US Embassy confirms phased personnel departure
Shafaq News/ The US Embassy in Baghdad confirmed, on Sunday, that it began a phased departure of some personnel earlier this month.
A spokesperson for the US Embassy told Shafaq News, 'On June 12, out of an abundance of caution and due to heightened regional tensions, US Mission Iraq began the orderly departure of some personnel.'
'As part of our ongoing effort to streamline operations, additional personnel departed Iraq on June 21 and 22,' the spokesperson added.
The US State Department, according to the spokesperson, continues to assess the security environment across Iraq and reiterated that 'there is no higher priority than the safety and security of US citizens at home and abroad.'
While the staff reduction has sparked speculation about Washington's long-term presence in Iraq, the embassy underscored that it remains fully operational and coordinates closely with Iraqi authorities.
The evacuation came hours after US airstrikes targeted three Iranian nuclear sites—Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan—in what President Donald Trump called 'precise and successful operations.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Shafaq News
an hour ago
- Shafaq News
US: Iran nuclear infrastructure disabled
Shafaq News/ The US strikes on Iran's nuclear sites were executed under tight secrecy, American military leaders disclosed on Sunday. General Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, revealed that the 18-hour operation involved seven B-2 stealth bombers, 14 bunker-buster bombs, and a barrage of Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from a submarine. The assault on Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan unfolded within a 25-minute window—from 18:40 to 19:05 Eastern Time. 'Very few people in Washington knew the timing or nature of this plan,' Caine told reporters, noting that Iran's surface-to-air defenses did not detect the aircraft and no shots were fired as the strike group exited. He called the operation a major hit to Iran's nuclear infrastructure, with preliminary reports indicating widespread damage. Final assessments are still underway. Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth confirmed the objective was to disable Iran's nuclear infrastructure while avoiding civilian or conventional military casualties, pointing out that the mission marked the first combat use of the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), a deep-strike weapon designed to destroy fortified underground facilities. Calling the operation 'bold and brilliant,' Hegseth stressed it was not the beginning of an open-ended war. He credited President Donald Trump with delivering a 'clear and forceful' directive: dismantle Iran's nuclear program.
Shafaq News
an hour ago
- Shafaq News
Strikes and diplomacy: How Trump's two-week deadline shapes US strategy on Iran
Shafaq News / As tensions escalate between Iran and Israel, US President Donald Trump initially gave a two-week deadline to decide on direct intervention against Tehran. However, he shortened the period significantly and proceeded with strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Despite the strikes, the deadline appears to remain in effect in some form, particularly after Trump announced no further action for the time being. Attention now turns to the unfolding developments and their impact on the region, especially Iraq. In an Interview with Shafaq News Agency, Thomas Warrick, a Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council, clarified that the Trump's two-week deadline signals three distinct objectives: 'First, it's an opening to get diplomatic negotiations going with Tehran. Trump understands it will take time to bring Iran back to the table, but that's clearly his goal.' Secondly, Trump appears to be allowing time for additional US military assets to reach the region, enhancing the credibility of any threat of force. Warrick cited movements such as the USS Nimitz sailing toward the Arabian Sea and recent sightings of B-2 bombers likely headed toward Guam or Diego Garcia—capable platforms for delivering bunker-busting ordnance. The third element, Warrick noted, is political, 'He wants to show his base—and the world—that he's giving diplomacy one last chance before resorting to force. This is Trump trying to prove that any military action would only come after exhausting peaceful options.' A Flexible Deadline, Trump-Style When asked whether two weeks is enough to defuse the crisis, Warrick offered a nuanced perspective rooted in Trump's communication style. 'In Trump's language, 'two weeks' can mean anything. It could be three days, it could be never. There's a long history of him using this phrase ambiguously.' He added that Trump's spokesperson, Karoline Leavitt, had delivered the deadline in the form of a direct presidential quote, implying it came straight from the Oval Office. 'It's a flexible deadline. Not too far removed from Arabic 'Inshallah' or Spanish 'mañana.' But still, this is a serious offer of diplomacy,' Warrick explained. Military Posturing as Pressure Trump's decision to bolster US forces in the region isn't just precautionary—it's strategic. 'Trump is all about leverage. He wants Iran to know that he's not bluffing,' Warrick said. 'The presence of aircraft carriers and bombers capable of striking hardened nuclear facilities like Fordow sends a clear message: if diplomacy fails, force is on the table.' However, Warrick emphasized that Trump would still prefer a negotiated outcome, calling it his 'first option.' Iran at a Crossroads When asked about Iran's likely response, Warrick presented a stark choice facing Tehran's leadership: 'Option one: negotiate, dismantle the nuclear program, and see crippling sanctions lifted. Option two: lose the nuclear program through military strikes—and still face sanctions.' He concluded that Iran's leaders must decide whether to preserve national dignity at great cost or accept a diplomatic deal that could ease decades of economic suffering. 'Either way, they lose the nuclear program. But only one path gives something back to the Iranian people. From that perspective, it's in their interest to take Trump's offer.' International Political Tool? Political analyst Ihab al-Kayyali explained that in the world of international politics, major powers often use multiple tools to pressure rivals without resorting directly to war. One such tool, he said, is the time-bound ultimatum. Trump's deadline signals a required move from Iran, with harsh consequences if unmet. Al-Kayyali noted that the deadline was intended to pressure Iran to halt uranium enrichment, demonstrate strength to both American and global audiences, and prepare the political and media landscape for upcoming diplomatic or military steps. If Iran does not comply, the US may impose further sanctions, mobilize forces, launch limited strikes, or escalate rhetoric to rally domestic and international support. Problem of the 'Deadline' Iranian affairs researcher Saeed Sharoudi argued that the two-week deadline reflects Tehran's fundamental issue with Washington: the US outlines terms unilaterally and expects Iran to comply. Speaking to Shafaq News Agency, he recalled a previous two-month deadline set by Trump that failed to produce a deal, followed by a green light to Israel to target Iranian nuclear sites. Sharoudi noted that the same miscalculation is being repeated with the current shorter deadline. A lasting resolution, he said, is unlikely without US recognition of Iran's right to enrich uranium for its nuclear needs. Only then, he added, could a major obstacle to negotiations be removed. He stressed that Iran's primary concern in talks—rarely acknowledged by Trump—is the lifting and non-repetition of Western sanctions and a guarantee against future attacks under any pretext. Diplomatic Opportunity? Political researcher Nawal al-Moussawi highlighted that the deadline followed Trump's assurances to Arab leaders, particularly Qatar, that the US would not engage militarily with Iran. She noted, in an interview with Shafaq News, that the window allows diplomacy to take its course amid active regional and European efforts, possibly paving the way for a preliminary agreement. Al-Moussawi also pointed to the deadline as a test of Israel's ability to sustain conflict without direct US involvement, with opinion in Washington divided over whether to join the war. 'Some view the conflict as inevitable, while others worry about its repercussions on Americans, especially given Iran's limited long-range strike capability,' she concluded. An Either-Or Scenario Dr. Ihsan al-Shammari, head of the Political Thinking Center and professor of strategic and international studies at the University of Baghdad, described Trump's two-week deadline as having dual tracks. 'The first is an opportunity for Iran to respond to US conditions previously rejected, aimed at preserving its regime and territorial integrity.' Al-Shammari said this aligns with Trump's foreign policy approach toward regional stability and appears to be a response to ally requests, possibly involving mediation by Saudi Arabia, Oman, and the European troika. Accordingly, Trump allowed space for negotiations. Simultaneously, he noted that Trump is preparing militarily along two lines: enabling Israel to dismantle Iran's capabilities and completing US military preparations within the deadline to enter the conflict if Iran does not capitulate unconditionally. 'Reports of additional US troop deployments support this,' adding that Trump has set two clear paths for Iran—negotiation or military action. Iraq on Alert On the potential fallout in Iraq, Al-Shammari said the country and region are in a state of anticipation. There is widespread unease about the environmental and geopolitical consequences of the attacks on nuclear sites, possible closure of the Strait of Hormuz, disruption to energy supplies, and the prospect of a regional war affecting several countries. Iraq, he emphasized, shares these concerns. However, Iraq has its own complexity, he explained, with armed factions declaring their intent to join the war if the US intervenes, topples the Iranian regime, or targets Iran's Supreme Leader. As such, Iraq remains on alert. He revealed that preemptive decisions had been made in Iraq under a pact between factions and the Coordination Framework. But this agreement, he warned, is fragile and would collapse if the US enters the war alongside Israel or targets factions in Iraq. Al-Shammari concluded that if such a scenario unfolds, Iraq would be the hardest hit due to its fragility and role as a battleground for external agendas. He cautioned that the country could emerge from the conflict on the threshold of a new Middle East.
Shafaq News
an hour ago
- Shafaq News
Iraq to hold high-level meeting over US attack on Iran
Shafaq News/ Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani is scheduled to meet on Sunday with senior officials to address today's US strikes on Iran, a source revealed to Shafaq News. The meeting, planned with leaders of the Shiite Coordination Framework (CF) and the State Administration Coalition (SAC)—an alliance of major Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish parties—follows a wave of American airstrikes on nuclear sites in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, which President Donald Trump described as 'precise and successful.' According to the source, the talks will focus on unifying Iraq's position in response to the unfolding developments and exploring diplomatic channels to help contain the crisis. 'Baghdad is working to align its diplomatic stance with regional partners while calling on the United Nations Security Council to play a more active role in efforts to halt the escalation.' Discussions are also expected to cover the broader ramifications of the Iran-Israel confrontation, particularly given the direct US military involvement. The agenda will additionally include measures to protect Iraq from the fallout of any expanding confrontation.
