Russian President Vladimir Putin called Thursday for a summit of leaders of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, to “defend peace” in the face of global instability.

His call came as Russia promotes itself as a global powerbroker, playing a decisive role in crises in the Middle East, Libya and Ukraine.

Putin said the leaders of Russia, China, the United States, France and Britain could meet “in any place in the world”.

Speaking in Jerusalem at an event marking the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, Putin argued that the countries that created a new global order after World War II should cooperate to solve today’s problems.

“The founder countries of the United Nations, the five states that hold special responsibility to save civilisation, can and must be an example,” he said at the sombre memorial ceremony.

The meeting would “play a great role in searching for collective answers to modern challenges and threats,” Putin said, adding that Russia was “ready for such a serious conversation.”

Putin suggested war-torn Libya could be on the agenda, following recent peace talks in Moscow and Berlin.

– ‘Positive reaction’ –

Putin said Moscow had proposed the summit to “several of our colleagues and as far as I understand, saw a positive reaction”.

Russia has increasingly close ties with China, whose President Xi Jinping last year called Putin his “best friend”, while French President Emmanuel Macron has made a point of cultivating Russia.

While relations between the US and Russia have plunged to post-Cold War lows, President Donald Trump has praised Putin. The Russian leader has also criticised moves to impeach his counterpart.

There are varying accounts of British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s first official meeting with Putin, on the sidelines of Libya talks in Berlin at the weekend.

Downing Street said Johnson delivered a stern warning that Russia must never repeat its chemical attack on British soil against former double agent Sergei Skripal, but the Kremlin said the talks were constructive, even conciliatory in tone.

– ‘Frightening consequences’ –

Putin was one of dozens of world leaders in Jerusalem to mark the liberation 75 years ago of the World War II death camp where the Nazis killed more than 1.1 million people, most of them Jews.

Soviet troops liberated the death camp.

Russia will hold large-scale celebrations in May to mark 75 years since the allied victory in World War II, with numerous world leaders invited.

“Forgetting the past, and disunity in the face of threats, can lead to frightening consequences,” Putin said.

Countries must “do everything to protect and defend peace,” he added.

Putin’s proposal comes despite Russia being expelled from the G8 group of industrialised countries after seizing Crimea from neighbouring Ukraine in 2014.

Russia is also subject to numerous European and US sanctions because of the conflict in Ukraine.

Moscow denies accusations by Kiev and its Western allies that it provides weapons to separatists fighting in the east.

Source: AFP

President Vladimir Putin has said he does not want Russia to return to the Soviet-era practice of rulers dying in office without a succession plan, as speculation swirls over his future after he unleashed a political upheaval this week.

The 67-year-old Russian leader said a transition plan for the country was crucial, in comments several days after his shock proposal of sweeping changes to the constitution saw the government resign and a new prime minister appointed.

Putin, who has been in power for two decades, was asked if he could consider removing presidential term limits from the constitution during a meeting with World War II veterans in his hometown of Saint Petersburg on Saturday.

But he appeared to reject the idea.

“In my view, it would be very worrying to return to the situation of the mid-1980s when heads of state one by one remained in power until the end of their days, (and) left office without having secured necessary conditions for a transition of power,” Putin said.

“So, thank you very much, but I think it’s better not to return to the situation of the mid-1980s.”

Soviet rulers Leonid Brezhnev, Yury Andropov and Konstantin Chernenko all died in office.

Chernenko’s successor Mikhail Gorbachev introduced perestroika and glasnost reforms to transform the Soviet system and presided over the eventual collapse of the USSR.

Putin, who is due to step down in 2024 after his fourth Kremlin term ends, said he understood what he called people’s concerns about the continuity of power.

“For many of our people this is linked to worries about stability in society, stability in the state — both foreign and internal stability — I perfectly understand this,” he said.

Many observers have said Putin’s proposals are designed to ensure his grip on power after he leaves the Kremlin and his critics have accused him of orchestrating a “constitutional coup”.

On Wednesday, Putin stunned Russians with his constitutional proposals, including transferring more authority to parliament and enshrining the role of the State Council, an advisory body, in the constitution.

