it will take care of itself. >> thank you so much, ahmed. >> thank you for that. >> it's not the -- >> no, i'm just saying thank you for that. i appreciate that. >> it's not only in iraq. in lebanon also we have problem in the social contract and many look at the government as an atm. as an atm literally. i can't agree with you both on that 15 after and it's measuring how you are progressing and impacting and what this vision has on your population. can be good. the. >> yeah. >> can be good, but also i want to follow up on what you said regarding the promise and the security. yes, the security is very important but we were told that you have to have security, then you have prosperity.

the prosperity and the people. ment it can be applicable in both ways. thank you so much. we learned a lot about this and iraq challenges. the i'm hopeful that the next conversation would be in better situation, in better circumstances when it comes to iraq, lebanon or the region. thank you so much. and thank you so much for coming here. >> thank you. [ applause ] welcome to this after noon's session of the atlantic council. i'm thomas watkins bureau chief based here in d.c. joined today at the atlantic council by three esteemed guests and one remotely who will be

beaming in shortly. so this afternoon we're going to be talking about u.s. iraq relations and how they're going to evolve. we'll start with you. you're the head of the iraq initiative in the middle east programs and the iraq expert and the author of reclaiming iraq in the 1920 evolution and the founding of the modern state. you are a former assistant professor of national security for middle east studies at the naval postgraduate school in monterey. you've held a senior graduate position in washington. i could go on. i think i'll keep it truncated at that. and then to his left we have dr.

macine al shamari. you're a scholar of the middle east and your primary focus is on religious institutions, civil society and protest movements and you teach courses on religion and the state in the middle east. and welcome to the atlantic council. vice president and deputy head of middle east at the u.s. chamber of commerce. steve is also president of the u.s.-iraq business council. the only organization focused exclusively on the bilateral relationship. you've been traveling to iraq for nearly 15 years and you've led several business delegations

there. and that leaves me to welcome tony. hi there. welcome. how not to mess up u.s.-iraq security relations again. plenty to be talking about over the next 90 minutes or so. the so i think i'll just hand it over to each of the panelists to give a quick introduction and we'll have a broader conversation. start on my left with you.

>> thank you very much. i appreciate it. thank you for this introduction and a greek to moderate this panel for us. it means a lot. u.s.-iraqi relations are very important for iraq. i dare say for the united states interests in the region as well. the united states has brought the post 2003 change in iraq, both not just regime change but an entire change in the social settings in iraq and the iraq economic philosophies and everything that is iraq today is completely different from what was before 2003. so whatever iraq will come to -- will be a legacy of the united states government or successive governments on their policies. and that is very important. i think also for iraq as a country that would like to

have -- establish a new role different than the importance of iraq before 2003, people looked at iraq in the past as a source of trouble, of problems in the region, a pariah state. today iraq is trying to gain a prominent role in the region on internationally, as a problem solver. in order to do that, i believe that a good balanced relation with the united states would open many windows for other similar relations with the western world and also regionally. so one can never over estimate the importance of this relationship, and i believe that the two countries have been building a good trajectory towards working through their

differences and arriving at agreements even on some of the most difficult questions, such as the security arrangements and others and we see accomplishments being announced and made. we look forward to seeing those and the right trajectory. >> thank you so much. we won't be taking questions directly from the audience. all of the questions can be submitted, i'll get them here on this ipad, askac.org. you are welcome to ask any questions during the conversation and i'll try to sprinkle them in and we'll get to them at the end. thank you. >> so i had just a few quick ctions about the year ahead. the u.s. is approaching a crucial election that will have a big impact domestically but i don't think over estimate its impact in the middle east.

a few people think there is a tangible difference between a democrat and republican administration regards to its policy in the middle east. there's also an election coming up in iraq, at the latest november 2025 but likely before that. we're expecting to see a new prime minister. we're also expecting to see satar back in the game so that will have a big impact. i'm happy to talk later about what i think the outcome of this election might be. we had provincial elections and the kurdistan election is coming up. this is a big change for iraq. the big topic is the security agreement where the coalition's military role is being rolled out by 2025 in iraq 2026 and syria and the transition to a bilateral relationship. those are the key changes looking at the relationship of the two countries going forward in the next one or two years.

>> great. thank you very much. we'll go to you next, lee. >> thank you for the invitation to be here. and, you know, i'm looking at the topic and the question in front much us through the prism of the economic relationship which is where we tend to focus at the chamber and the chamber, tom, as you noted, we are very proud to be part of the u.s.-iraq council. we will focus on bringing more u.s. companies to the table to get engaged in the commercial opportunities in iraq. i think the one thing that we think about is that, you know, oftentimes the focus in watching top and bad dagg is on the geopolitical relationship and the roles that security plays, but as investor romanowski and others like to say, it's important to have a 360 view and

for us the economic pillar is incredibly important. one that we should be doing more and that there is more opportunity. perhaps the one thing that might be a little controversial, i would say, is that when we look at the elections that you were referencing, yes, there's no question that the u.s. election will have an impact on the business outlook for the region and for iraq, but i think for u.s. businesses the elections in iraq, you know, in five days in the kurdistan region, october, whenever that occurs will probably be more consequential for u.s. business decisions to grow a reform agenda is going to be driven out of baghdad and at the provincial level and keeping that on track and seeing what we've seen to date, it will be incredibly important -- those

elections will be more impact for for u.s. business. last thing i will say when people think about iraq they think -- they pretend to focus, rightfully so, on energy. it is an important area of focus. we've lately given it increased attention and recommendations to how to make things more attractive to u.s. and non-western companies. you have everything from agriculture and food to health care to tech and financial services and many others. i do think that there is -- that there's definitely continued interest. we've actually seen our u.s. small business council growing from when i started.

