participates fully and participate successfully on these choices. >> thank you so much. >> i think i would go back to what i said in the beginning the u. s. wants to be secure stable and prosperous and we remain focused on making sure we are trying to develop a partnership that's well-balanced that includes stronger economic energy ties and i think that's the vision that is here not only with usb government but with the iraqi government as well. i think the more that we can do as a government the more we can involve the private-sector i think that's the benefit of both of our countries. ..

iraq it cannot live in full security and sovereignty unless there is an ability for the iraqi people to work and thrive and have an opportunity to have a meaningful economic opportunity. >> thank you so much. [laughter] again, iraq, as i mentioned earlier, has huge potential. the whole potential hangs on that need for governance to be able to outline this clear way

forward. you mentioned security, of course it is important. butts, in order for that activity to be tampered a bit we need to bring about a dynamic for people to see promise. to see something. to see they can actually achieve what they are prosperity so a wealthy for poverty because unfortunately should be managed much better to wealth mannered managed much better. and from south to north to be managed much better. as i mentioned earlier, the countries one.

>> very important. i know you're not the person of the iraqi government. [laughter] [inaudible] your closing remarks? >> a look, i never combined the idea of admission. the same discussion almost everyone's coming up what do we want to see? what do we want? or i believe knowing what the country needs. but i thought, instead of looking at that question of what we need to look at the enablers, is the infrastructure. it's crucial for us and that is a long-term thing. then that state terms of at

least ensuring equal ability of law. i.e., the law through the challenges when it comes to that. then the market would take care of itself. it's what happens in every part of the world. the issue and again it comes to a point that's trusted by the probably all have is a broken social contract. maybe i should not be speaking but at least for us and iraq does not mean government. the government is pretty much what the people would want in a sense. the challenge. almost all the vision you see coming out, one of the reasons they fail they are given from top down.

it's a bottom up. you have to have a dialogue. this is the challenge we have and iraq is amending the social contract. most of the population we are from iraq is not the young generation. that's with the hope of the country is. it's very different. my generation and younger, most of it is the view and the sensors more subject. that's the challenges we all face. i think it can be resolved. once that happens then we can look at enablers in the country will take care of itself. >> thank you so much. >> thank you for that. thank you for that, i appreciate that. >> it's not just iraq and lebanon we have problems in the social contacts.

has known that very well. with both on that vision because sometimes if you have tools to measure how you are performing and how you are progressing and what impact this has on the population, it can be good. can be good. but also i want to follow up what you said on the promise a security. yes the securities are important. we are told you how to have security and then prosperity. it's the other way around. the prosperity and the promise for the people will also help with security. it can be applicable both ways thank you so much we learned a lot about this conversation. we learn about iraq challenges.

i'm hopeful the next conversation would be in better situation. better circumstances when it comes to iraq or lebanon. thank you so much. thank you so much for coming here. [applause] >> welcome to this afternoon session. i joined today with guests and went remotely. we'll be zooming in shortly. this afternoon were going to be talking about u.s./iraq relations. and how they're going to evolve over the next 12 months. i'm going to start by introducing each of our current panelist to get the conversation going. we'll start with you.

you are the head of the iraqi initiative with the atlantic council middle east program. an expert of the state in 1920 revolution the founding of the modern states. most recent year's senior foreign policy fellow johns hopkins advanced international studies. former assistant professor of national security middle east studies at the naval postgraduate school hold a senior governor affairs position and i could go on. [laughter] i think i'll keep it truncated at that. and then to the left, think of you joining us today. u.s. scholar at middle east politics boston's college political faculty. your primary focus is on religious institutions. in his cultures on religion and the middle east. currently working on a book in

just about time. discussing how shapes protest in modern-day iraq. steve, welcome to the atlantic council. vice president deputy head of middle east at turkey. steve is also president of the eric business council. we'll american focused on the relationships. when traveling to erect a lot, for nearly 15 years and have led to several business delegations over there. posted iraqi prime minister's here in washington as well. that leaves tony. hi there, welcome. the non- resident in the atlantic council middle east program. research professor of the

strategic studies institute at the u.s. army in pennsylvania. i believe you're there currently but you'd retired army colonel recently for iraq on the national security council. this month published a paper, try to not remix up u.s. iraq security again. plenty of things for us all to be talking about over the next 90 minutes or so. so i think i'll hand it over too each of the panelists to give us a quick instruction to open up to the conversation. >> thank you very much. i appreciate it. thank you for this introduction. bring to moderate this panel. u.s. iraq relations are very important for iraq. united's interest in the region