They would be the first significant changes to the country’s basic law since it was adopted under Boris Yeltsin in 1993.

The announcement triggered the resignation of the government, led by Putin’s loyal lieutenant Dmitry Medvedev.

A previously little known tax official, Mikhail Mishustin, was tapped by Putin to take over as premier and he was officially appointed on Thursday.

Source: AFP

President Vladimir Putin nominated a new prime minister on Wednesday 15 January after the shock resignation of Dmitry Medvedev, who has been at the head of the government since 2012. Medvedev will be succeeded by Mikhail Mishustin, who until now was a barely known tax chief with no political clout.

After announcing a profound overhaul of Russian institutions and a reform of the constitution in his annual State of the Nation address, Putin proposed Mishustin as the new head of government, following the surprise resignation of the prime minister in office for nearly eight years, Medvedev.

Mishustin had been the head of the Russian tax service since 2010 until Medvedev’s bombshell announcement propelled him to the position of PM.

Russia’s lawmakers quickly approved Mishustin as prime minister on Thursday in a vote in the Duma, or the lower house, less than 24 hours after Putin had nominated him.

Mishustin received 383 votes of 424 cast, with no votes against and 41 abstentions in a victory that had been all but assured when he won the unanimous backing of his party, United Russia, which has a strong majority in the chamber.

Mishustin will have a week to propose a new government and ministers.

He told United Russia that some changes in the cabinet would be made but did not elaborate, lawmaker Viktor Vodolatsky told Interfax.

‘Surprise nomination’

Mishustin, a 53-year-old Moscow civil servant who shares a passion for ice hockey with Putin, is little known by the general public.

Known as a technocrat who loves new technologies and has remained well out of the Russian political arena, his appointment has shocked some experts. “The appointment of an obscure second-rate unknown is a surprise,” reports Nick Holdsworth, FRANCE 24’s correspondent in Russia.

“Commentators had instead put forward other names, including Sergey Sobyanin, the mayor of Moscow who is known to be loyal to President Putin.”

An engineer and economist by training, Mishustin is described by Russian state media as an efficient servant of the state and the creator of the “best tax collection system in the world”, according to the Russia-24 television channel.

On the website of the Russian Presidency, the results of his service and his work are duly praised by the head of state in the reports of his annual meetings with Putin.

‘Forged in the system’

Married with three children, Mikhail Mishustin joined the Russian administration in 1998. He served as Deputy Minister of the taxation department and worked in several government agencies. He is described by political scientist Ekaterina Schulmann to AFP as “an ideologically neutral figure”.

After a two-year stint in the private sector at the head of an investment fund, UFG Asset Management, he was appointed head of the tax department in 2010 with the task of thoroughly modernising it.

A promoter of the digitisation of the Russian economy, Mishustin is behind the creation of a centralised database designed to improve the efficiency of tax collection and to be accessible to all administrations.

“This is certainly an unexpected appointment, but that doesn’t mean it will be rejected. He has a great deal of experience behind him,” said Ilyas Umakhanov, vice-president of the Council of the Federation, the upper house of parliament, before Mishustin had been approved. “He is someone who has been forged in the system.”

During his presidential terms from 2000 to 2008, Putin had already appointed officials who were unfamiliar to the public – like Mikhail Fradkov in 2004. Their key qualities included that they never sought to overshadow the Russian President.

The announcement of major constitutional reforms and the change of government announced on Wednesday are seen by analysts and opponents as an indication that Putin is now looking very seriously at his political future after the end of his last term as President in 2024.

Some suggested 67-year-old Putin, who is two years into his fourth presidential term and has steered the country since 1999, could be laying the groundwork to assume a new position or remain in a powerful behind-the-scenes role.

Independent political analyst Maria Lipman said to AFP that Putin’s announcement indicated that he wanted to “stay on as number one in the country, without any competitors”.

She said he could be deliberately weakening the presidency before relinquishing the role.

Russia’s opposition also said the proposals indicate Putin’s desire to stay in power.

Opposition leader Alexei Navalny said on Twitter that Putin’s only goal was to “remain the sole leader for life”.

