Iraq War 20 years on: How Ukraine conflict, growing power of Iran and rise of Trump can be traced back to 2003 invasion

Published

2 years ago

March 20, 2023

admin

At the turn of the century, America had emerged victorious from the Cold War and stood unchallenged.

It had greater power and influence than any other nation in history. It could have wielded that power judiciously to protect the American-led post-war world order and inspire other countries to follow its values of freedom and democracy.

Instead, it squandered that supremacy embarking on a calamitous misadventure in Iraq that was ill-advised and disastrously executed. It would be the beginning of the end of the pax Americana.

A direct line can be drawn between that debacle, which began on 20 March 2003 and others that followed, right up to the perilous state of the world today.

The war in Ukraine, the unchecked ascendancy of China, the growing power of Iran, and even the rise of Trump and the politics of populism all have roots that can be traced back to America’s folly in Iraq.

The falsehoods and delusions that led to war

America went to war led by ideologues who believed they could refashion the Middle East in their own likeness and bring democracy and a more pro-Western outlook to the region.

The failure of that neoconservative project has done lasting damage to Americans’ claims of exceptionalism, and their belief that their form of governance is an example to the rest of the world. And that has by extension done enduring harm to the American-led world order.

The failings of that project in Iraq are well documented. The false premise of non-existent weapons of mass destruction, the delusion that invaders would be welcomed as liberators, the absence of any plan for the day after. The damage to America’s standing in the world has been incalculable.

Equally, human rights violations, violations of democratic norms, targeted killings, and the atrocities of Abu Ghraib prison, from where photographs showing abuse of inmates by US soldiers emerged, tarnished America’s image as the standard-bearer of democracy and human rights.

Iraq fell apart under occupation. The US disbanded the Ba’ath party and sents its army home. In the vacuum sectarian extremists thrived. The war had been fought to neutralise the threat posed by Al Qaeda in the wake of 9/11.

The opposite happened and even more extreme groups were spawned launching unprecedented campaigns of terror against occupiers and civilians alike. From the failed states of Iraq and Syria, Islamic State was born – an organisation that for years wrenched swathes of territory from both countries and plumbed new depths of terror and depravity.

For America, the enduring impact of the war and occupation has been a weakening of Washington’s influence in the world. When India and other countries in the global south sit on the fence in UN resolutions on Ukraine, their ambivalence can in part be traced back to America’s record in Iraq.

A lasting impact on US foreign policy

The failure undermined America’s own self-confidence. The spectre of Iraq made Barack Obama reluctant to be drawn into the Syria conflict and punish its leader’s diabolical use of chemical weapons.

That reluctance was seen in Moscow as an American weakness, and arguably emboldened it to defy the West and seize Crimea with relative impunity a few years later. And that in turn encouraged Vladimir Putin to invade Ukraine in earnest last year.

The distraction of Iraq led to failure in Afghanistan, a protracted two decades of occupation and a disastrous withdrawal.

Iraq sucked up what policymakers in Washington call bandwidth year after year, while in the east a far greater challenge was rising. The West would take years to wake up to the threat posed by China.

Closer to Iraq, Iran was strengthened. Before the invasion, its regional influence was limited to a militia in southern Lebanon, Hezbollah. Today it has clout in capitals from Beirut to Damascus to Baghdad to Yemen.

The war in Iraq has done damage to America’s belief in itself. The conflict cost a trillion dollars and thousands of American lives. It has fuelled opposition to any more military adventures abroad.

And it has undermined Americans’ faith in both government and the political and media elites meant to hold it to account. That only in part helps explain the rise of populism that ultimately brought Trump to the White House.

Iraq still recovering from journey to hell and back

In Iraq, people are now no longer living under tyranny. There is reportedly some sense of hope and renewal, but only recently. And the country has literally been to hell and back to get there.

Hundreds of thousands have died in the war and the waves of sectarian violence that followed. The country has been broken, its institutions destroyed and its economy ravaged.

