Follow us on social


The Recent U.S. Attack on an Iraqi Militia Only Further Entrenches the U.S. Military in the Middle East

The consequences of the U.S. attack on Iraqi Shiite militia group Kataib Hezbollah far outweigh whatever short sighted benefits the Trump administration is claiming.

Analysis | Global Crises

On December 29, 2019 a group of U.S. F-15E fighters attacked five facilities controlled by the Shiite militia group, Kataib Hezbollah, in Iraq and Syria. In addition to the destruction of five weapons and munitions depots, and command and control locations, these attacks killed 25 Iraqis, including at least four militia commanders and the wounding of at least 55 others. The Trump administration argues that these attacks were not only an appropriate response to the attack by the group, which the U.S. contends is an Iranian proxy, on an Iraqi military base near Kirkuk that killed a U.S. contractor and wounded four American troops and two Iraqis. Moreover, the U.S. says, it will degrade the group’s ability to conduct future attacks against coalition forces in the region.

Even if one accepts the administration’s rationale for the American response, the incident should raise a number of concerns. First, why does the U.S. still have approximately 5,000 troops plus an unknown number of private contractors in Iraq nearly seventeen years after our invasion? It is important to remember that because of the demands of the Iraqi government — of former Prime Minister Nouri al-Malaki, whom the U.S. installed — the Bush administration agreed in 2008 to withdraw all American troops from the country by the end of 2011, an arrangement the Obama administration implemented. U.S. forces returned in 2014, at the request of the Iraqi government, to combat ISIS, which was decimating the U.S.-trained Iraqi military and had taken control of one-third of the country. But, after the defeat of ISIS the rationale has changed. According to the Trump administration, the U.S. remains there to combat influence on the Iraqi military by Iranian militias, many of whom we cooperated with to defeat ISIS. Second, if our attack in Iraq was a response to an assault on that country by a foreign power, why was the U.S. attack on December 29, 2019, unanimously and publicly condemned by all the Iraqi leaders, including the president, the prime minister, the foreign minister, the Fatih Alliance — the second largest group in the Iraqi Parliament — and the top Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al Sistani? Iraqi President Barham Salih actually went so far as to call it an aggressive action and a violation of Iraqi sovereignty. When Secretary of State Mike Pompeo informed Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi of the attack ahead of time, the prime minister asked him to call it off, and then publicly condemned it, calling it an unspeakable, vicious assault that will have dangerous consequences. How can we claim to be in Iraq to protect their democracy when we are obviously violating their sovereignty?

Third, what comes next? The Pentagon claims that its precision defensive strikes will degrade

the militia group’s ability to conduct future attacks against coalition forces, while Pompeo calls it a decisive response to Iran. What happens if the strike does not degrade the militia’s capabilities? Will the U.S. be prepared to attack Iran, which it claims is responsible for the attacks on U.S. personnel? And do we want a war with Iran while the Pentagon is preparing to shift our forces from the Middle East to combat what it sees as the primary threat to our security, our strategic competitors, Russia and China? Moreover, is any of this even legal? Is our continued presence in Iraq still justified by the Authorization of Military Force (AUMF) passed after 9/11, or by the 2002 Congressional vote to support the invasion of Iraq? Is it time to ask Congress to vote on our continued deployment in Iraq?

Fourth, how will the U.S. attacks impact events in Iraq where there is already turmoil? Mass demonstrations there have resulted in the deaths of approximately 500 anti-government protestors, who, among other things, were condemning militias like Kataib Hezbollah and their Iranian backers. Now, they’ve turned their ire on the United States because of the attack, with anti-American slogans replacing anti-Iranian ones and with calls for an end to the American occupation, including an attack on the American embassy.

As the U.S. considers what its next steps should be, it should reflect on the unintended consequences of its mindless, needless, senseless invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003 and its current maximum pressure campaign against Iran. Not only did the invasion lead to the establishment of ISIS, but it also increased the influence of Iran in the county and in the region, a situation we are dealing with today. And, our maximum pressure campaign against Iran has led to the increasing influence of China and Russia in the region, as demonstrated by their recent naval exercises with Iran. Finally, these attacks have strengthened Iran’s influence in the region by undermining our relations with Iraq.

Analysis | Global Crises
Ukraine-Poland row exposes history, limits of devotion
Credit: Polish President Andrzej Duda (Shutterstock/BikerBarakuss) and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky (Shutterstock/Oleksandr Osipov)

Ukraine-Poland row exposes history, limits of devotion


The vitriolic dispute between Poland and Ukraine brings out some aspects of the West’s approach to the war in Ukraine that the Ukrainian government would do well to study carefully.

The dispute originated in charges by Poland and other central European governments that Ukraine’s greatly increased grain exports to Europe — a consequence of the Russian closure of the Black Sea to Ukrainian maritime trade — were flooding European markets and depressing prices for Polish and other farmers.

keep readingShow less
Rep. Gerry Connolly

Rep. Gerry Connolly, screengrab via

How members of Congress can take on Iran hawks

Middle East

During a recent House hearing on “Iran’s escalating threats,” a Democratic lawmaker completely dismantled all the myths opponents of diplomacy peddle about Iran and its nuclear program.

The hearing was dominated by hawkish voices on Iran, who urged for increasing pressure and spurned any diplomatic engagement. The only exception was Suzanne Maloney from the Brookings Institute, who took a more moderate stance.

keep readingShow less
Wall Street Journal

Editorial credit: monticello /

WSJ conceals Saudi funding of pro-Saudi nuke deal source


The Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday that “Israeli officials are quietly working with the Biden administration on a polarizing proposal to set up a U.S.-run uranium-enrichment operation in Saudi Arabia as part of a complex three-way deal to establish official diplomatic relations between the two Middle Eastern countries,” according to U.S. and Israeli officials.

The article, authored by Dion Nissenbaum and Dov Lieber, largely showcases Israeli opposition to the deal. Mark Dubowitz, CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a group whose mission includes providing “education to enhance Israel’s image in North America…” was quoted opposing a uranium enrichment program on Saudi soil. He warned that “we’re one bullet away from a disaster in Saudi Arabia,” adding, “What happens if, God forbid, a radical Islamist leader takes control?”

keep readingShow less

Ukraine War Crisis