[ad_1]
1- Tehran seeks to assure those interested in Baghdad the seriousness of the US intentions to withdraw from the West Asian region, specifically Afghanistan and Iraq.
2- It also seeks to verify the readiness of the Iraqi resistance factions in the face of any American madness that may be attempted by the leadership of the team of the outgoing president, Donald Trump (before the date of handover of power to the winner of the last elections, Joe Biden) , especially since the American media were baptized throughout the days. The past led to the leak of information about Washington’s intention to attack Iran or its allies in the region.
3- The government of Mustafa Al-Kazemi has expressed, on more than one occasion, its disgust at the “ruptures” in the calm between the resistance factions and the US occupation forces, the latter of which resulted in a series of civilians killed and wounded, which was also condemned by the resistance factions, at a time when the security authorities did not announce the identity of the perpetrator (see “Al-Akhbar”, No. 4203).
These “motives” were translated into an interview by Qaani-Al-Kazemi, in which the former affirmed his country’s support for the latter and his government. The two men understood the need to “go ahead with the existing calm,” especially since their justifications remain valid. According to Al-Kazemi sources, the latter is “serious and determined” to reach a timetable with the US side to organize the withdrawal of the occupying forces. Sources add that the government is about to organize early legislative elections (June 2021), so early elections require maintaining the current calm. In addition to the above, the Baghdad authorities want to distance themselves from the confrontation between the Washington and Tehran camps, given that the socioeconomic situation tends to explode, which may be a security fuse this time, according to their options.
The resistance factions reject the claim that the Americans have no fighting forces.
On the other hand, the Iranian side expressed its understanding of the Iraqi position, stressing the need for “the continuation of the truce and the reduction of tension, provided that the US side adheres to the issue of withdrawal.” However, it seemed remarkable what Qaani told his Iraqi hosts, specifically the resistance factions, that “we must respect the truce, while increasing our readiness to confront any nonsense that may occur,” reflecting Iranian caution over the promises of the United States. Also, the statements of the general secretary of “Asaib Ahl al-Haq”, Qais Khazali, appeared last week (while Qaani was in Iraq), when he announced the end of the “truce” with the occupation forces, attributing it to “non-compliance of their conditions … “. He also noted the disclosure of a message he sent to Qaani (probably during the visit), in which he said: “… we are concerned about the issue, regardless of other calculations,” adding that “in the event that Iran is under some shame and pressure, the Iraqi resistance has its motives. ” Patriotism is 100% in response to American. ” And in light of the conflicting readings of Khazali’s statements, some believed the goal was to “ raise the level of pressure on the American occupation, accelerate the announcement of a withdrawal schedule, ” adding that “ the role-sharing policy, translated by Khazali: silence along with preparation Waiting for the right moment.
For its part, a leading source from the “Coordinating Committee of the Iraqi Resistance Factions” comments on the visit and its implications as follows:
1- General Qaani is not interested in visiting Baghdad to “extend the truce.”
2- The US side is looking for a convincing way out for the withdrawal, and among the options available is withdrawal during the truce, while obtaining government approvals to maintain forces with limited functions, numbers and deployment.
3- There is a conflict within the Iraqi government between those who confirm the withdrawal agreement and those who deny it, confirming survival, and this is what we will never accept.
4- The attack on the “Silk Base” in Erbil (Kurdistan region) confused the calculations, after the American perception that staying there, or at the “Ein Al-Assad base” (in the west of the country), it was a safe stay.
5- We are not convinced that the Americans have forces other than combat, regardless of the names. Consequently, we will not accept the presence of an American soldier, and we will treat it as an occupation, and we will not accept the dominance of the American embassy over the political decision, nor the control of American companies over our economic capabilities, and we will confront it with all strength and determination.
6. Iran has never imposed a specific position on us, and has never asked us for a specific position in return. The issue of the American occupation is an Iraqi issue, and all thanks for your supportive and supportive stance.
In conclusion, the source affirms that the “coordinating body” informed Qaani that it welcomed his point of view, but the issue requires that everyone adhere to the necessary national position, far from the calculations of the current confrontation in the region. The source added, in his speech, that the “coordinating body” informed Qaani that the pressure from the Iranian side to stop the movement of the factions “no longer works”, and therefore the knockers on Tehran’s doors must remain. in Baghdad and knocking on “known” doors to come up with “solutions that satisfy everyone.”
Subscribe to «News» on YouTube here
