Withdrawal of Last US Troops From Iraq

The last US soldiers have rolled out of Iraq across the border to neighboring Kuwait, whooping, fist bumping and hugging each other in a burst of joy and relief. Their exit marked the end of a bitterly divisive war that raged for nearly nine years and left Iraq shattered, with troubling questions lingering over whether the Arab nation will remain a steadfast US ally. The mission cost nearly 4,500 American and well more than 100,000 Iraqi lives and $800 billion from the US Treasury. The question of whether it was worth it all is yet unanswered.
Captain Mark Askew, a 28-year-old from Tampa, Florida who was among the last soldiers to leave, said the answer to that question will depend on what type of country and government Iraq ends up with years from now, whether they are democratic, respect human rights and are considered a US ally.
Whither Stubborn Sectarian Clashes
US officials acknowledged the cost in blood and dollars was high, but tried to paint a picture of victory for both the troops and the Iraqi people now freed of a dictator and on a path to democracy.
But gnawing questions remain: Will Iraqis be able to forge their new government amid the still stubborn sectarian clashes. And will Iraq be able to defend itself and remain independent in a region fraught with turmoil and still steeped in insurgent threats.
Many Iraqis, however, are nervous and uncertain about the future. Their relief at the end of Saddam Hussein, who was hanged on the last day of 2006, was tempered by a long and vicious war that was launched to find nonexistent weapons of mass destruction and nearly plunged the nation into full-scale sectarian civil war.
Some criticized the Americans for leaving behind a destroyed country with thousands of widows and orphans, a people deeply divided along sectarian lines and without rebuilding the devastated infrastructure.
Some Iraqis celebrated the exit of what they called American occupiers, neither invited nor welcome in a proud country. Others said that while grateful for US help ousting Saddam, the war went on too long. A majority of Americans would agree, according to opinion polls.
The low-key exit stood in sharp contrast to the high octane start of the war, which began before dawn on March 20, 2003, with an air strike in southern Baghdad where Saddam was believed to be hiding. US and allied ground forces then stormed across the featureless Kuwaiti desert, accompanied by reporters, photographers and television crews embedded with the troops.
Saddam’s Secret Nuclear Weapon Program
The task assigned to them in 2003 has been accomplished. The United States under President George W. Bush entered the Iraqi war theatre after it had made substantial gains in Afghanistan where it had toppled the Taliban regime in the wake of 9/11. He found an excellent opportunity to use the anti-terrorism plank to achieve Washington’s larger objective of ensuring energy security. Unverified intelligence reports about Iraqi ruler Saddam’s “secret” nuclear weapon program were enough for President Bush to go ahead with his new plan. He also found out that Saddam had close connections with Al-Qaida mastermind Osama Bin Ladin.
The United States also did not bother about seeking the UN Security Council’s sanction for attacking Iraq. Even when it was conclusively proved that Iraq had no Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) and that Saddam had no link with Al-Qaida — both being ideologically poles apart — Iraq was bombarded and Saddam dethroned. Later, he was captured and executed. Iraq was liberated from the clutches of the tyrant. What could have been done by the people of Iraq during the Arab Spring now was finished by the US with the use of its military might. But can this be justified legally, morally, ethically or otherwise? The debate is still on.
Iran-Iraq Shia Bloc
Ousting and killing Saddam, a secular despot, may have gladdened US Arab allies, who are despotic but quasi-theocratic. Ironically, it also pleased Shia Iran as the United States leaves behind a Shia-run Iraq. A consolidated Iran-Iraq Shia bloc will be to the liking of neither America’s Arab allies nor the United States itself. In short, the times ahead in West Asia are likely to be threatened with prospects of heightened tension. Such a state of affairs may not always fall short of actual fighting, not least when the US continues to play the ouster game in West Asia in the name of promoting democracy.
Undoubtedly, the Iraq war was unpopular from day one within the United States. It had been launched on clearly false premises. US President Barack Obama wanted to end the campaign he had inherited. He gave himself the deadline of December 31 this year, and has stuck to it. But it is lost on no one — not in Iraq, not in the United States — that the United States may have wanted to extend its stay in a reduced way for strategic reasons, but could not.

Biased Attitude of IAEA, UN Toward Iran

Recently, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has accused Iran of developing nuclear missile. The agency confirmed that Iran had started its uranium enriching activity to the stage of producing atomic bombs. Such actions had triggered new tension between Teheran and the IAEA.

Meanwhile, the Director General of IAEA Yukiya Amano also alleged Teheran refused to give commitment to the IAEA officers to inspect Iran's nuclear plant in Qom and claimed that there were a number of facilities and techno plant of nuclear program concealed underground in the mountainous area nearby Shiite holy city, Qom.

