American troops leave Iraq for good

The last American soldiers from a two-decade military commitment in Iraq have finally withdrawn from the sole-remaining base at Erbil in the north of the country. About 100 British troops have also been withdrawn, unable to stay without US logistical and intelligence back-up. Unlike the chaotic evacuation of thousands of US troops and petrified Afghans from Afghanistan in 2021, this was a quiet, unopposed withdrawal of a few hundred American soldiers. So ends the presence of US forces in Iraq, perceived by the Baghdad government as a sign of increasing confidence in its ability to keep the country’s enemies at bay. However, since the decision was taken by President Joe Biden in September 2024 to remove all US troops from Iraq by September 30 this year, the Middle East dynamics have changed dramatically. The US is at war with Iran, Iranian proxy militias are ever-present in Iraq, plotting attacks on American forces in the region, and the influence of Tehran on the Baghdad government has grown exponentially. The underlying threats and the continuing responsibility of the US to monitor the region and act militarily if required were highlighted by Admiral Brad Cooper, commander of US Central Command who oversaw the troop-withdrawal from Erbil. “As we step back and hand full primary responsibility for Iraq’s security to the government of Iraq and the brave people of Iraq, the US and coalition forces stationed across the region will remain ready to respond to any Isis [Islamic State] threats that arise,” he said. Operation Inherent Resolve, codename for the US-led coalition mission against Isis in Iraq and Syria, formed when the terrorist group seized huge swathes of territory in both countries and declared an Islamic caliphate, will remain in being. However, from now on, the counter-Isis mission will be headquartered in Jordan. Many of the 1,500 American and coalition forces based at Erbil, capital of Kurdistan in northern Iraq, will transfer to Jordan. The RAF will continue to fly over Syria to combat the remnants of Isis but it is unclear whether they have permission to fly over Iraq. America’s military involvement in Iraq is a tale of many woes which have been exhaustively chronicled since the decision by President George W Bush to invade the country in 2003 to topple its leader, Saddam Hussein, and remove the Iraqi dictator’s suspected hidden weapons of mass destruction. Intelligence failed then, and failed again when, after Bush had declared “Mission Accomplished” on May 1, 2003, an al-Qaeda-led insurgency erupted across Iraq, leading to the birth of the Islamic State, forcing the US to stay put and face an enemy bent on murderous revenge against the western occupiers. America’s military commitment in Iraq effectively lasted 23 years, from 2003 to 2026, although there was a period, from 2011 to 2014, where none were present. Baghdad appealed to the US and coalition partners, including Britain, in 2014 to redeploy troops to help destroy Isis, although in an advise-and-assist capacity. The lessons from those two decades have been sobering for the US military. Political mistakes made in Washington and by Bush’s envoy, Paul Bremer, sent to Baghdad to administrate the post-Saddam era, quadrupled the challenges they faced. The US-led coalition had to counter the growing intensity and violence of the insurgents who, like the Taliban in Afghanistan, and Iran today, learnt how to adapt warfare techniques to confront a superpower army. Specifically, the insurgents who evolved into Isis used improvised explosive devices (IEDs), and cheap, off-the-shelf commercial drones with grenades attached to kill and maim. The biggest political mistake which complicated the job of the thousands of American troops during this period was the decision by the Bush administration to launch a nation-building programme to turn Iraq into a democracy-loving ally while at the same time getting rid of the country’s army and civil service, sent home for being Baathist loyalists to Saddam. It left a vacuum which was exploited by the insurgents whose numbers were multiplied by disillusioned Baathists who joined up. The impact for the US-led coalition and for the Iraqi people was devastating. Nearly 4,600 American troops were killed between 2003 and 2026. It has been estimated that between 187,000 and 211,000 Iraqi civilians died from violent action during the same period. US Central Command is now on overwatch from Jordan, as well as at other forward-operating bases spread throughout the Middle East. But will the absence of American troops in Iraq, albeit in relatively limited numbers, pose greater risks for the region as a whole? Could Isis revive? Will Iran benefit? The lesson from Afghanistan, where no residual US force was left as an insurance policy, cannot be ignored. Jasim al-Bahadli, an Iraqi security analyst, told Reuters: “Iran stands to benefit strategically from the coalition departure because it removes a military presence that for years acted as a counter-weight to Tehran’s influence in Iraq.” He also warned that Iran’s militant proxies in Iraq would seek to gain more influence over Baghdad’s security and political decision-making.

The "terror bomb plot" at RAF Fairford

Is it possible that everyone, from President Trump and Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, to all the top bosses of the UK's counter-terrorism organisations, are going to end up with egg on their face? The investigation into the alleged bomb plot against the base used by American bombers to bomb Iran is steadily going downhill. At first it was all apocalypse now: five men in balaclavas in three vans suspected of carrying explosives heading for the base. It looked cut and dried: an attempt by unknown men, possibly linked in some way to Iran, taking revenge on the base for striking Iranian targets. The regime in Tehran, notably the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps leaders, had warned that RAF Fairfod in Gloucstershire would be a legitimate target for revenge attacks. So, it wasn't suprising that the police announced they they had stopped the three vans and arrested the suspects. A brilliant operation all neatly tied up. To help with the drama, Trump declared that he knew all about it, that the men had been followed and the plot had been anticipated. He congratulated the British for stopping what could have been a big hit on the controversial base. But the the five men, all British nationals in their twenties from London, were released on bail! What on earth was that about? Suspects in a terror plot released on bail less than 24 hours after they were arrested? And where were the explosives for this plot? Nowhere, declared the bomb squad. There are so many questions not being answered that one can only make the assumption that the initial fears of a terrorist attack were not based on fact, let alone prior intelligence. After all, it was the 999 call from a farmer (female) tipping off the police that she had seen three vans and five men in balaclavas which launched the massive armed police response. If there are no explosives, what will these men be charged with, and what on earth were they up to? You don't wander around the countryside in the early hours wearing balaclavas for fun and games. It gets mysterior and mysterior and it may just all fall apart.