as well. the united states has brought post- 2003 change in iraq not just the regime change about an entire change in the social settings of iraq. philosophies and anything that is direct to date is completely different from what it was before 2003. whatever iraq will come to, will be the legacy of the united states government or successive governments on their policies. but is very important but also for iraq as a country that would like to have established a difference in the importance of iraq between 2003 they looked iraq in the past as a source of trouble of problems in the region. to date iraq is trying to gain a

control on international aid but as a problem solver as part of the solution to many of the regional and introduction a problem. in order to do that, i believe a good balance relation with the united states would open many windows with similar relations with the western world and also regionally. one could never overestimate this relationship. i believe the two countries have been building towards working through their differences. writing agreements even on some of the most difficult questions such as security arrangements. and the accomplishments we see being announced and we look forward to seeing those relations progress from the

right direction. >> thank you very much. i should note we won't be taking questions from the audience. they can be submitted. and you are welcome to submit any questions during the conversation. out transmittable to do some at the end as well. >> thank you. >> i had a quick questions about their head. at the time of transition for both sides involved. u.s. is approaching a crucial election. that will have a big impact but i think don't overestimate its impact in the middle east. few people in the middle east things are as a tangible difference between a democrat or a republican administration with regard to the policy in the middle east. there's also an election coming up november 2025. but likely before that. we are expecting to see a new prime minister but were also

expecting to see back in the game will have a big impact. i'm happy it later to talk about what he think about the outcome of the election might be. we have provincial election on the region is coming up on an election. >> this is a big transition. and 26 and carry on the transition to a bilateral relationship. that of the key changes looking at the relationship between the two countries going forward in the next one or two years. great, thank you very much. we'll go to next. >> thank you for the invitation to be here. i am looking at the topic and the questions in front of us through the prism of the economic relationship.

which is where we tend to focus as a chamber. we are very proud to be home to the iraq business council have focused and will continue to focus on bringing more at u.s. company to the table to get engaged in the commercial opportunities and iraq. i think the one thing we think about is often times a focus in washington and in baghdad it's on the geopolitical dynamics in the relationship were across the region. on the role of the security place. but as others like to say it's important have a three to 60 view of the relationship. and for us, the economic is incredibly important. we should be doing more and thad be more opportunity. when we look at the election you are referencing, yes there is no question u.s. election will have

an impact on the business outlook for the region. for iraq. but for u.s. businesses the elections in iraq and five days in the region whenever that occurs will probably be more consequential for u.s. business decisions, investment opportunities to grow u.s. commercial footprint and iraq. largely because the reform agenda is going to be driven out of baghdad at the provincial level and keeping back on track and seeing what we have seen today will be incredibly important. these elections will perhaps be more impactful for u.s. business. the last thing i would say is often times people think about iraq, they think and economics of the business lane they tend to focus rightly so on energy through it is an important area

of focus. lately would give an increase attention to recommendations how to make things more attractive for u.s. and western companies. an untold story is a diversification of u.s. companies during this period you have everything from agriculture and food, to healthcare, to check, and financial services and many others. and i do think there is definitely continued interest. we have seen our u.s. counsel go from when i started around a dozen companies to well over 50. these sounds like a lot but our companies actively and iraq working and doing business and iraq. it's only going to continue to grow. accurately very interesting to see how the elections play out the current prime minister's putting in place continues to progress. >> thank you.

>> thank you for having me here. i am assuming everyone can hear me fine. excellent. i thought i would focus my comments on the security relations. the big announcement is the operation will resolved u.s. troops will be out of iraq in the end of 2025. with a small contingent remaining in the kurdish region to support operations in syria until the end of 2026. needless to say that brought up a lot of concerns about a repeat of post- 2011 u.s. forces withdrew and within a few years the al qaeda that metastasized into isis. which we are now getting. it brings up the question, has anything changed?

i think the answer is probably yes. one is the perception if not the reality isis threat is managed u.s. forces are no longer needed. i would certainly appoint our anti- prime minister made when he visited the united states last april. i'm really emphasized not only is the security situation stabilizing but it requires an effort to transition from military to policing operation. and to facilitate that he signed a pretty comprehensive and reform strategy backed up by significant effort by the iraqi security forces themselves. that are also aligning with other economic and social reform. so under these conditions, given that perception again it is not reality. the forces may not be necessary they can undermine they can create the impression of instability undermine conditions for those reforms. you couple that with the fact

u.s. forces are often a target for iranian proxies. and coupled with the public pressure to not get involved in that conflict. and again the potential for future escalation in that regard. continuing to place u.s. troops at risk over marginal gains against isis probably does not make a lot of sense. because then that question is how you transition a named operation to more sustainable operation? that's a couple of thoughts. one is are going to have to get beyond foreign military sales. senior advisors addressing functions like logistics and really focus on finding opportunities within the larger security sector reform effort to help build iraqi institutions.

