated that Iran remains weaker than ever before, and US President Donald Trump will never permit the country to acquire nuclear weapons.

Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell stated that the US has destroyed up to 90% of Iran’s drone, ballistic missile, and naval industrial infrastructure, severely degrading Tehran’s ability to launch missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles.

Another US government official pointed out that the Tehran administration may have revived production, albeit on a low scale, following preliminary talks conducted in mid-June with the Trump administration regarding the opening of the Strait of Hormuz and ending the war. The official noted that existing stockpiles are sufficient to assemble at least two hundred missiles.

A CNN report in late May indicated that the Tehran administration was attempting to reopen underground missile shelters, struck by the US and Israel with costly munitions, using bulldozers and dump trucks.

Excavation activities accelerated after the April ceasefire decision; out of 69 tunnel entrances struck across 18 distinct locations, 50 have been made accessible again.

Experts stressed that it is impossible to destroy missile power solely by bombing tunnel entrances, underlining the limitations of such bombardments.

US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth claimed in April that they had effectively ended Iran’s missile programme. However, an NBC News report noted that Tehran utilized the ceasefire period to reconstitute its military strength.

Continue Reading

Middle East

Mohammed bin Salman urges Trump to strike Houthis after Mokha falls

Published

on

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has requested that US President Donald Trump launch air strikes against the Houthis in Yemen.

According to two US officials who spoke to Axios, Trump rejected the request, and US officials emphasised that the administration has no plans for direct intervention against the Houthis for now.

Oil prices surged on Thursday after the resistance led by Houthi militias (Ansarallah) seized the strategic coastal city of Mokha in Yemen.

This development brought the Yemeni resistance one step closer to the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, which is vital for global trade and Saudi oil exports.

With Iran already disrupting traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, Houthi control over Bab el-Mandeb could provide Tehran with powerful new leverage over the US and its Gulf allies.

On Thursday, as Houthi forces advanced towards the coastal city of Mokha and Saudi-backed Yemeni forces retreated, bin Salman telephoned Trump to brief him on the deteriorating situation.

A few hours later, the prince called again to request that Trump carry out US air strikes against the Houthis.

Trump declined, but a US official stated that the administration would provide Saudi Arabia with intelligence and targeting data on the Houthis.

The official noted that approximately 200 US military personnel are currently stationed in Saudi Arabia, providing non-military support.

A senior Trump administration official indicated that Washington’s priority is keeping the Red Sea open, while leaving the broader fight to regional partners.

“We are in continuous dialogue with Saudi Arabia and the Government of the Republic of Yemen regarding regional stability,” the official said.

The official continued:

“The US remains focused on protecting our core national security interests, such as ensuring freedom of navigation in the Red Sea, while empowering our regional partners to take the lead in managing and resolving regional security challenges.”

The US is concerned by the rapidly escalating conflict in Yemen and is seeking to avoid direct military intervention while increasing its support for Saudi Arabia.

According to two sources familiar with the matter, Admiral Brad Cooper, Commander of US Central Command (CENTCOM), travelled to Saudi Arabia on Thursday for urgent coordination meetings.

The conflict between Saudi Arabia and Yemeni resistance forces reignited in July after Riyadh blocked an Iranian aircraft carrying senior Houthi officials from landing in Sanaa following their return from Ali Khamenei’s funeral.

Bin Salman requested Trump’s political support to strike Sanaa airport, but made clear that Saudi Arabia did not require US military assistance. Trump granted his support.

The Houthis subsequently retaliated by attacking Saudi tankers in the Red Sea. These strikes threatened a route crucial to the kingdom’s oil exports, and the group later expanded its attacks to Saudi energy facilities.

Saudi Arabia and its Yemeni allies responded with air strikes and ground operations against Houthi positions.

Saudi Arabia’s request for direct US military intervention marks a sharp reversal from July, when Riyadh informed Washington that it could manage the Houthis on its own.

As clashes intensified, the Saudis began seeking progressively greater support from the US.

Sources close to the discussions noted that in recent weeks, US military and civilian officials informed their Saudi counterparts that Trump’s directive is to keep American forces focused on Iran and the Strait of Hormuz, and to avoid opening a new front.

Continue Reading

Middle East

Netanyahu ignored MBZ warning on Hamas 7 October plan, report says

Published

on

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly ignored a direct warning from UAE President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan in the run-up to 7 October 2023, according to an investigation by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz.

