Al-Zaidi's Trip to the US Was to Consolidate Washington's Dominance
TEHRAN (Defapress) - Following recent developments in relations between Baghdad and Washington and Ali al-Zaidi's meeting with Trump at the White House, different analyses have been put forward about the future of the US presence and the fate of the Resistance's weapons. These meetings, which take place in an atmosphere full of regional tensions, have raised serious questions about Iraq's political and economic independence. Donald Trump's recent positions and the Iraqi Prime Minister's responses have led to strong reactions among political groups and Iraqi society. A close examination of these positions from the perspective of Iraqi experts reveals the hidden layers of these agreements and the challenges facing the Resistance groups.
In this regard, the Defapress correspondent spoke with Iraqi political analyst Kian al-Assadi, the details of which are as follows:
The Iraqi political analyst said at the beginning of his speech: The timing of this trip is fraught with great difficulties; in light of the tense security situation in the region and America's return to breaking its promises. This trip has the aspect of holding the Iraqi economy hostage by American companies, despite the failure of these companies in the energy sector and the electricity crisis over the past decades until today. This trip also has a security aspect, in connection with the American deception about leaving Iraqi lands and linking it to disarming the resistance and fighting it, to the point of criminalizing the Resistance; an issue that consolidates the American domination over Iraq.
Al-Assadi continued: Trump is trying to convey the message that just as he succeeded in Syria by appointing a prime minister who is aligned with him, he has also succeeded in Iraq; and this is what he had promised since the beginning of Al-Zaidi's candidacy. This issue requires a serious decision from the coordination framework; a decision that does not succumb to flattery and does not rely on the lies of the "international actor"; the same international actor that has brought nothing to Iraq except ISIS, corruption, and quotas.
The Iraqi political analyst stated: There is dissatisfaction among the Iraqi public with Al-Zaidi's response to Trump's question; in contrast to the silence of the political forces, especially the decision-makers who accepted Al-Zaidi and supported him. There is also dissatisfaction with Trump's disregard, his insults, and his boasting about killing the Iraqi guest, Lieutenant General Qassem Soleimani and Major General Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis; and this is what the resistance had warned about from the very beginning and had rejected this trip, which has no benefit in terms of Iraq's interests, but only consolidates American interests.
According to him, his response shows confusion and inability to tell Trump: "You are wrong"; and someone who is not trustworthy to defend the blood of the martyrs will not be trustworthy to protect the country's good and the interests of the servants. Indeed, you were not in politics at that time, but you were engaged in business activities, and if it were not for the blood of the martyrs, you could neither do your work nor collect your wealth.
He added: This position is definitely a disregard and an attempt to open a new path that will establish what Trump wants under the pretext of economic interests; and playing tricks on America in this matter is the cause of its owner's destruction; because America does not look at Iraq as an equal party, but treats it as its backyard.
Al-Assadi continued: The Resistance has clearly declared that its weapons are the trust of Imam Mahdi and the trust of the martyrs, and they will not be handed over under any circumstances. Some believe that the weapons of resistance should be handed over to the Popular Mobilization Forces. In contrast, others consider it an ideological weapon and believe that America cannot be trusted and will continue its violations, and that the Iraqi government is also incapable of imposing sovereignty over the land and sky of Iraq. This issue necessitates holding on to these weapons.
This Iraqi political analyst noted: I think the Popular Mobilization Forces have another plan that will begin to be implemented after the case of the weapons of resistance is over. But regarding the organization of the weapons, even the resistance itself demands it and does not stand against it, and its weapons are disciplined and organized and have never been against the government and its sovereignty.
According to him, the target is the ideological weapon of the Resistance; a weapon that believes in the principle of defending rights and resisting American occupation, and this is a purely American demand that has been sent to the government led by Al-Zaidi, and this government is also beginning to implement it.
He stated: The most important obstacles are the lack of seriousness of the American forces in withdrawing and considering the Iraqi sky permissible; something that Al-Zaidi cannot set a limit for. Therefore, this process is designed from the beginning with the aim of hitting only the Resistance, and the rest is just slogans.
Al-Assadi said: The tension inside Iraq is not in anyone's interest, not even America, because America wants to plunder as much of Iraq's wealth as possible; and whoever wants to push the country towards a conflict environment is moving towards suicide and will definitely fail. Also, the political forces are willing to reach an understanding with the resistance on the issue of weapons, rather than moving towards confrontation and confrontation.
He continued: Al-Zaidi’s trip to Tehran will not include what his trip to the United States included, because it conflicts with Trump’s orientations and demands. I do not think that Al-Zaidi will bring an economic delegation with him, as he did on his trip to Washington; and the most he will do is an effort to promote a discourse of moderation and neutrality and play on the chord of non-alignment.
The Iraqi political analyst concluded by emphasizing: There is no clear foreign policy, and what he is doing is political confusion and not drawing a clear path within specific frameworks and strategies. The relationship with Iran, as a neighboring country with which we have many things in common, should be privileged and have more importance than the relationship with the United States; a country that is thousands of kilometers away from Iraq. But the future of the resistance in Iraq is tied to the existence of real dangers and foreign greed; Greed that does not end, but rather increases more than ever.