US midterms could be a blue wash

The way things are going for Donald Trump at the moment - vis a vis the war with Iran, steeply rising cost of petrol and diesel, cost of living in general - the Democrats are going to sweep the board in the midterm elections in November. It could mean the Democrats seizing control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, a result which would be disastrous for Trump and his final two years in the White House. But the big question is this: where are the Democratic leaders, who is rising to the top to challenge the Republicans in the presidential election in 2028? There is no one with the right stuff coming forward as far as I can see. Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, looks to be the most likely top candidate but is he the sort of politician capable of changing back the United States to the country it used to be before Trump arrived on the scene? I doubt it. Other potential candidates such as Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg tried and failed the last time. They don't look or sound like winners. This is s major problem for the Democrats. They may be looking forward to a good midterms election but can they see beyond it to 2028? The country awaits.

Trump rejects Iran's peace offer

Donald Trump didn't take long to dismiss Iran's new peace offer. The reason is not difficult to understand. Effectively, Iran wanted all the goodies available first before opening the Strait of Hormuz: a lifting of the US naval blockade, an end to all conflict across the region, including Lebanon and Yemen, and the ban on Iranian oil to be lifted. Then and only then would Iran be prepared to talk about everything else, such as the nuclear programme. Trump doesn't like to have the terms dictated to him and not only said no but also suggested that after the midterm elections in the US in November he could be back to bombing Iran once again. That was presumably said to put the maximum pressure on the Tehran regime to accept Trump's terms which would be - open the Strait of Hormuz totally and then we'll talk. It's a game of bluff and counter-bluff. Iran said that if the US returns to strikes, it is ready to retaliate. What we do know now, thanks to revelations about the huge damage done to US bases in the Gulf region from Iranian ballistic-missile and drone attacks, is that Iran can retaliate in a big way. So, Trump must be hoping that the economic crisis for Iran, deprived of any income from oil sales, will fall to its knees and beg for mercy. This is what should happen, but I fear it won't. Trump has an enemy he can't really fathom.

Iran offers new deal

It is one of those ironies that if there is to be a deal between Iran and the United States to stop the war it will probably be something like or something very like the 14-point Memorandum of Understanding that was drawn up by the Trump administration and Iran and then fell apart after someone stupid in the Islanic Revolutionary Guard Corps decided to attack a ship in the Strait of Hormuz. The main ingredients of the memorandum are being picked over by the US and Iran, but basically what it says will probably do. The Iranian foreign minister has produced a slightly revised version, suggesting that instead of waiting 60 days for talks to begin on Iran's nuke programme after the war has come to an end, it could be just seven days. That's really the only change being offered. Since the US was happy with the Memorandum of Understanding, the Trump administration might as well go for the new idea. Why not? If Washington thought the memorandum was ok in Jine, then why should it not think it's ok today? Go for it and end the war and bring to a close the nightmare economic crisis around the world.

No leader knows how to cope with the world anymore

As Donald Trump and Xi Zinping meet for their summit in Washington you wonder whether either of them has a clue about how to save the world from a rapid downhill journey to chaos. If it's not wars, it's AI or economic disaster. There is much pageantry and handshakes but whatever the two leaders agree to will make very little difference. Why? Because they have almost nothing in common. President Xi Zinping wants China to be the dominating economic force on the planet, and Trump thinks the US IS the dominating force on the planet and won't let go. People who want to have their own home, their own ability to feed their families, and forge their own future play little part in this big-power battle. Mark Carney, the Canadian prime minister, has come up with some sort of alternative way for the world's divisions based on multi-culturism but it's all just words. Bill Clinton and Tony Blair announced a Third Way but whoever hears about that these days? There is no plan for the world ahead. Massive climate change is going ahead whatever anyone does, AI will destroy the world's workforce and no one will be able to afford to drive their cars, whether petrol- or electrical-driven. Big summits like the one we have in Washington today solve nothing. They just tinker round the edges.

Fire and brimstone from Donald Trump

Donald Trump used his speech before the UN General Assembly to warn that he had it in mind to "annihilate" Iran. To achieve that, he will need a heck of a lot of bombs and missiles and in the process could kill a lot of civilians. So, it's just rhetoric. But if he isn't going to do it, why give such a warning at the UN which is supposed to be all about respecting countries' sovereighty and rights? Well, he did also say there could ne negotiations, and the president of Iran, who was present, was listening and soon after we heard that Steve Witkoff, Trump's special envoy, had met up with the Iranian foreign minister in a room somewhere in the UN. Probably nothing will come of it. But there is always hope. Trump does not want to restart the war, not with the midterm elections just a few weeks away. He wants a deal above all else. Iran will be hoping to have enough leverage to ensure it gets a deal it likes. Trump won't care too much provided the Strait of Hormuz is opened and running smoothly and there is a clause which guarantees Iran will never seek to build a nuclear weapon. He will say that's a victory even though that was exactly the position before the US and Israel attacked Iran on February 28. What, in other words, was the war all about?