(FRANCE 24 with AFP)

WHAT IS VLADIMIR PUTIN playing at? On January 15th Russia’s president took Kremlin-watchers by surprise. In his state-of-the-union speech, he announced a radical overhaul of the Russian constitution and a referendum on its proposed (still very unclear) terms. This bombshell was immediately followed by another. The prime minister, Dmitry Medvedev, resigned along with the entire cabinet. As The Economist went to press, the reasons for Mr Medvedev’s ejection and replacement by an obscure technocrat remained a riddle wrapped in a mystery.

To understand what might be going on, start with a simple fact. In the past 20 years Mr Putin’s regime has killed too many people, and misappropriated too many billions, to make it plausible that he would ever voluntarily give up effective power. Under the current constitution he cannot run again for president when his term expires in 2024, since no one is allowed more than two consecutive terms. So everyone has always assumed that one way or another he would game the rules to remain top dog. He already has form on this. His first two terms as president ran from 2000 to 2008. Term-limited out for the first time, he became prime minister for four years, during which time Mr Medvedev served as a distinctly neutered president. In 2012 Mr Putin was back in the suddenly re-empowered presidency, and was re-elected to a second term in 2018. The only enigma has ever been what job he would jump to in 2024.

We still do not know. One option, clearly, is for Mr Putin to return to being prime minister; an argument for this happening is his statement that the new arrangements he is seeking will make the post more important, with full powers to appoint the cabinet (subject to confirmation by parliament, which Mr Putin’s loyal United Russia party controls), rather than letting the president pick them. Another, and more likely, option is that Mr Putin will seek to maintain his hold on power by continuing to head a vaguely defined but powerful body called the State Council, which (funnily enough) Mr Putin said in his speech should be given more powers under the rejig.

In reality the details do not much matter. Russia is a dictatorship masquerading as a democracy. Mr Putin’s electoral successes owe much to years of economic growth (now brought to an end by corruption, uncompetitiveness, the end of the oil boom and Western sanctions following the annexation of Crimea in 2014) and the popularity of his reassertion of Soviet-era imperium. But they owe perhaps even more to state control of television, the barring of popular opposition candidates, the co-opting of tame opposition parties and the arrests and intimidation dished out to the less tame ones. The murder of political opponents is no way to foster genuine competition for power.

Whether Mr Putin is president, prime minister, head of the State Council or honorary chairman of the National Bridge Association (the post through which Deng Xiaoping ruled China for years after stepping down from his more prestigious offices), makes a lot less difference than it would in a real democracy. Nor does anyone know what the final shape of the new constitution will be. Mr Putin may decide, as many a despot has done before him, that a new constitution means resetting the existing term limits. Or, as Xi Jinping did in China in 2018, he could simply scrap term limits altogether (he says he does not want to do this). Mr Xi did not even bother with a referendum, pushing the change that will allow him to rule indefinitely through the supine National People’s Congress with 2,959 votes out of 2,964. Another model is offered by Kazakhstan, where Nursultan Nazarbayev, who became his independent country’s first president in 1990, stepped down last year—only to stay on as leader of the ruling party and holder of the title “Leader of the Nation”.

America would once have spoken out against such rule-twisting. Under Donald Trump, it does not; the American president makes little secret of his admiration for strongmen. Nor is the EU likely to do more than mutter as Mr Putin glues himself to the throne. It is spooked by a rising China and dependent on Russia for its gas supplies. The world’s autocrats will watch events in Moscow with interest, to see if Mr Putin can offer them useful tips for extending their own rule. For democrats everywhere, the only comfort is that even rulers-for-life don’t live for ever.

Culled from The Economist

Democrats in the US House of Representatives on Wednesday unveiled a seven-member team of ‘impeachment managers’ to prosecute President Donald Trump. After House Speaker Nancy Pelosi signed the articles of impeachment, the managers made a landmark promenade to deliver the papers to the Senate.

House lawmakers on Wednesday voted 228 to 193 to give the Senate, controlled by Trump’s fellow Republicans, the task of putting him on trial on the two articles of impeachment, i.e. 1) abuse of power for asking Ukraine to investigate political rival Joe Biden; and 2) obstruction of Congress for blocking testimony and documents sought by Democratic lawmakers.