Teheran Refutes Allegation
Iran had refuted the allegation of the IAEA director general who took over the task from Mohamed El Baradei since 1 December 2009 by claiming that Amano had presented an inaccurate report and biased against Teheran in the meeting of this United Nations body in Vienna. Iran instead clarified that Teheran had given its commitment to the atom development inspection body to carry out their inspection as scheduled. Yet, why did Iran allege the IAEA as practicing a 'biased' policy in assessing its nuclear development program?

The IAEA was set up in July 1957 with the purpose to act as a responsible body to encourage nuclear development for peace, to control the activity of nuclear development and to check the activity of developing nuclear for military purpose by any country.

In general, the IAEA is an 'ideal' body responsible for preserving world peace and protecting the world from the threat of nuclear. However, in practice, it is not too much to say today that the IAEA can be deemed as the 'Trojan Horse' of the United States which helps the latter to collapse the attempt of any country which tries to strengthen their power in nuclear development.

Thus, Teheran's allegation against the IAEA which claimed that Yukiya Amano's report as a biased and inaccurate report was also influenced by the factor of the IAEA's 'willingness' to become the 'Trojan horse' of the superpower, the United States. We can evaluate the stand and perspective Iran holds toward the IAEA based on the attitude of the agency itself which sees Iran as a 'sinful' country which is doing 'big sins' in nuclear development while there are many other countries developing nuclear arms but not imposed any sanction and pressure.

The reality is that Iran is seen 'victimized' in big powers' maneuver against new countries developing nuclear program. Iran has faced various sorts of sanctions between 1979 and 2010, including the sanctions imposed by the United States and UN. But why does Iran become the only victim?

Whether Iran develops nuclear for the purpose of peace or arms, the international atomic body should evaluate its own shortcomings in carrying out its responsibility worldwide. This is because while the United States tries to act like the 'world police' advocating the effort to bring global peace, the superpower is itself the country having the largest stock of nuclear arms in the world, estimated at more than 11,500 units of nuclear weapons.

In fact, the United States has always invented various versions of nuclear weapons and the objective of developing nuclear weapons is to use them in war. Does the United States invent these nuclear weapons just for fun? This means the United States itself invents new nuclear weapons everyday, so that it can use them in war and kill their enemies. But the United States has not been taken any action by the IAEA and UN, although the weapons they produce are weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that could destroy human civilization.

The IAEA has also failed to check the nuclear development of Russia, which is until today estimated as possessing more than 7,500 units of nuclear weapons. The IAEA has also failed to control Britain, France and China which have so far been "free" to develop their techno plants and nuclear weapons without control from the international atomic body. Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan which was once part of the Soviet Union had also had nuclear weapons before; whereas member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) such as Belgium, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Italy, and Turkey also have nuclear weapons stationed by the United States.

Worrying About International Sanction
Unfortunately the IAEA has not taken any action against these countries. More unfortunately, the IAEA has failed to control the nuclear development program of India, Pakistan, North Korea and South Africa as well. These countries are 'free' to develop nuclear without having the need to worry about international sanction. Similarly, the IAEA has to date continued to 'keep quiet' and close its eyes on the nuclear program developed by Tel Aviv since as early as 1956. Israel owns 250 to 300 units of nuclear weapons and is one of the countries which have not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

The nuclear program and weapons of the Jews are no longer a secret, instead countries in the world have known about nuclear weapons owned by Israel. This failure of the IAEA can be seen from the research done by Nuclear Age Peace Foundation which had estimated the number of nuclear weapons at 26,000, of which a majority are owned by the United States and Russia in addition to 40 other countries.

The growth of nuclear arms shows the failure of the IAEA and UN in controlling nuclear proliferation at international level. With this failure, can the IAEA and UN convince Iran to terminate its nuclear program? As a matter of fact, the IAEA only targets at Iran to cover up its own weaknesses.

The Saudi leader, a strong ally of the United States, Prince Saud al-Faisal also voiced out the biased attitude of the IAEA, the UN, and the United States when US State Secretary Hillary Clinton visited the country on 16 February. Prince Saud al-Faisal stressed that the effort to eradicate nuclear arms in West Asia had to include Israel and not only Iran.

Objective of Nuclear Program
Nevertheless, has the action of the United States and IAEA impeded Iran's attempt to achieve the objective of its nuclear development program? Based on the current development of its nuclear program, Iran appears to have made a successful step slowly in its nuclear program, despite the various pressure and sanctions from the international community.

According to the IAEA report, Iran is expected to succeed in its nuclear program by 2011. Under the anarchistic situation facing Iran in the political flow in West Asia and the world at this moment, it has had an influence on Teheran's stand of seeing nuclear as a need to assure its security and to protect other Islamic countries from the threat from Israel and the United States.

This stand of Iran was stated by Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on 19 February 2010 who emphasized Iran's intention to work together with Islamic countries and to help cultivate stability and security in the region. Iran even clarified that it would not be hostile to countries in the same region. On the contrary, the nuclear development program of Teheran should be seen in a positive context in the face of oppressive big powers.