The visit of the US president to the “Ain al-Assad” base revealed the fragility of political alliances
US President Donald Trump during his visit to the base, “Ain al-Assad” in western Iraq last Wednesday (AP)
Baghdad: Hamza Mustafa
The leader of the Sadrist movement Moqtada al-Sadr, a fierce attack on the Iraqi government against the backdrop of US President Donald Trump visited the base of “Ain al-Assad” in Anbar province in western Iraq. Sadr, in a statement yesterday, said: “Regret, regret the government of Iraq and its politicians to bow to such practice, they are so submissive but lost the heroic and historical positions of this ancient country.
At a time when the visit of Trump to Iraq, the positions of blocs and parties and Shiite forces on the visit in exchange for the silence of the Kurds and Sunnis, the Sadr statement revealed a clear contrast in the positions of those blocks of Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi. At a time when many of the blocs and leaders of the alliance «conquest» what they have adopted a courageous position of Abdul Mahdi because of what was said about his refusal to meet at the base at the base of Assad and the requirement that the meeting in Baghdad, Sadr counted the behavior of the government and Iraqi politicians as a “subservience” of politics American.
According to a well-known Iraqi politician, “Attitudes from Trump’s visit to Iraq do not in fact reflect the unity of a genuine national position, but rather an attempt to settle scores with the United States and the other is just a wave ride, while the third is to try to satisfy foreign parties Take it from attitudes toward America. ” “The difference in attitudes towards such an issue is normal, provided that it has a political dimension, while the clear title of these positions is the racial and sectarian alignments,” the well-informed politician told Asharq Al-Awsat, asking not to be named. Where now the Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis in two major political alliances are almost the majority of members of the Iraqi parliament, Trump’s visit proved a deep divergence in the positions of these blocks of the most important issues that should not be disputed: the national sovereignty and foreign presence in the country ». “The Sunnis still see that they need the United States, even though some of them have entered into clear alliances with parties close to Iran,” he said.
In the context of the reactions, the former member of the Iraqi parliament for the Kurdistan Democratic Party, Majid Shankali told «Middle East», «The uproar raised about Trump’s visit to Iraq is very fabricated, the visit is normal for more than one reason; And the second is that the visits of senior US officials are stipulated in the strategic agreement signed between Baghdad and Washington, and thirdly that Trump visited an American base in Germany in the same way he visited the base of Ain al-Assad without talking about the violation of Germany’s sovereignty » .
Shankali said that “what is happening is really strange, as those who denounce calculated on the Iranian camp, and the silence is calculated on the American camp, and this in itself is a clear expression of the absence of an Iraqi national decision away from foreign agendas.
For his part, the professor of political science at the University of Baghdad, Dr. Khalid Abdul-Ilah told Asharq Al-Awsat that “the Sunnis and the Kurds do not have convulsive positions on the United States of America, and this has withdrawn the position from the visit of Trump,” noting that ” The visit revealed in fact the reality of the diseases suffered by the political process, including the lack of cross-sectarian and ethnic issues in the core ». “There are new demands on the parliament to issue a resolution or legislation that obligates the government to withdraw foreign troops from the country,” he said. “There is no strong internal reality that produces a unified foreign policy,” he said. “The presence of Turkish forces in northern Iraq has been a major issue. There have been a lot of demands to remove them when there was tension between Baghdad and Ankara, No one is talking about the presence of these forces », stressing that« talk of sovereignty is linked to external wills and not a unified national approach ».