The magnificent seven

US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi selected a team of seven “impeachment managers”, who will act in a prosecutorial role and present the pro-impeachment case before the Senate.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, a Trump nemesis who served as a federal prosecutor in Los Angeles for six years, was selected to head the team of managers.

“When the managers walk the hall, they will cross a threshold in history, delivering articles of impeachment against the president of the United States for abuse of power and obstruction of the House. Today we will make history.”

“Engrossment”

While many observers delighted in Pelosi’s gesture, others felt it was inappropriate to the occasion.

Immediately thereafter, the impeachment managers made the history-making walk across the marbled floors of the Capitol Building and delivered the articles to the Senate. This was the first time since Bill Clinton’s impeachment proceedings 22 years ago that this momentous promenade had taken place.

Senate Majority Leader, Republican Mitch McConnell, said that the Senate would formally receive the articles Thursday January 16 at midday EST (6pm in Paris, 5pm GMT). Formal opening arguments, both pro-and anti-impeachment, start on Tuesday January 21.

Pelosi launched the impeachment inquiry in September after earlier resisting such a move centred on Trump’s actions to impede a federal investigation that documented Russian interference in the 2016 election to boost his candidacy.

Ball in the Senate’s court

The trial will focus attention on Trump’s request that Ukraine investigate domestic political rival Joe Biden, just as the 2020 presidential campaign heats up.

A fight over witnesses remains unresolved. Senate Democrats in the Republican-controlled chamber want four current and former Trump administration officials to testify, while many Republicans want a speedy trial without witness testimony. Trump has at times said he wants to hear from witnesses, albeit not the same ones the Democrats want to testify. Democrats need at least four Republicans to join them to reach a majority of 51 senators to approve the subpoenas.

The 100-seat Senate is expected to acquit Trump, keeping him in office, as none of its 53 Republicans has voiced support for removing him, a step that under the US Constitution would require a two-thirds majority.

(FRANCE 24 with REUTERS)

Queen Elizabeth II and other senior British royals were gathering for a meeting Monday with Prince Harry in an attempt to solve the crisis triggered by his bombshell announcement that he and wife Meghan were stepping back from the royal frontline.

Harry’s father Prince Charles and brother Prince William, with whom he has strained relations, will join the monarch at her private Sandringham estate in eastern England, according to British media.

Charles just flew back from Oman, where he attended a condolence ceremony following the death of Sultan Qaboos.

Meghan is expected to join the meeting via conference call from Canada as they attempt to work out the “next steps” towards a compromise and nip the growing crisis in the bud.

Issues up for debate include how much money the couple will still receive from Charles’s estate, their royal titles and what commercial deals they can strike, according to the Sunday Times.

The newspaper reported that William believes he and Harry are now “separate entities”, breaking the bonds forged following their mother’s tragic death.

“I’ve put my arm around my brother all our lives and I can’t do that any more; we’re separate entities,” the Times reported he told a friend.

The queen attended church at Sandringham on Sunday where supporters expressed sympathy for her, with some members of the public saying Harry and Meghan should not receive any more taxpayer money if they step back from the royal family.

The 93-year-old monarch on Thursday demanded that staff work with the couple to find urgently a “workable solution” that would take into account their demands for more freedom.

Harry, Meghan and son Archie spent Christmas in Canada, with the American former actress returning there this week.

Several Canadian media reported Meghan had returned to Vancouver Island off the country’s Pacific coast, where the family spent the year-end holidays and where baby Archie had remained with his nanny.

Senior royals were caught off guard by Wednesday’s announcement that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex wanted to seek a “progressive new role” and divide their time between Britain and North America.

– ‘Complicated issues’ –

The queen’s office issued a terse statement the same evening, saying there were “complicated issues that will take time to work through”.

Harry and Meghan said they intended to continue to “fully support” the queen and “collaborate” with senior royals.

They also want to keep their home on the queen’s Windsor Castle estate as their British base, while aiming to become financially independent.