It is only just beginning to recover from all that trauma. But perhaps it can now look forward cautiously to a slightly better future. That is more than might have been said had Saddam Hussein remained in power or any of his impulsive, venal sons.

Ten years ago, George W Bush said the final verdict on his actions in Iraq would come long after his death.

That may be true, and it may take more time to judge whether the removal of one of the worst tyrants in history in any way justified the enormous cost and pain that then ensued.

Twenty years on, though, we can say the invasion and occupation have had a lasting legacy on the region and the world, and much of that has not been for the better.

World

Lifting sanctions on Putin for Trump meeting is a massive victory for Moscow

Published

5 hours ago

August 9, 2025

admin

Lifting sanctions on Putin for Trump meeting is a massive victory for Moscow

The location of Alaska is unexpected.

Although close to Russia geographically – less than three miles away at the narrowest point – it’s a very long way from neutral ground.

The expectation was they would meet somewhere in the middle. Saudi Arabia perhaps, or the United Arab Emirates. But no, Vladimir Putin will be travelling to Donald Trump’s backyard.

Follow latest: Zelenskyy says Ukraine will not give up land

It’ll be the first time the Russian president has visited the US since September 2015, when he spoke at the UN General Assembly. Barack Obama was in the White House. How times have changed a decade on.

The US is not a member of the International Criminal Court, so there’s no threat of arrest for Vladimir Putin.

But to allow his visit to happen, the US Treasury Department will presumably have to lift sanctions on the Kremlin leader, as it did when his investment envoy Kirill Dmitriev flew to Washington in April.

And I think that points to one reason why Putin would agree to a summit in Alaska.

Instead of imposing sanctions on Russia, as Trump had threatened in recent days, the US would be removing one. Even if only temporary, it would be hugely symbolic and a massive victory for Moscow.

The American leader might think he owns the optics – the peace-making president ordering a belligerent aggressor to travel to his home turf – but the visuals more than work for Putin too.

Shunned by the West since his invasion, this would signal an emphatic end to his international isolation.

Donald Trump has said a ceasefire deal is close. The details are still unclear but there are reports it could involve Ukraine surrendering territory, something Volodymyr Zelenskyy has always adamantly opposed.

Either way, Putin will have what he wants – the chance to carve up his neighbour without Kyiv being at the table.

And that’s another reason why Putin would agree to a summit, regardless of location. Because it represents a real possibility of achieving his goals.

It’s not just about territory for Russia. It also wants permanent neutrality for Ukraine and limits to its armed forces – part of a geopolitical strategy to prevent NATO expansion.

In recent months, despite building US pressure, Moscow has shown no intention of stopping the war until those demands are met.

It may be that Vladimir Putin thinks a summit with Donald Trump offers the best chance of securing them.

World

It’s been four years since a US president met Putin – and Trump will have a lot of ice to break

Published

8 hours ago

August 9, 2025

admin

It's been four years since a US president met Putin - and Trump will have a lot of ice to break

Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin will meet where their countries brush shoulders.

But why Alaska and why now?

A US-Russia summit in Alaska is geography as metaphor and message.

Alaska physically bridges both countries across the polar expanse.

Follow latest: Ukraine war live updates

Choosing this location signals strategic parity – the US and Russian leaders face to face in a place where their interests literally meet.

Alaska has surged in geopolitical importance due to its untapped fossil fuels.

Trump has aggressively pushed for more control in the Arctic, plans for Greenland and oil access.

Holding talks there centres the conversation where global energy and territorial stakes are high, and the US president thrives on spectacle.

A dramatic summit in the rugged frontier of Alaska plays into his flair for the theatrical.

It is brand Trump – a stage that frames him as bold, unorthodox and in command.

It was 2021 when a US president last came face-to-face with a Russian president.

The leaders of the two countries haven’t met since Russia invaded Ukraine.

But Trump is in touch with all sides – Russia, Ukraine and European leaders – and says they all, including Putin, want “to see peace”.

