Connect with us

Middle East

How oil-rich Iraq ran out of dollars?

Published

on

Three years ago, Iraq was on the brink of expelling US troops, but now, Prime Minister al-Sudani asserts that his nation needs US and NATO forces. Although he gives ISIS as the reason, the dollar crisis in the country seems to be a more plausible explanation. The political actors backing al-Sudani blame the United States for the crisis but having to handle this crisis shortly, al-Sudani sees the exit in reconciliation with Washington.

The political turmoil in Iraq after the elections in October 2021 resulted in al-Sudani taking the seat of Prime Minister as a candidate of the so-called Iran-backed Shiite alliance in October 2022. in his first US interview since taking office, al-Sudani said, “we need the foreign forces to eliminate ISIS.” “Iraq would like similar relations with Washington to what Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf oil-and-gas producers enjoy,” al-Sudani told WSJ, “we strive to “see Iraq have a good relationship with Iran and the US.” Stating, “President Biden is different from other presidents in that he knows the situation in Iraq completely,” al-Sudani thinks it might be the foundation to build an excellent relationship between Baghdad and Washington. al-Sudani’s views regarding keeping the US and NATO forces in Iraq are deemed significant since he has been publicly silent about this issue until now. After the killing of Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani in a US drone strike on Baghdad, the Iraqi parliament voted a resolution to withdraw American troops from the country. Currently, 2,000 American troops in Iraq under the umbrella of NATO are training the Iraqi armed forces.

According to Foreign Policy, al-Sudani’s public support for the presence of US troops originates from the threat of ISIS. al-Sudani’s words, however, are not an unexpected turn; instead, they reflect a steady movement toward the United States in recent years. The article’s title is also noteworthy: “The New Iraqi Leader tilts the scales toward the USA.” Former US officials told Foreign Policy that even amid the tension escalating after the assassination of Soleimani, Iraqi officials had expressed support for the US military mission behind closed doors to ensure to defeat of ISIS and counter Iranian influence. “US presence that was hanging by a thread in pre-pandemic Iraq, at the tenuous invite of the Baghdad government, now appears to be there to stay—indefinitely,” interprets the journal the situation that became concrete upon al-Sudani’s statement. Although al-Sudani created uproar in Iraq, the more significant problem is that Centcom has no planning or vision about the future of the US-Iraq relationship.

“The presence of foreign military forces in this country is a very dangerous issue,” remarked Nouri al-Maliki, the leader of the Shiite alliance that brought al-Sudani to the office and kept him in power. It is remarkable that Maliki’s statement followed al-Sudani’s controversial comment.

Then, why did al-Sudani express his public support for the presence of the US troops in the country “independently” of the coalition behind his power and despite growing anti-American sentiments in Iraqi society over the last several years?

The reason for the crisis: US sanctions

Sudani employs the existence of ISIS to justify his statement, but it seems that the underlying issue is the currency crisis that shook the Iraqi markets. Unlike other oil-rich countries, the second largest oil producer of OPEC after Saudi Arabia, Iraq stands out for its economic problems and the massive social protests these sparked. The current crisis, however, is not the same as the usual mechanism of bribery and corruption that plagues Iraq. It has everything to do with US sanctions. The restrictions put into practice by the US to prevent the illegal allocation of dollars for the interests of other US-sanctioned countries, especially Iran, have triggered a severe dollar crisis in the country.

The USA has implemented a “regulation” to the system that allows the daily foreign exchange auctions of the Iraqi Central Bank, which has been in effect for 20 years since the invasion and permitted banks to sell dollars without any restrictions. In November 2022, the US Federal Reserve (FED) started enforcing strict screening on the operations of Iraqi commercial banks, such as requiring all clients to disclose their identities before a transfer of funds could be made. In fact, these measures were implemented after almost two-year planning by the Central Bank of Iraq, the US Department of the Treasury, and the FED. However, in spite of all the planning, since the strict regulations have been in effect, more than 80% of daily dollar transactions have been blocked. As a result of the slowdown in dollar transactions, the markets have rushed into the dinar, ultimately creating a double-sided “currency crisis.”

Protests in rise

Due to the crisis, the value of the Iraqi dinar has weakened vis-à-vis the dollar, leading to a sharp rise in food prices. Over the currency drop, on January 23, al-Sudani dismissed Central Bank Governor Mustafa Ghaleb Mukheef on his request, and Muhsen al-Allaq replaced him. After a slight decrease in the exchange rate following the replacement of the office at the Central Bank, it has begun to increase again quickly. The official rate for Iraqi citizens set by the Central Bank stands at 1,470 dinars to the dollar. Established by the Central Bank of Iraq is 1470 Iraqi dinars per dollar, while on the black market and free market, it ranges from 1590 to 1620 dinars.

Iraqis slowly started to protest against the devaluation of the dinar. The protesters gathering outside the Central Bank called on the government to halt the depreciation of the dinar. Those demonstrating in Iraq called on al-Sudani’s government to do everything they could to bring down inflation. Mainly, they demanded that staples like eggs be made more affordable. Protesters from south Iraq also participated in the demonstration in Baghdad.

The ruling coalition blames the US

Hadi al-Amiri, the leader of the Fatah Coalition and a partner of the Iraqi government, accused the US of using the dollar as a weapon to starve the people in Iraq. “Since the reserves of this country’s central bank are at the Federal Reserve’s disposal, Iraq lacks economic independence. Everyone now knows how the Americans use the dollar as a weapon to starve people. The Americans are currently putting the most pressure on Iraq to prevent its relations with Europe and other countries of the world,” said al-Amiri.

Maliki, the head of the same coalition, claims that the United States uses the dollar as a global weapon: “They try to destabilize it by using dollar paper.” Maliki, however, sees the United States as the key to solving the issue: “There is no solution to the dollar crisis except by controlling the dollar and understanding with the American side.”

Here, the reason behind al-Sudani’s controversial statement that US soldiers are required in Iraq is nothing but Maliki’s proposed solution. al-Sudani is trying to find a way to ease the effects of the dollar crisis. In this regard, he plans to send the Foreign Minister to Washington at the start of February, followed by his own visit. The Iraqi premier may try to negotiate looser US screening on the movement of dollars or at least a postponement of such controls. As the Prime Minister of a coalition accused of being “pro-Iran” and even a “puppet of Iran,” al-Sudani may have hoped that sending sound signals to the United States would facilitate reconciliation. Against this backdrop, Foreign Affairs’s inference that the “The New Iraqi Leader tilts the scales toward the USA” seems an unrealistic expectation.

The dollar is indeed a powerful winning tool in the hands of the USA. The United States may offer the Iraqi government a short-term solution to the pressing crisis. The country is still nothing but one of the major oil producers, although the post-invasion system in Iraq is plagued by bribery, corruption, and smuggling. The greater challenge is that Iraq lacks the political will to combat the issue and blow the cobwebs away.

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