Media reports said Harry and Meghan could conduct a potentially damaging television interview if they are unhappy with the outcome of Sunday’s meeting.

Writing for The Sunday Times, broadcaster Tom Bradby, a friend of Harry and William, said: “I have some idea of what might be aired in a full, no-holds-barred, sit-down interview and I don’t think it would be pretty.”

The younger prince, who has struggled with his role, last year revealed he has been growing apart from his brother, who as second in line to the throne is increasingly pursuing a different path.

Harry has been open about his mental health issues, and he and Meghan last year admitted to struggling with the spotlight following their wedding at Windsor Castle in May 2018 and Archie’s birth a year later.

The couple have also lashed out at negative news coverage — some of which Harry says was racist — in light of Meghan’s biracial heritage.

The British public currently appears to be siding with the family, with a Daily Mail poll showing that a majority believe Harry should give up his right to the throne and be stripped of cash support from the royals or taxpayers.

Source: AFP

Several US lawmakers and officials have dismissed President Donald Trump’s new claim the US assassinated Iranian Lieutenant General Qassem Soleimani because he was planning an attack on four American embassies in the region, including the one in Iraq.

In an interview on Friday with Fox News, Trump said Iran probably had targeted the US embassy in Baghdad and was aiming to attack four US embassies when it killed Soleimani.

“We will tell you probably it was going to be the embassy in Baghdad,” Trump claimed. “I can reveal that I believe it would have been four embassies.”

But two unnamed senior officials, including one in the Defense Department, told The Washington Post that they were aware only of vague intelligence about a plot against the embassy in Baghdad.

Neither official mentioned any threats against other embassies in the region.

A source told the Post that the US embassy in Baghdad was never given a warning “commensurate” with the kind of threat described by Trump, which would have been standard procedure.

US Senator Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut, said nothing about planned attacks on four embassies was revealed to Congress and essentially accused Trump of making up the planned attacks.

US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday called the killing “provocative and disproportionate,” and other members of Congress said they were unconvinced after a closed-door intelligence briefing provided by administration officials.

“President Trump recklessly assassinated Qasem Soleimani,” said US Representative Pramila Jayapal, a Democrat from Washington state.

“He had no evidence of an imminent threat or attack,” she said.

“Let’s be clear — if there was evidence of imminent attacks on four embassies, the Administration would have said so at our Wednesday briefing,” he tweeted. “They didn’t. So either Fox News gets higher level briefings than Congress … or … wait for it… there was no such imminent threat.”

The Trump administration had earlier claimed it carried out the assassination to avert an “imminent attack,” which has also been met with suspicion and skepticism in the US.

The US military carried out an airstrike on the direction of Trump at Baghdad’s international airport last Friday, assassinating Soleimani and the second-in-command of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Units (PMU), Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, as well as eight other companions.

Early on Wednesday, Iran responded to the assassination, striking the American airbase of Ain al-Assad in Anbar province in western Iraq and another in Erbil, the capital of Iraq’s semi-autonomous Kurdistan region.

A USA Today/Ipsos poll released Thursday found that Americans, by 55%-24%, said they believe the killing of General Soleimani has made the United States less safe, rejecting a fundamental argument the Trump administration has made that the assassination made the US safer.

Source: Presstv

The vast majority of Americans say the US assassination of Iranian Lieutenant General Qassem Soleimani has made America less safe and shows that President Donald Trump’s behavior with Iran is “reckless,” according to a new poll.

The USA Today/Ipsos poll found that Americans, by 55%-24%, said they believe the killing has made the United States less safe, rejecting a fundamental argument the Trump administration has made.

The poll also found that a majority of those surveyed, by 52%-34%,  called Trump’s behavior with Iran “reckless.”

There was overwhelming agreement among those surveyed that Soleimani’s killing made it more likely Iran would attack American interests in the Middle East (69%), that there would be attacks on US soil (63%), and that the United States and Iran would go to war (62%).

By 47%-39%, those surveyed said Trump ordered the killing of Soleimani in an attempt to divert the focus from his impeachment.