He’s even talking up the potential shape of any deal and how it might involve the “swapping of territory”.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy has repeatedly insisted he will not concede territory annexed by Russia.

Moscow has sent the White House a list of demands in return for a ceasefire.

Trump is attempting to secure buy-in from Zelenskyy and other European leaders.

He styles himself as “peacemaker-in-chief” and claims credit for ending six wars since he returned to office 200 days ago.

There’s much ice to break if he’s to secure a coveted seventh one in Alaska.

World

UK joins four countries in condemning Israel’s plan for new operation in Gaza

Published

8 hours ago

August 9, 2025

admin

UK joins four countries in condemning Israel's plan for new operation in Gaza

The UK and four allies have criticised Israel’s decision to launch a new large-scale military operation in Gaza – warning it will “aggravate the catastrophic humanitarian situation” in the territory.

The foreign ministers of Britain, Australia, Germany, Italy and New Zealand said in a joint statement that the offensive will “endanger the lives of hostages” and “risk violating international humanitarian law”.

It comes a day after Israel’s security cabinet approved an operation to take military control of Gaza City – and concluded a full takeover of the enclave is required to end the conflict.

It marks another escalation in the war in Gaza, sparked by the Hamas attack of 7 October 2023.

In their joint statement, the UK and its allies said they “strongly reject” the decision, adding: “It will endanger the lives of the hostages and further risk the mass displacement of civilians.

“The plans that the government of Israel has announced risk violating international humanitarian law. Any attempts at annexation or of settlement extension violate international law.”

The countries also called for a permanent ceasefire as “the worst-case scenario of famine is unfolding in Gaza”.

It comes as Sky News analysis has found that airdrops of aid are making little difference to Gaza’s hunger crisis, and pose serious risks to the population – with a father-of-two killed by a falling package.

Meanwhile, France, Canada, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and the United Nations all criticised Israel’s plan for a full occupation of Gaza.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “expressed his disappointment” with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s in phone call on Friday after Berlin decided it would stop selling arms to Israel.

In a post on X, the Israeli prime minister’s office added: “Instead of supporting Israel’s just war against Hamas, which carried out the most horrific attack against the Jewish people since the Holocaust, Germany is rewarding Hamas terrorism by embargoing arms to Israel.”

US ambassador hits out at Starmer

Earlier on Friday, the US Ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, criticised Sir Keir Starmer after he said Israel’s decision to “escalate its offensive” in Gaza is “wrong”.

Mr Huckabee wrote on X: “So Israel is expected to surrender to Hamas & feed them even though Israeli hostages are being starved? Did UK surrender to Nazis and drop food to them? Ever heard of Dresden, PM Starmer? That wasn’t food you dropped. If you had been PM then UK would be speaking German!”

In another post around an hour later Mr Huckabee wrote: “How much food has Starmer and the UK sent to Gaza?

“@IsraeliPM has already sent 2 MILLION TONS into Gaza & none of it even getting to hostages.”

Sir Keir has pledged to recognise a Palestinian state in September unless the Israeli government meets a series of conditions towards ending the war in Gaza.

The UK and its allies criticised Israel as US President JD Vance and UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy met at Chevening House in Kent on Friday.

Mr Vance described a “disagreement” about how the US and UK could achieve their “common objectives” in the Middle East, and said the Trump administration had “no plans to recognise a Palestinian state”.

He said: “I don’t know what it would mean to really recognise a Palestinian state given the lack of functional government there.”

Mr Vance added: “There’s a lot of common objectives here. There is some, I think, disagreement about how exactly to accomplish those common objectives, but look, it’s a tough situation.”

The UN Security Council will meet on Saturday to discuss the situation in the Middle East.

Ambassador Riyad Mansour, permanent observer of the State of Palestine to the United Nations, said earlier on Friday that a number of countries would be requesting a meeting of the UN Security Council on Israel’s plans.