From Al Jazeera. Any opinions expressed are those of the author(s), and do not necessarily reflect the views of Iraq Business News.

The future for more than 5,000 US soldiers in Iraq is about to become clearer.

Since joining the fight against ISIL in 2014, Washington has provided about $5bn in military aid to Baghdad.

But discussions are now being held on how much longer the troops will be there.

Al Jazeera‘s Simona Foltyn reports from Baghdad:

By Sajad Jiyad for War on the Rocks. Sajad Jiyad is the managing director of Al-Bayan Center for Planning and Studies, an independent think tank based in Baghdad. Any opinions expressed are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Iraq Business News.

As the fallout continues from the airstrikes that killed Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani of Iran and Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis in Baghdad on Jan. 3, relations between Iraq and the United States are at a pivotal point.

Considerable anger over the attacks led to political pressure for the Iraqi government to force out foreign troops, ostensibly in Iraq to provide training, advice and support for the campaign against ISIL.

Click here to read the full story.

By Ahmed Tabaqchali, CIO of Asia Frontier Capital (AFC) Iraq Fund. This article was originally published by the London School of Economics (LSE).

Any opinions expressed are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Iraq Business News.

Demands for the expulsion of US troops following the killing of Iranian general Qassem Soleimani, have scaled down considerably since the initial strident calls. What started as high theatrics in parliament demanding an end to US presence, ended with a typical Iraqi fudge in that parliament passed a resolution requiring the government to cancel the request for global coalition support made in 2014, and for it to work towards ending the presence of all foreign troops.

These were further rolled back as reports emerged that the government’s vision of implementing the withdrawal of foreign forces was for the withdrawal of combat forces only and did not include those conducting training and logistical support. Threats of US sanctions have undoubtedly played a role in deflating the illusions of power, especially by those in the axis of resistance, and contributed to this climbdown.

Iraq’s economy is not only vulnerable to US sanctions, but to any disengagement from the US dollar-based global financial and economic system. In fact, the US could affect far worse damage to Iraq than it did to Iran without the need to implement sanctions, let alone sanctions that would ‘make Iranian sanctions seem somewhat tame’. This vulnerability stems from the failures of successive Iraqi administrations from 2003 to reconstruct the country following decades of conflict, or to create the foundations for a diversified economy driven by the private sector, and not by the state.

Instead, successive administrations have deepened the country’s dependence on oil, pursued policies that fostered a structural imbalance between the government’s current and investment expenditures, in which the public sector consumed an ever-increasing share of government revenues. The sole dependence on oil income for these revenues, and the dreadful twins of a dominant public sector and stunted private sector, are the primary reasons why the country is vulnerable to external shocks.[1]

The extent of the damage to the Iraqi economy would depend on the three broad categories of a US response to a hostile Iraq. The first category would be the imposition of primary US sanctions, and secondary sanctions on non-US entities that conduct commercial or financial dealings with Iraq. Their effects would be along the lines to those suffered by Iran due to the imposition in 2018 of similar US sanctions.

For Iran, these included a major drop in oil exports, a severe economic contraction, a significant drop in the value of the currency, a substantial rise in inflation, a lowering of living standards, and a rise in unemployment especially among the youth and the most vulnerable segments of society.

However, the consequences for Iraq would be on a much worse scale than those suffered by Iran. Firstly, because oil exports constitute the bulk of the Iraqi budget’s revenues (about 90 percent of the 2019 budget) unlike those for Iran’s budget (about 30 percent of its fiscal 2019–20 budget). The loss of this income for Iraq would severely restrict the government’s ability to pay for salaries and pensions, social security, goods and services, in addition to reducing any funds available for the reconstruction of the country, the development of its oil sector or the development of its power generation.

Secondly, Iraq depends almost completely on imports for its consumption of goods and services, unlike Iran which has a well-diversified economy, and a more developed industrial, agricultural and financial sectors. Iraq’s small industrial and agricultural sectors cannot meet even a small percentage of its domestic demand, while its under-developed financial sector cannot provide the financing for the development of these two sectors.

Thirdly, Iraq’s cash-reliant economy depends on access to physical USD notes for it to function. Such a disruption in the supply of USD notes would raise the price of the USD against the IQD, and with it a rise in the value of imported goods. In 2015 the country felt some of these effects due to a restriction in the supply of USD notes from the US Federal Reserve as a result of the US Treasury’s concerns that sanctioned entities (Iran & Daesh) had access to these notes. Any effects of a sizeable loss of access to USD notes would be significantly worse than in 2015. Making things worse is that Iraq cannot access USD notes from a third country, unlike Iran, whose need for notes is met through Iraq.