The report states that the UAE leader, widely known as MBZ, was convinced in September 2023 that an explosion was imminent in the region, particularly given the escalating tensions in the West Bank.

Israeli President Isaac Herzog, who maintains close ties with bin Zayed, recounted: “In the months leading up to the war, he spoke with me about this issue frequently. He consistently conveyed the message that the situation needed to be de-escalated. He even dispatched a special envoy to Israel who met with the prime minister. The emir appeared to sense that the region was on the verge of erupting.”

MBZ also engaged in direct discussions with Netanyahu. These exchanges followed a standard operational protocol: a representative from the United Arab Emirates embassy would arrive at the prime minister’s office equipped with a specialised, secure telephone device to ensure confidentiality.

However, according to the newspaper, the call initiated by bin Zayed on this occasion was extraordinary in nature.

A week and a half before 7 October 2023, the UAE ruler placed a call to Netanyahu from the Presidential Palace in Abu Dhabi, and the two leaders spoke for 45 minutes.

During this conversation, bin Zayed warned that Yahya Sinwar, the Hamas leader in Gaza, was planning a major operation against Israel.

Bin Zayed voiced deep concern that such an event would not only lead to significant bloodshed, but would also destabilise the entire region and undermine the Abraham Accords.

Haaretz reported that three senior foreign sources possess direct knowledge of the call’s contents, marking the first public disclosure of the conversation’s existence.

A close Palestinian adviser to bin Zayed, who had emigrated from Gaza to Abu Dhabi years earlier and maintained extensive connections across the Gaza Strip, was also present during the exchange.

According to the adviser, the UAE ruler stressed to Netanyahu that Israel needed to prepare for this specific threat.

The adviser stated:

“The emir explained that, according to his assessment, Sinwar was preparing for a major event. He told Netanyahu that Israel had to be prepared. At the same time, he proposed working towards an economic solution for the Gaza Strip to prevent escalation, alongside calming the situation in the West Bank.”

Bin Zayed urged Netanyahu to take the matter seriously. Yet, to the emir’s surprise, the prime minister reacted with relative calm.

Netanyahu told bin Zayed that, in his own assessment, Hamas was planning to operate in the West Bank area. Reassuring the Emirati leader, Netanyahu insisted that Israel was prepared for any scenario.

The UAE leader later recounted his conversation with Netanyahu and his subsequent warning to CIA Director William J. Burns.

Bin Zayed shared with Burns the intuitive alarm he had sought to convey to Netanyahu—that “something over there is about to blow”—and noted the Israeli prime minister’s conviction that the unstable theatre was in fact the West Bank.

“The emir hoped that, despite Netanyahu’s reserved reaction, he would take the message seriously and take action,” the adviser said.

However, neither anticipated that the prime minister would hear the warning without briefing the heads of his defence and security establishments: neither the director of the Shin Bet, nor the director of the Mossad, nor the chief of staff of the Israel Defence Forces was informed of MBZ’s warning.

Haaretz noted that Gaza-related negotiations between Israel and Hamas had been proceeding smoothly in early 2023, providing the context in which the Emirati ruler’s concerns emerged.

The report received swift corroboration from the Israeli political opposition. Former prime minister and leader of the B’Yachad party, Naftali Bennett, stated that he knew the warning issued by UAE leader Mohamed bin Zayed to Netanyahu concerning Hamas’s plans prior to 7 October was genuine.

Speaking to 103FM, Bennett said: “I am telling you: I know this to be true.”

Bennett continued:

“Mohamed bin Zayed of the UAE warned Netanyahu that Sinwar was planning an operation. The head of the Egyptian General Intelligence Directorate, Abbas Kamel, also notified Netanyahu a few days before the massacre that a major operation was being planned. I do not wish to discuss my sources with anyone. I am telling you: I know this fact to be true.”

Contending that Netanyahu had led Israel “blindly into this horrific disaster,” the opposition figure asserted: “He was so deeply captive to the conception that Hamas was an asset that, despite receiving explicit warnings, he did nothing.”

Bennett maintained that Netanyahu bears direct responsibility for 7 October, not merely by virtue of being prime minister, but because “he spent 15 years strengthening Hamas and doing nothing.”

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey