Latest news with #QassemSoleimani
Shafaq News
a day ago
- Politics
- Shafaq News
EXPLAINER: From the fight against ISIS to US withdrawal talks
Shafaq News More than a decade after the US-led Global Coalition was formed to defeat ISIS, Iraq is entering a decisive phase. The 2022 Baghdad–Washington agreement set September 2025 as the point to begin US troop withdrawal. Today, as the deadline approaches, Iraq faces competing pressures: renewed warnings of ISIS activity, political demands for full sovereignty, and armed factions' threats against foreign troops. From Combat Operations to Training and Support -The Global Coalition against Daesh was launched in September 2014, led by the United States and joined by 87 members. -Its first task was to degrade and ultimately defeat ISIS while stabilizing liberated areas. -Coalition forces provided combat support to the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) and the Kurdish Peshmerga, and later aided reconstruction. -Under Operation Inherent Resolve, the mission evolved into training, advisory, intelligence, and surveillance support, including countering ISIS financing. -Iraq itself is a key member of the Coalition, with its security forces now leading operations against ISIS remnants. Rising Demands for Foreign Troop Withdrawal After ISIS's territorial defeat in 2017, calls for Coalition withdrawal grew louder. -In January 2020, a US airstrike in Baghdad killed Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani and Iraqi PMF leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, prompting Iraqi leaders to accuse Washington of violating sovereignty. -Soon after, Iraq's parliament passed a non-binding resolution demanding the removal of foreign troops and the cancellation of Baghdad's formal request for Coalition support. -In January 2024, US–Iraq negotiations began on the future of foreign troops, focusing on Iraq's military readiness and the continuing ISIS threat. A joint commission was formed to establish a timeline. -ISIS propaganda quickly seized on the talks, framing them as proof that 'America only understands the language of force.' -Today, about 2,500 US troops remain in Iraq. Renewed ISIS Activity -In July 2024, US Central Command (CENTCOM) warned that ISIS attacks in Iraq and Syria were set to double compared to 2023. -The group claimed 153 attacks in the first half of 2024, surpassing the 121 attacks reported in all of 2023. -CENTCOM credited US and partner forces with 196 counter-ISIS missions during the same period, including: 137 operations, killing 30 militants, and detaining 74 in Iraq. 59 operations, killing 14 militants and detaining 92 in Syria. -US officials estimate about 1,000 ISIS fighters remain in Iraq, describing the threat as persistent but contained. -Critics in Iraq argue the warnings are overstated and used to justify prolonging the US military presence. PMF Pressure Campaign -Pro-Iran factions within the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF)—including Kataib Hezbollah, Harakat Ansarallah al-Nujabaa, and Kataib Sayyid al-Shuhadaa, all sanctioned by Washington—have been central to the campaign against US forces. -These groups targeted US bases in Iraq and Syria, especially after the Gaza war broke out in October 2023. -In January 2024, they declared a suspension of operations, and no attacks have been recorded since—even during Israel–Iran war. -Despite this pause, their leaders continue to call the US deployment 'illegal' and threaten renewed action if the withdrawal is delayed. Iraq's Internal Divide -The debate remains unresolved within Iraq's political and security circles: -Advocates of Withdrawal stress that Iraq's forces are now capable of defending the country, that foreign troops are unconstitutional, and that sovereignty requires ending external military missions. -Supporters of the Coalition argue that the US-led presence still plays a stabilizing role, pointing to ongoing ISIS activity and volatile regional conflicts involving Gaza, Lebanon, Israel, and Iran.
Middle East Eye
6 days ago
- Politics
- Middle East Eye
Why Muslim charities face disproportionate scrutiny in the UK
Two UK-based charities, the Kasner Charitable Trust and UK Toremet, collectively donated around £5.7 million ($7.7m) between 2017 and 2021 to a religious school in Susya, an Israeli settlement in the occupied West Bank, the Guardian recently revealed. The settlement is considered illegal under international law and the UK's own foreign policy stance. The funding significantly contributed to the expansion of the Bnei Akiva yeshiva high school, increasing student enrolment and establishing it as a core institution in the Susya settlement. This case has drawn considerable criticism from political figures and human rights campaigners, who argue that charitable status should not extend to organisations funnelling money into settlements that might undermine international law. Even more shocking is that this entire controversial process was overseen by the UK charity regulator. The Charity Commission authorised these donations on the grounds that a donation to a school located in the occupied territories would, in principle, qualify as a grant for the advancement of education and therefore be considered a 'legitimate' charitable activity. The regulator clarified that a charity operating within the occupied Palestinian territories does not, in itself, constitute a criminal offence or a breach of charity law. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters These settlements are illegal under international law, and the UK government officially recognises them as such. Yet the charity regulator approved the donations, justifying them on educational grounds - something a legal review could appropriately address. In the meantime, this episode reifies concerns and accusations frequently levelled at the regulator's impartiality, particularly in relation to Muslim charities. Stricter oversight The charity regulator's treatment of the two aforementioned charities stands in stark contrast to its handling of the Islamic Centre of England (Icel), a Shia Muslim centre in West London. The centre is religiously and culturally aligned with the Iranian diaspora living in the Maida Vale district, and attended by Shia from various national backgrounds. The Charity Commission issued a warning to Icel in 2020, after a group of protesters held a vigil for Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, who had been killed in a US drone strike. Soleimani was on the UK's designated sanctions list. In November 2022, the charity regulator launched a formal statutory inquiry into the centre, citing major governance concerns over issues such as the vigil, the charity's online content and trustees' alleged conflicts of interest. The inquiry was formally concluded in May 2025, with the regulator requiring Icel trustees to implement stricter oversight of speakers, religious services, events and online content. There is a general impression among those who followed Icel's activities that it was targeted because of its critical stance on the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands. While the charity regulator did not explicitly acknowledge this, the right-wing media frequently portrays Icel as the Iranian government's 'nerve centre', largely due to its connection with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. This disparity reveals a deeper issue: the Charity Commission's apparent double standards, particularly in its treatment of Muslim organisations A forthcoming academic report titled 'The Islamic Centre of England: Understanding its Role within Muslim Communities across Britain' finds that Icel is financially independent, with no ties to Iranian funding, and plays a positive role in supporting local Muslim communities. The report acknowledges the connection between the resident imam of Icel and Khamenei, but not as a political agent - instead, as a spiritual guide for local Shia communities. The report, by professors Oliver Scharbrodt (Lund University) and Alison Scott-Baumann (Soas), highlights how strict restrictions from the UK charity regulator 'may inadvertently limit the rights of Muslims to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly'. Even if one accepts the Charity Commission's rationale for warning Icel over its commemoration of Soleimani, a key question remains: why is it deemed legitimate to fund projects in illegal settlements - condemned by both the UN and the UK - that ultimately expand and entrench those settlements, an act which the UK government itself opposes and condemns? This disparity reveals a deeper issue: the Charity Commission's apparent double standards, particularly in its treatment of Muslim organisations. Muslim organisations have long alleged that the charity regulator holds a structural bias against them. While pro-Israel charities' funding activities in illegal settlements are approved, Muslim charities are routinely subjected to exceptional levels of scrutiny, often based on vague or politicised concerns. Silencing solidarity Human Aid UK, a British Muslim charity, was the subject of a two-year investigation by the Charity Commission after police detained its staff in 2019 and seized funds. Although the funds were returned months later and no wrongdoing was found, the regulator continued its inquiry, prompting Human Aid UK to accuse it of bias against Muslim charities and of acting as an 'extension of police and security services' harassment policy'. Between April 2012 and November 2014, more than a quarter of the Charity Commission's statutory inquiries - 20 out of 76 - focused on Muslim charities, according to the Guardian, whose analysis included all investigations that remained open at the end of the given timeframe. Many of these probes involved organisations operating mosques, providing humanitarian aid, or working in Syria. A 2017 academic article in the ReOrient journal asserted that the Charity Commission's evolving structure and practices disproportionately affect Muslim charities. The article noted that while Muslim organisations make up only 1.21 percent of the sector, they accounted for 38 percent of all disclosed statutory investigations between January 2013 and April 2014, raising serious concerns about institutionalised bias. Amid pressure from the Charity Commission, Icel administrators often asked organisers to avoid discussing Israel's war on Gaza or openly showing solidarity with Palestinians, fearing that such acts could jeopardise the charity's legal status. The normalising of Islamophobia in UK public life is fuelling hate and violence Read More » Similar concerns have been raised by the Muslim Council of Britain, the country's largest Muslim umbrella body, which alleges that the charity regulator takes a harsh line on Muslim charities that support Palestine. This has fuelled accusations that the Charity Commission is increasingly becoming a tool to silence Muslim charities and prevent them from expressing solidarity with the victims of Israel's war crimes. The charity regulator is meant to be independent and 'free from the influence of others'. But its actions, based on the aforementioned examples, appear to be influenced by government foreign policy. The differential treatment of charities linked to Iran or other Muslim countries, and those connected to Israel, reflects the UK government's geopolitical stance - hostile to one, favourable to the other. This apparent political influence undermines public trust and risks complicity. The Charity Commission cannot claim to uphold charitable integrity while selectively applying its principles, particularly where Muslim charities are involved. In response to questions from Middle East Eye, the Charity Commission stated: 'The Commission rejects any allegation of bias. All concerns are assessed fairly and consistently against the legal framework,' and reiterated that 'we are independent of Government'. The Charity Commission did not address why Muslim charities were disproportionately subjected to its statutory investigations, as highlighted in the ReOrient study. The commission added that it does not 'fetter the freedom of may express views publicly about matters of conscience or religion, including in relation to the conflict in the Middle East, so long as these views advance the charity's purposes and are demonstrably in the charity's best interests.' It noted that speeches, sermons or other communications should not be inflammatory or divisive. With regards to the two charities linked to Israeli settlements, the commission said: 'There is a possibility that, in remitting funds to such organisations, UK Toremet is at risk of committing a criminal offence in England and Wales by breaching the Geneva Convention Act 1957. We issued the charity's trustees with statutory guidance and an action plan, which included specific reference to the importance of compliance with the Geneva Conventions Act 1957.' But if the Charity Commission is to rebuild trust with British Muslim communities and demonstrate that it upholds fairness for all, it must urgently commission an independent review of its practices to ensure genuine equality and impartiality across all faith-based charities. The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
Al Bawaba
08-08-2025
- Politics
- Al Bawaba
"Son of a...": Trump repeats vulgar jab at Soleimani in US military tribute
Published August 8th, 2025 - 10:51 GMT ALBAWABA - Former U.S. President Donald Trump caused more trouble when he made fun of the late Iranian military leader Qassem Soleimani at a public event on "Purple Heart Day," a national holiday in the US that honors troops who have been hurt or killed in joked with the crowd as he signed an executive order related to the event by asking, "Where is he?" He was referring to Soleimani, who was killed in a U.S. drone strike near Baghdad Airport in January 2020. Some people in the room laughed at the U.S. military members who were hurt or killed in action is what Purple Heart Day is all about every August made people think of another time, in 2020, when Trump said mean things about Soleimani at a gathering in Milwaukee. In a speech to fans soon after Soleimani's death, Trump used insulting language to describe him, calling him "the king of roadside bombs" and blaming him indirectly for hurting many the time, Trump said, "A lot of people lost arms and legs because of that son of a... well, you know." He didn't finish the swear word. There was also a meeting between Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, who is the head of the Kataib Hezbollah group. He made fun of it by saying, "They were talking like Hillary Clinton—weddings and work, maybe even golf and grandchildren.""But I don't think I could talk about them for 45 minutes straight," he said. "I like golf and I love my grandchildren." Even though these words were meant to be funny, they have been criticized in the past for being offensive, especially since Soleimani's death, when relations between the US and Iran were already high. But Trump has always said that the strike was vital to protect American lives from immediate danger. highlights - News of the week (July 31-August 7)"> © 2000 - 2025 Al Bawaba (
NBC News
18-07-2025
- Politics
- NBC News
Live updates: Trump orders DOJ to release Epstein grand jury testimony; PBS, NPR and foreign aid cuts clear Congress
Yesterday, U.S. Army Special Operations Command released a notification about 'a potential terrorist threat targeting retired senior officials' who previous served in the Defense Department with roles in both Iraq and Syria. The threat is specifically for people in Florida. 'This was a credible threat and we notified those involved,' a U.S. military official said. 'Security and safety of SOF personnel is important to us. I cannot share more for security reasons,' the official said. The notification, known as a duty to warn, does not identify what the threat is or what group is behind it, and it does not refer to those currently on active duty. There have been reports in the past of threats from Iran to Trump and others in his administration, including those specifically involved in the 2020 assassination of Iranian leader Qassem Soleimani. The threat is specific to a small group of individuals, but the warning went out to a wide swath of people, the U.S. military official said.
India Today
05-07-2025
- Politics
- India Today
Bunkers or bait? The fall of U.S. military might in West Asia
America's military presence in West Asia has transformed from a symbol of unassailable power to a collection of vulnerable targets, raising fundamental questions about the future of US dominance in one of the world's most volatile regions. Scattered across seven countries, 19 major American military installations once projected unchallenged authority. From Qatar's Al Udeid Air Base—home to US Central Command's forward headquarters to Bahrain's Naval Support Activity housing the Fifth Fleet, these facilities were designed to deter Iran, protect Israel, secure oil routes, and reassure Gulf allies of American However, the strategic landscape has shifted dramatically. What were once considered impregnable fortresses have become prime targets for Iran and its network of proxy militias. The transformation began in earnest following the 2020 assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, when Tehran's retaliation saw 16 ballistic missiles strike Al Asad Air Base in Iraq, injuring over 100 American pattern has intensified alarmingly. Between October 2023 and early 2024, more than 190 recorded attacks targeted US installations across Iraq, Syria, and Jordan. The January 2024 drone strike on Tower 22 in Jordan proved particularly devastating, killing three American soldiers in their sleep. Most audaciously, Iran launched a direct missile strike on Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar in June 2025, targeting the nerve centre of US regional attacks represent more than tactical strikes they symbolise a fundamental shift in regional power dynamics. Iran-aligned militias operating under the "Islamic Resistance in Iraq" umbrella have demonstrated that American bases, despite sophisticated defence systems including Patriot missiles and Iron Dome batteries, remain vulnerable to asymmetric warfare dilemma facing Washington is stark: whilst these installations serve critical strategic purposes from containing Iranian ambitions to securing global oil routes—they've simultaneously become lightning rods for regional tensions. Each attack fuels domestic anti-war sentiment whilst emboldening America's Gulf states increasingly develop their own military capabilities and forge new alliances, the question becomes whether America's sprawling military footprint still guarantees regional stability or merely invites perpetual conflict. The answer will likely define the future of American influence in West Asia for decades to come.- EndsMust Watch
