Iraq

Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi has arrived in Damascus to meet with Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa on the first visit of an Iraqi prime minister to Syria since the fall of Bashar al-Assad.

The visit comes as the two neighbours seek to strengthen bilateral ties and boost economic and oil cooperation.

According to the official Iraqi News Agency (INA), the two leaders discussed the export of Iraqi oil through the Baniyas line, increasing the volume of trade exchange and joint work to develop the agricultural sector to achieve food and economic integration.

Iraq has recently begun exporting limited quantities of oil through Syria following the outbreak of the US-led war on Iran.

Last July, the two countries signed agreements to revive the Haditha Baniyas pipeline to transport Iraqi oil in addition to signing a memorandum of understanding with a consortium of three companies, most notably the American oil major Chevron to implement the project.

“The Iraqi and Syrian people are one people in two countries,” Zaidi said according to INA, noting that “work to develop partnership and joint cooperation in various fields especially economic and social affairs, enhance security co-operation, unify positions on regional and international issues, and work to achieve peace and stability in the region”.

For his part, the Syrian president expressed his “great appreciation for the visit of al-Zaidi and his accompanying delegation,” stressing “the depth of bilateral relations and Syria’s keenness to achieve the highest levels of cooperation between the two countries”.

Al-Sharaa and al-Zaidi had previously met last September in New York on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, where they discussed ways to strengthen political and security coordination and expand economic and trade cooperation.

Baghdad, Iraq – Sitting anxiously in his small office in Jameela market, one of Baghdad’s main wholesale markets, food trader Hamza al-Rudayni is waiting to see what the coming days will bring.

A decision by the Iraqi government to devalue the country’s currency, the dinar, against the US dollar has left traders like him facing sudden losses and uncertainty over the prices they should charge for their goods.

“I don’t know what to do,” al-Rudayni told Al Jazeera after the devaluation reduced the dollar value of his dinar holdings, leaving him with less money to purchase imported goods.

“All I know is I woke up a few days ago to discover that I had lost 25 million Iraqi dinars (roughly $16,500 at the new exchange rate) because of this decision, while larger merchants lost billions,” he said.

Al-Rudayni entered the wholesale trade market last year after losing his previous job at a private Iraqi bank that he says was sanctioned by the United States Treasury. He sold his car and used his savings to start trading with a larger merchant before recently launching his own business.

With exchange-rate fluctuations making prices unpredictable, al-Rudayni said he and many other traders have chosen to suspend buying and selling until the situation stabilises.

“Market activity has ground to a halt,” al-Rudayni said. “Traders buy goods in dollars but sell them in dinars, as regulations prohibit them from selling in dollars.”

That is the root of the problem for traders: A weaker dinar means they have to pay more in local currency for goods imported in dollars, while making it harder to determine the right price they should charge customers for goods they already have in stock.

Why devalue?

On October 7, the Iraqi government introduced a new official exchange rate against the US dollar, in an attempt to ease a financial crisis triggered by the US-Israeli war on Iran and the  disruption of oil exports through the Strait of Hormuz.

Before the war, Iraq exported around 3.5 million barrels of oil per day through the Strait of Hormuz, accounting for 90 percent of Iraq’s government revenue.

The Central Bank of Iraq decision set the rate at 1,520 dinars per US dollar for cash sales to the public. It was previously set at 1,320 dinars per dollar.

Devaluing the Iraqi dinar by almost 15 percent against the dollar allows the government to receive more local currency for every dollar of oil revenue it converts, helping it cover public spending, including government employee salaries.

“It is my decision and I am responsible for it,” Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi said during a meeting with parliamentary leaders on Thursday.

“I was facing three challenging options to cover salaries and other mandatory expenditures,” al-Zaidi added. “The first is to cut salaries by 35 percent … the second is to pay the salaries every 45 days … while the third is to resort to foreign loans.”

Al-Zaidi, a former banker, also said that his government had inherited public debt exceeding 208 trillion Iraqi dinars ($139bn at the new rate) when it took office in May. He said the government needed approximately 10 trillion dinars ($6.7bn) each month to cover salaries and other essential expenditure.

A shortage of liquidity

The crisis in the Strait of Hormuz had caused a severe financial squeeze for the Iraqi government.

Although the situation has eased somewhat in recent weeks after Iraq’s oil exports partially recovered, they have yet to return to their pre-war levels.

Mudher Mohammed Salih, the Iraqi prime minister’s financial adviser, said in August that the Central Bank of Iraq’s foreign currency reserves had declined from $106bn to approximately $80bn.

To make up for the loss of revenue, the Iraqi government has also turned to borrowing from domestic banks to cover salaries and other expenses.

A Finance Ministry official told Al Jazeera that ensuring salaries were paid on time remained the government’s main priority, describing this issue as a matter of domestic economic stability.

“Our hands are tied regarding the revenue and how to maintain enough money to ensure that we can pay the salaries,” the official, who asked to remain anonymous because he was not authorised to speak publicly, said.