The second category of US responses would be the loss of waivers for the purchase of Iranian gas, which presents Iraq with a Sophie’s choice. Continue with the purchase of Iranian gas and suffer the consequences of US secondary sanctions, which would be only marginally less painful than any possible imposition of full sanctions, discussed earlier. Or, discontinue buying Iranian gas, lose about a third of Iraq’s domestic power supply and enrage a population that is already incensed over a chronic inadequate supply of power.

A less discussed point is that these waivers were granted on the conditions that Iraq develops a credible plan to reduce its dependence on Iranian gas, and in the long term end those imports. The US could still grant these waivers, but impose more stringent conditions on plans to reduce dependence and a tougher monitoring regime with associated penalties for failures in making progress.

The third category, and the most likely US reaction, would be to gradually end its treatment of Iraq as a close ally and therefore subject to increased US treasury scrutiny its financial system, which would negatively affect the functioning of the Iraqi Central Bank and the banking system. The most obvious result would be a disruption of Iraq’s cash-heavy economy, which relies on the access of physical USD notes for the conduct of commercial and financial transactions as discussed earlier.

Unlike the fictional Duchy of Grand Fenwick, in Leonard Wibberley’s satirical cold war novel The Mouse That Roared, Iraq cannot expect any sort of victory from a conflict or strained relationship with the US.

[1] An upcoming piece by the author examines the structural imbalances in the economy as a inevitable consequence of successive post-2003 political system, i.e, the “Muhasasa Ta’ifia”. This imbalance was first explored in: https://auis.edu.krd/iris/latest-iris-publications/iraqs-investment-spending-deficit-analysis-chronic-failures and subsequently in a series of tweets: https://twitter.com/AMTabaqchali/status/1181559159453564928?s=20 and https://twitter.com/AMTabaqchali/status/1182253543144771584?s=20

 

By Laura Rozen for Al-Monitor. Any opinions expressed are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Iraq Business News.

US Syria envoy: Any talks on troop withdrawal from Iraq must include all aid

US-led international operations in Iraq against the so-called Islamic State (IS) have been put on pause, as some 5,000 US forces in Iraq are primarily focused on protecting themselves in the wake of escalating violence between the US military and Iranian-backed groups that culminated in the Jan. 3 US drone strike on Iranian Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani and an Iraqi militia leader at Baghdad airport, a top US envoy said today.

But any discussions with the Iraqi government about a possible future withdrawal of US forces in Iraq would need to be broadened to encompass the entire scope of US-Iraq relations, including diplomatic and financial support, said James Jeffrey, the special envoy to the global coalition to defeat IS.

Click here to read the full story.

By Dana Taib Menmy for Al-Monitor. Any opinions expressed are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Iraq Business News.

Abdul Mahdi urges Kurds to help rid Iraq of US troops

Iraqi caretaker Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi arrived Jan. 11 in Erbil — his first official visit to the Kurdistan region since taking office — to discuss the country’s stability and the need for Kurdistan to cooperate with a push to expel US forces.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani tweeted Jan. 8 that Iran will “kick all US forces out of the region” in response to the Jan. 3 killing by US forces of Qasem Soleimani, chief commander of the Quds Force in Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, deputy head of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Units.

Click here to read the full story.

By Adnan Abu Zeed for Al Monitor. Any opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Iraq Business News.

Foreign troops’ future in Iraq uncertain as clashes continue

For the security of its personnel, NATO has temporarily suspended its training activities in Iraq, given the recent violence there. Iraqis seem divided over what that will mean for their safety.

The United States on Jan. 3 assassinated Iranian Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani and the deputy head of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Units, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, in a drone attack near the Baghdad airport.

Iran retaliated by firing missiles at military bases in Iraq where US troops are stationed. There are also mass protests taking place in Iran and Iraq.

Click here to read the full article.

By John Lee.

The Trump administration has reportedly threatened to block Iraq’s access to its funds in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York if Iraq expels US troops from the country.

The Wall Street Journal quoted unnamed Iraqi officials as saying that the US State Department warning came after the Iraqi parliament voted in favour of a resolution demanding the removal of American forces from Iraq.

Iraq uses the account to deposit its oil sale revenues and pay government salaries and contracts.

According to the most recent financial statement from the Central Bank of Iraq (CBI), the Federal Reserve held about $3 billion in overnight deposits at the end of 2018.

(Source: Wall Street Journal)

By Jack Detsch for Al-Monitor. Any opinions expressed are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Iraq Business News.

Iraq’s caretaker prime minister privately does not want US troops to withdraw, several sources familiar with the situation told Al-Monitor, though Adel Abdul Mahdi publicly backed a recent parliamentary vote that urged the Donald Trump administration to exit the war-torn country.

Despite calling on Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to send an American delegation to Iraq to negotiate the withdrawal of US troops in a readout of a Friday call, Abdul Mahdi is trying to find a way to keep an American presence in the country while attempting to placate Iran-backed militia leaders who want to force 5,200 US troops out, a source familiar with the situation on the ground said.

Click here to read the full story.