IRAQ: Iraq’s prime minister has squashed a move by pro-Iranian factions in his government who wanted to retaliate against President Donald Trump’s travel ban. The struggle shows the difficult position the Iraqi leader finds himself in – pulled between his most powerful neighbor and the United States under Trump.
For Haider al-Abadi, the situation had looked difficult on Sunday night. At a meeting of the most powerful Shia leaders and their representatives, he faced calls to respond in kind to the ban affecting seven mainly Muslim nations, including Iraq.
Trump’s order had triggered angry reactions among Shia politicians in Iraq. Those who are closest to Iran were insisting that Iraq should retaliate with a ban on U.S. nationals, just like Tehran did the day before.
But matters were resolved smoothly in Abadi’s favor. The prime minister warned the Shia leaders that a ban on Americans would jeopardize U.S. support for the war on Islamic State. So they were prepared for the time being at least to reject the demands of the pro-Iranian lobby.
While the leaders agreed that the U.S. order was unfair, it was understood that Iran’s allies had no alternative plan on how to finish the battle in Mosul, the last major city under the control of IS militants, without U.S. help.
Abadi said at a news conference on Tuesday that Iraq was best served by preserving the U.S. alliance. “We are … in a battle and we don’t want to harm the national interest.”
Iran’s allies are, nevertheless, preparing to press their cause again should relations deteriorate further between Washington and Iran after the battle of Mosul, said Ahmed Younis, a professor of international relations at the University of Baghdad.
One prominent member of parliament warned the situation could change if the ban was extended.
“The Americans promised to review the ban in three months,” said Hassan Khalati, a lawmaker close to Sayyid Ammar al-Hakim, a prominent Shi’ite cleric and politician who hosted Sunday’s meeting. “If it is maintained, there will be (further) pressure” on the government to retaliate, he said.
In a sign of lingering dissatisfaction a show of hands in parliament on Monday signaled that the majority of lawmakers would have preferred a retaliatory travel ban. The show of hands was symbolic because Shi’ite leaders had backed down at the meeting the day earlier.
The new American president has indicated a cooling of relations with Iran, unlike the previous administration of Barack Obama which reached a deal providing for curbs on the Iranian nuclear program in return for easing international sanctions.
Washington on Friday ratcheted up pressure on Iran, putting sanctions on 13 individuals and 12 entities days after the White House put Tehran “on notice” over a ballistic missile test.
Iran’s dominant influence in Iraqi politics was eroded after IS routed the Iraqi army commanded then by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, who was a close ally of Tehran. This forced Maliki to seek U.S. help to fight the IS militants.
But the U.S. travel curbs – which bar the admission of people from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen – fueled the arguments of pro-Iranian political factions who seek to bolster Tehran’s influence at the expense of Washington.
Iranian officials state their support for Iraq in the war on Islamic State but make no public comments on U.S.-Iraqi affairs to avoid causing embarrassment for Baghdad.