US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that T she does not believe Trump had made America safer by assassinating Soleimani, calling the US attack “provocative” and “disproportionate.”

“What happened, in the view of many of us, is not promoting peace, but an escalation,” Pelosi, the highest ranking Democrat in Congress, said at her weekly news conference.

The US House of Representatives passed a resolution on Thursday to stop Trump from further military action against Iran, rebuking the president days after he ordered the strike that killed Soleimani and escalated tensions in the region.

The Democratic-controlled House voted 224-194, mostly along party lines, sending the war powers resolution to the Senate. The fate of the resolution is uncertain in the Senate, where Trump’s fellow Republicans hold 53 of the chamber’s 100 seats,

If passed by the House and Senate, the measure does not need Trump’s signature to go into effect.

The partisan vote reflected the deep divide in Congress over Trump’s Iran policy and how much authority lawmakers should have over the use of the military. Democrats accused Trump of acting recklessly and backed the resolution, while Trump’s fellow Republicans, who rarely vote against the president, opposed it.

Source: Presstv

US President Donald Trump on Wednesday said Iran appeared to be “standing down” after missile strikes against Iraqi bases that caused no US casualties, indicating there would be no immediate new military response. 

In a televised address to the nation from the White House, Trump emphasized that there were “no Americans harmed” in the salvo of missiles aimed at two bases.

While he promised to immediately impose “punishing” new economic sanctions against Iran, Trump welcomed signs that Iran “appears to be standing down” in the tit-for-tat confrontation, signalling that the United States did not plan a new military riposte.

Trump closed his remarks by addressing Iranians directly, saying that he was “ready to embrace peace with all who seek it”.

However, the US president, facing both an impeachment trial in Congress and a tough re-election in November, touted his decision to order the killing of top Iranian general Qassem Soleimani last Friday – the operation that prompted Tehran’s missile strike.

Soleimani, a national hero in Iran, was “the world’s top terrorist” and “should have been terminated long ago”, Trump said.

Although Trump ended his remarks with the call for peace, he opened by stating bluntly that he would never allow Iran to procure a nuclear weapon.

He then urged European allies and other world powers to follow America’s lead in abandoning a teetering international agreement on managing the country’s nuclear ambitions, and negotiate a new one instead.

Revenge ‘another issue’

Iran’s overnight missile strikes targeted the sprawling Ain al-Asad airbase in western Iraq and a base in Arbil, both housing American and other foreign troops deployed in a US-led coalition fighting the remnants of the Islamic State (IS) group.

Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called the missiles a “slap in the face” for the United States and indicated that more was to come.

“An important incident has happened. The question of revenge is another issue,” Khamenei said in a speech broadcast live on state television.

The office of Iraq’s premier said it had received advance warning from Iran that a missile attack on US forces was imminent.

“Iraq rejects any violation of its sovereignty and attacks on its territory,” the statement said, without specifically condemning the missile strikes.

Iraqi President Barham Saleh denounced the missile attack, warning against attempts to turn Iraq into a “battlefield for warring sides”.

‘Proportionate measures’

The brazenness of the strike was highly unusual for Iran, which has tended to disguise attacks on US interests or troops through its use of proxy Shiite forces.

“Ballistic missiles openly launched from Iran onto American targets is a new phase,” said Phillip Smyth, an expert on Shiite militias.

But as the dust settled, it appeared that Iran’s strike – coming soon after the burial of Soleimani at a funeral in front of vast crowds – might have been more symbolic than anything.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps warned any US counter-attack would be met with an even “more crushing response” and threatened to strike Israel and America’s “allied governments”.

However, Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif seemed to indicate that Iran was satisfied for now.

“Iran took and concluded proportionate measures in self-defence,” Zarif said on Twitter.

Sadr calls for restraint

The strikes sparked worldwide condemnation, including from NATO, Germany, France and the UK.

France said its forces deployed in Iraq sustained no casualties while the UK was concerned about “reports” of victims as British troops are stationed there. The Norwegian military said coalition troops were warned of the attack in advance through intelligence channels.

The apparent de-escalation did not remove pressure from approximately 5,200 US troops stationed across Iraq, where Iran has close links to powerful armed Shiite militias.