at the same time as the others have said no security strategy no matter how successful is probably going have that much of an impact without economic and social reforms. and so on that regard the u.s. security side should continue to post isis is able to research and becomes a regional problem again. while at the same time because i'll be talking about this, really emphasized to be involved with the growing iraq economy in addressing these other concerns. >> thank you very much. will say on that subject for the time being. this obviously a lot of other things are going to get to today. but you made that last point will stick with that. that was obviously the big announcement last night with the redeployment and the reassigning of the mission in iraq for the

pentagon was very quick to emphasize this is not a u.s. withdrawal from iraq. i'll be interested to hear your take from the other panelists as well in terms of how you see this evolving in the next two years? i think 2026 is when the mission is supposed to technically wind down. this rebranding is kicking the can down the road until after the election. do you think it's actually going to make a significant difference in terms or not? looks a great question. you did remind me forgot my disclaimer. nothing i say reflects the opinion or views of the u.s. government. they are my own. it is a good question for some of that does remain to be seen. we've heard this before. have been told to withdraw combat forces several times and we do. yet the number never changes in

the role may be modified a little bit. i was not going to be different this time? i think so. i think there really isn't is aninterest in the part of the iraqi to transition is not just ending the coalition it's more getting into handling the security problems with their processes of law enforcement. to the extent that emphasis because the threat remains manageable. i think you will see a transition from the kind of joint operations we are still doing. a piece out the same time they're announcing this we conducted a number of rates with the iraqi security forces. but, to the extent that remains manageable, i think you will see movement toward something a bit more sustainable. but a lot of that will be conditions based and if isis

remains resilient i could see that. my coat rebranding some of the intent which is different changing to maintaining more of an operational military threat. >> great, thank you very much. i'm going to have a question that came in from heather's point of the conversation. won't keeping troops in iraq he killed 2026 to support the mission in syria create more tension and division in the short term with the rest of iraq? i keeping u.s. forces in the one regent longer should they hand and in iraq at the same time? >> quickset is a great question. a couple of things here. first of all to it tony just said we don't know the situation on the grandma look like september of 2025 when the first

deadline will approach. there will be a different government for sure. now, it might be vice president harris or former president trump of course there will be a difference. one difference is 2008 agreement that was binding. it was very clear in the way it expires on what needs to happen when the time came in 2011. we don't have an agreement for the current u.s. troops when they entered and we don't have a binding agreement. for that. so, maybe a different administration will not look at it in the same way.

or maybe they will honor it. that is important. we've seen a more difficult agreement from pakistan that was negotiated by the trump administration honored by the by administration. that could boot. that depends on the situation looks like. when it comes to 2025 and 2026. that's an excellent question. this is a question for iraq is always. we can see normally a major question being asked does the united states on that's very important. this relationship that sometimes takes a life of its own with the government. it gets reinforced with the rest of iraq is not safe enough until

2026. we will leave them where it is safe. and it will fit into certain narratives that feed into the difference in the eternal iraqi debate. but also, have a message when it comes to dealing with the tool -- magnitude territories differently. but in general it would have been better if the troops were phased out the same way and by 2025 troops would leave and some contingencies will stay. for those who want u.s. troops to leave iraq completely they not know the difference between them being. so it really does not make a difference for them. we have seen sometimes those who

want to use violence the reach with their missiles to us. and those who want troops to go through negotiation we talk about that. and those who would like to have us continue working together with iraq. iraq. there are many iraqis who would like that basically would like to see them anywhere in iraq where they are needed. i think the other side of it and i'll close with this is basically we need also an iraqi agreement. the iraqis themselves are even n link to delegate to the government on behalf there are many voices in each of voices having a different lawn whether the troops stay or leave and how they leave. >> thank you very much.

>> would you like to? >> i agree entirely on this. >> one thing i would say is by no means am i a security expert. businesses look at the security dynamics in iraq and look at its outlook. one thing to keep them on if you're a large multi presence in the region you have one level of sophistication with the security conditions in iran. as usually pretty sharp. if you were in texas going to new york is like going to a foreign country. let alone my going to the middle east and iraq. i think as the business community we are in a constant motive trying to educate u.s. companies that may be are not really international and certainly do not have a presence in the middle east on how dramatically the security situation has improved over the years. we went bowling root first

traveling to a heavy security with the chamber and our companies to when this variant barely they are in many respects. we'll sort link up and i going forward to having to have that has a massive overhead cost for u.s. and western companies other countries other nations do not incur puts us immediately at a competitive disadvantage. looking at it from the business case. >> thank you very much. there is lots more security topics i would like to get onto. but to make sure panels get equal time, in their field of expertise. you start tracking the fifth anniversary of the protest in baghdad. you start to see huge uprising. can you talk about some of your reflections on where we are now five years later? and you think the u.s. government could have, should have, would have done