Economists have warned that while adjusting the exchange rate could ease some immediate fiscal pressures, it would not address the deeper weaknesses in Iraq’s economy.

“Nothing in economics is sacred, including the exchange rate,” said Nabil al-Marsoumi, professor of economics at Al Maaqal University in Basra. “It can be adjusted, but only after all other options have been exhausted.”

“In any case, the exchange rate shouldn’t be used as a cover-up for failures in the state’s economic and fiscal policies,” he added.

WASHINGTON — Late September in the Oval Office, President Trump declared, “Iran will never have a nuclear weapon. We’re gonna win that war very soon.”

It wasn’t the first time he’s described the hostilities as “war.”

On Feb. 28, the day U.S. and Israeli began bombarding Iran, he warned that “the lives of courageous American heroes may be lost, and we may have casualties. That often happens in war, but we’re doing this not for now. We’re doing this for the future, and it is a noble mission.”

But throughout seven months of back-and-forth strikes with Iran, Trump administration officials, and sometimes Trump himself, have performed verbal acrobatics to avoid the “W” word.

President Trump, addressing the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 22, used the word “war” one time when referring to hostilities with Iran.

(Pool / Getty Images)

Senior administration officials loosely tossed around “war” during the first stages of conflict, but with polls showing the war in unpopular and congressional support waning, “war” and even “Operation Epic Fury” have become taboo among members of the Trump administration.

Trump has called attacks on Iran a “military operation,” “military decimation,” “excursion” and “skirmish.”

At a White House press briefing last month, Vice President JD Vance attempted to clear the air when a reporter asked about a potential end to what she called a “war in Iran.”

“I wouldn’t call it a war right now,” Vance said. “Major combat operations lasted for about six weeks.”

Vice President JD Vance, addressing reporters at the White House on Sept. 3, said, “I wouldn’t call it a war right now” when asked about the conflict with Iran.

(Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth tread carefully in front of the Senate Appropriations Committee in July, repeatedly referring to a “conflict” in Iran that needed additional funding to continue.

On May 5, during the first of two delicate ceasefires with Iran, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced an end to the objectives laid out in Operation Epic Fury and the beginning of “Project Freedom” — an effort to escort merchant ships through the Strait of Hormuz.

In April, Trump announced the blockade of Iranian ports. When asked about whether the blockade constituted an act of war, Rubio replied, “That’s not an act of war, that’s a defensive measure. It’s a counter to what they have decided to do.”

Senior Trump officials have maintained that the conflict can no longer be viewed as war because the intensity of strikes between the two countries has been reduced.

The “end” of Operation Epic Fury, the name Trump used when he announced hostilities on Feb. 28, was declared on May 5 — 60 days after the fighting began.

The timing was no coincidence. Under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, a president must cease all hostilities abroad after 60 days if there is no congressional declaration of war.

Legal and political considerations

Under the Constitution, only Congress declares war, but past presidents have routinely circumvented this rule by exercising their authority to direct the military and initiate strikes on targeted nations.

Nearly every modern president, from Dwight D. Eisenhower to Trump, has used this justification to undertake military action without the declaratory approval of Congress.

Congress can also choose to approve an Authorization for Use of Military Force, which grants the president legal authority to conduct military operations overseas.

Unless Congress sets a time limit on the authorization, authority to use the legal justification to launch military strikes can theoretically span multiple administrations.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), a former constitutional law professor at American University, said that presidents of both parties have avoided the term “war” when attempting to evade congressional approval of hostile action abroad.

“Trump has followed some of his predecessors in playing word games with the war power,” Raskin said. “What makes his case so extreme is that he proudly described it as a war and depicted it in glorified military terms.”

In March, seven days into the fighting, Trump said, “The war itself is going unbelievably. It’s as good as it can be.”

Congress has not officially declared war since World War II. The Vietnam War, the invasion of Afghanistan and both wars in Iraq were all approved by Congress under the umbrella of an Authorization for the Use of Military Force.

This year Congress has not approved such an authorization for the action with Iran. Fourteen Senate votes for a War Powers Resolution to curb Trump’s war efforts have failed in the chamber so far.

According to a CNN/SSRS poll last month, only 26% of Americans approve of the Trump administration’s handling of the Iran war.

Raskin said that he believes Trump’s terminology has shifted with the public mood, adding that he hasn’t heard any of his Republican colleagues “play along with the semantic games.”

“When things have turned south in the fortunes of this war, he has tried to pretend it’s something else,” Raskin said. “I think that has just further enraged the population.”

Past handling of congressional war power

The administration’s declaration that Operation Epic Fury had concluded echoed May 2003, when then-President George W. Bush stood in front of a banner reading “Mission Accomplished” aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, approximately six weeks after Operation Iraqi Freedom began.

“Major combat operations in Iraq have ended,” Bush said. “And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.”

President George W. Bush speaks aboard the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln off the California coast on May 1, 2003.

(J. Scott Applewhite/AP)

Despite the victory lap, combat operations in Iraq and across the Middle East continued through the aughts. The Iraq war wouldn’t officially end until 2011, with President Obama’s signature.