And Iranian allies in the country said they still intend to take revenge for Friday’s US attack in which top Iraqi paramilitary commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis was killed alongside Soleimani.

Paramilitary chief Qais al-Khazali – blacklisted as a “terrorist” by the US – said his side’s response to the United States ” will be no less than the size of the Iranian response.”

Influential Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr said the crisis Iraq was experiencing was “over” following de-escalation rhetoric from both Iran and the US, calling on militia groups not to carry out attacks.

“I call on the Iraqi factions to be deliberate, patient, and not to start military actions, and to shut down the extremist voices of some rogue elements until all political, parliamentary and international methods have been exhausted,” he said.

(FRANCE 24 with AFP)

The killings of Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani and a top Iraqi paramilitary chief in a US strike on Baghdad Friday threaten to drag Iraq into the abyss of regional conflict, analysts warned.

The US strike on Baghdad international airport targeted a convoy carrying Soleimani and his top Baghdad-based adviser Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the deputy head of Iraq’s powerful Hashed al-Shaabi force.

The raid has confirmed the worst fears of many Iraqis: that their homeland will become the main battlefield in a looming conflict between Iran and the United States.

“Iran’s strongest cards are in Iraq, and I think that Iraq will pay the price for this,” said Fanar Haddad of Singapore University’s Middle East Institute.

Tensions between the United States and Iran have been rising for months, as the Washington accused Tehran-backed factions of firing rockets on their troops across Iraq and on their embassy in Baghdad.

But they have soared over the past week.

On December 27, a rocket attack killed a US contractor working in northern Iraq, prompting retaliatory US strikes that killed 25 fighters from Kataeb Hezbollah, a hardline Hashed faction.

Angry Hashed supporters laid siege to the US embassy as Washington announced hundreds of new US troops were en route to the region.

– Path to war? –

But Washington delivered its most decisive blow yet early Friday when a volley of strikes hit near Baghdad international airport, leaving two cars torched on the access highway.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards confirmed Soleimani was killed in the strike while the Hashed announced Muhandis’s death.

With the two dead, the Quds Force — the foreign operations arm of Iran’s Guards Corps — has been left decapitated and the Hashed lost its de facto chief, too.

Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei vowed “severe revenge” for the raid and its top security council was meeting to discuss options.

Analysts said the outbreak of a wider conflict was looking increasingly likely.

“If Iran does need to respond and make a performance out of this, the fear is that there will be something more than just loading rockets at embassies,” said Haddad.

“It could set Iraq along the path of internal conflict and that’s something Iran can very easily instigate,” he said.

The nature of the strike is unpredecented because of the seniority of those targeted — making its repercussions hard to picture, said Ramzy Mardini, a researcher at the US Institute of Peace.

“The problem with judging what happens next is a problem of imagination. Nobody thought this was in the realm of possibility,” he told AFP.

“It’s likely that all actors on all sides will be playing things by ear in the short term, which is a recipe for miscalculation,” said Mardini.

– ‘Heads will roll’ –

Friday’s strike had shown that Iran could no longer use its allies in Iraq to carry out attacks against US interests “without risking an American conventional retaliation on Iran,” Mardini told AFP.

“Plausible deniability has gone out the window.”

The US had expressed increasing frustration with the escalating rocket attacks on its 5,200 troops in Iraq and on its embassy in Baghdad over the past two months.

US forces led the 2003 invasion against then-dictator Saddam Hussein and Washington has worked closely with Iraqi officials and commanders since then.

But its influence has waned compared with that of Iran, which carefully crafted personal ties with Iraqi politicians and armed factions, even during Saddam’s reign.

Soleimani was the prime example, sweeping into Baghdad regularly to hold meeting with top Iraqi officials during times of turmoil.

Ranj Alaaldin, a fellow at the Brookings Institution in Doha, said that would leave Iran with a range of questions for its Iraqi partners.

“How did the US know of Soleimani’s arrival in Baghdad? Who leaked the intel?” Alaaldin tweeted.

“Watch the Iraqi political space. Heads will roll.”

Source: AFP