Obama himself relied heavily on the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force — passed by Congress under Bush — in his military campaign against Islamic State during his presidency.

According to Council on Foreign Relations data, Obama launched 542 drone strikes and killed 3,797 people in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia without renewed approval from Congress.

A case more analogous to Trump’s comes in former President Truman’s unilateral decision to deploy U.S. troops to Korea in 1950. The Truman administration forwent congressional approval altogether and used United Nations Security Council resolutions to justify the intervention against Communist forces in the north, according to a White House news release from the time.

There were many critics of this exercise of executive war powers, most notably, Ohio Republican Sen. Robert A. Taft, who argued that Truman had usurped congressional war powers.

However, that Congress still provided monetary support, granting Truman military funds and extensions to the draft to raise additional troops for the Korean War effort. According to historical Gallup polls, 78% of Americans in 1950 approved of U.S. intervention in Korea.

Trump sticking with ‘war’

While Vance and other administration officials continue to avoid “war,” it does slip out now and then. Trump has been, perhaps, the most discordant messenger of the administration when discussing Iran.

After referring to the “war” on social media and public interviews more than a dozen times, Trump backed Vance’s comments about the Iran war no longer being active as he spoke to reporters in the Oval Office in September. He refuses to call the conflict a “war,” Trump said, because “you are supposed to get approval.”

“I call it a military conflict, because it’s small potatoes for us,” Trump said.

Mahan Air is excluded from the agreement as Baghdad says Washington granted its request for a waiver.

Iraq has agreed to let Iranian airlines, except Mahan Air, operate up to 40 flights a day to and from Najaf International Airport, saying the United States granted an exemption from its sanctions.

Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi’s office announced the agreement on Friday, a day after Tehran urged Baghdad to lift restrictions that it said hurt pilgrims, patients, students and business.

The deal eases the links between the two Shia-majority neighbours since Washington sanctioned Iran’s aviation sector last month.

Al-Zaidi welcomed the “positive response shown by the US government to Iraq’s efforts and its cooperation in granting the necessary exemption”, the statement from his office said.

“Air travel does not merely represent transportation between two airports, but rather a bridge of communication between peoples,” it added.

Separately, Iraq’s Foreign Minister Fuad Hussein said the return of flights supports an Iraqi-US partnership premised on mutual respect.

Hussein also welcomed what he described as US understanding of the importance of respecting religious freedom and facilitating access for visitors to holy sites.

Flights suspended

The US Treasury announced sanctions on September 8 against 36 entities linked to Iran’s aviation sector.

Foreign ground-handling companies then refused to service Iranian aircraft for fear of falling foul of US sanctions, and flights stopped at four Iraqi airports.

Soon after, Iraq’s government held direct talks with Washington, seeking an exemption.

Iraq’s ambassador to Tehran, Yasser al-Hajjaj, told Iran’s IRNA news agency that Baghdad had not ordered the halt in flights. The suspension also led to demonstrations outside Najaf airport and in Nasiriya, Karbala and Amarah, according to Iran’s Press TV.

Najaf is the main destination for Iranian flights in Iraq. Flights to and from the city carry Iraqi Shia Muslim pilgrims to Iran’s holy cities or Iranians visiting sacred sites in Iraq.

Iran’s ambassador to Baghdad, Mohammad Kazem al-Sadegh, told the Iranian news agency ISNA that there were “roughly 25 daily flights from Iran to Najaf and about 15 flights to Baghdad” before the ban.

“Around 12,000 to 13,000 people travel between Iran and Iraq and vice versa on Iranian airlines, which is not a small number,” he added.

In a statement shared on Thursday, Iran’s Foreign Ministry said that Washington’s “illegal and inhumane” extraterritorial enforcement of sanctions was disrupting Iran’s trade and air transport.

Restrictions remain

Flights between Najaf and Iran restarted late on Monday, according to the Iraqi News Agency.

However, flights with Iran are still suspended at Baghdad, Erbil and Sulaimaniyah airports, forcing passengers into land journeys of at least 12 hours and disrupting pilgrim traffic.

Al Jazeera has not verified the exemption with representatives in Washington.

The last remaining US troops have left Iraq. The US military was first deployed to Iraq back in 2003 to depose its leader, Saddam Hussein.

It later faced a series of crises that ensued after the ousting of Hussein. Iraq became embroiled in a cycle of violence that considerably weakened the country.

While the US may have prevented the collapse of the state, it’s also accused of contributing to the subsequent chaos that engulfed it.

The Iraqi government will now be dealing with a new reality.

Is it up to the job? And who stands to gain from the US finally leaving Iraq?

Presenter: Dareen Abughaida

Guests:

Ahmed Rushdi – President of the House of Iraqi Expertise Foundation.

Kenneth Katzman – Senior fellow at The Soufan Center specialising in Middle East geopolitics and US foreign policy.

Abdullah Alshayji – Professor of political science at Kuwait University specialising in US politics and Gulf security.