these are companies that are actively doing business in iraq. that will continue to grow. again, it will be interesting to talk about how the current prime minister is putting together. >> thank you for those opening remarks. we'll go to tony who's joining us remotely. >> hi. yeah. thanks for having me here. i assume everyone can hear me fine? >> we've got you. >> excellent. so i thought i would focus my work and the operation is going to end. u.s. troops will be largely out of iraq by the end of 2025 with a small contingent remaining in the kurdish regions to support operations in the area until the end of 2026. needles to say, that brought up a lot of concerns about a repeat of, you know, post 2011 when

u.s. forces withdrew and within a few years the al qaeda remnants had metastasized into isis and which we are now coming in on the other end of. so reasonably brings up the question, has anything changed? and i think the answer is probably yes. one is certainly the perception if not the reality that the isis threat is now manageable and that u.s. forces are no longer needed. that was certainly a point that iraqi prime minister sudani made when he visited the united states last april and emphasized not only is the security situation stabilizing but it requires an effort to transition from military to policing operations in areas and to facilitate that he signed a pretty comprehensive security sector reform strategy backed up by a significant effort by the iraqi security efforts themselves that are aligning with the other economic and

social reforms. given that perception again if not reality, the presence of combat force may not be necessary. they can undermine -- they can create the look of instability and you couple that with the fact that u.s. forces are often a target for iranian proxies. coupled with the public pressure not to get involved in the conflict and given the potential for future escalation in that regard. continuing to place u.s. troops at risk over marginal gains against isis probably doesn't make a lot of sense. then the question is how do we transition from a named operation to more sustainable security cooperation and that i'll just leave a couple of thoughts. one is we're going to have to get beyond, i think, foreign military sales or a group of very senior advisers addressing

very specific war fighting functions like logistics and really focus on finding opportunities to help iraqi institutions. no security sector reform strategy, no matter how successful, is going to have that much of an impact without economic and social reforms. so on that regard the u.s. on the security side should continue to emphasize intra-operability while at the same time emphasize ways to be involved with growing iraq's economy and addressing its other concerns.

>> thank you very much. tony, we'll stay on that topic for the time being. there are a lot of other things we'll get to today. you made that last point so we'll stick with it. there was the big announcement with the redeployment and reassignment of the mission in iraq. they said this was not a u.s. withdrawal from iraq. i'll be interested to hear your take. how do you see the footprint evolving? i think the end of 2026 is when that mission is supposed to tally wind down. is this kicking the can down the road both here and be in iraq? will it make a difference? >> great question. you did remind me. nothing i say reflects --

necessarily reflects the opinion or the views of the u.s. government. they are my own. it's a good question. some of that does remain to be seen because we've heard this before. we've withdrawn -- we've been told to withdraw combat forces from iraq several times. we do. the number never changes. their role may be modified a little bit. is that going to be different this time? i think so. it's getting into handling the internal security problems through the processes of law enforcement and not the military.

if you saw it, we conducted a number of raids with iraqi security forces against isis targets. to the extent that remains manageable, you will see movement towards something more sustainable. a lot of it will be conditions based and if isis remains resilient, you might call it rebranding, but i could see some of the intent, which i think is different, changing to maintaining more of an operational military presence. >> thanks very much for that overview. i'm going to open it up to the panel. i'll fold in a question which is very salient to this point of the conversation. she asks won't keeping troops there to support the mission in syria create more tension division in the short term with the rest of iraq by keeping u.s. forces in one region longer? shouldn't the mission end in

iraq altogether at the same time? >> it's a great question and a couple of things here. first of all, i would second what tony just said. we don't know how the situation on the ground will look like by september 2025 when the first deadline will approach. there will be a different government for sure, different administration. now it might be vice president harris or former president trump. of course, there will be a difference. and one major difference here is that unlike the 2008 sofa agreement that was binding and it was very clear and articulated in the ways that it expires and what needs to happen when the time came, which was end of december 2011 is, we don't have an agreement for the current principles of u.s.

troops when they entered and we don't have a binding agreement the way 2008 sofa for the exit. so, you know, maybe the different -- a different administration will not look at it in the same way or maybe they will honor it, and that's important. we've seen a more difficult agreement, withdrawal from afghanistan. that was negotiated by the trump administration and honored by the biden administration, so that could be, but i think as tony mentioned, all depends on how the situation looks like when it comes to the 2025 and 2026 as well. as to hamsa's excellent question, this is an issue for iraqis always. it is that we see normally a major question being asked, does the united states have a one iraq policy or two iraq

policies? and that's a very important thing. it's this relationship that takes a life of its own. it gets reinforced when a message like this sent, the rest of iraq is not safe enough until 2026 so we will leave them where it is safer. it fits into certain narratives that feed into the difference between the internal iraqi debate, but also it sends a little bit of a bitter message when it comes to the u.s. dealing with the two territories differently. in general, it would have been better if the troops were phased out the same way. by 2025 they would leave from

kurdistan and some contingencies would stay. for those who want u.s. troops to leave iraq entirely, they don't have a difference in being in irbil or anwar so it really doesn't make a difference for them. we've seen sometimes those who want to use violence, they reach with their missiles to as far as irbil and those who want the troops to leave through negotiation, they talk about both irbil and the rest of iraq. those who would like to have the u.s. to continue working together with iraq, there are many 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 will close with this, is basically that we also need an iraq-iraqi agreement.

the iraqis are not speaking in p one voice or even willing to delegate to the government and authorize the government to speak on behalf of iraqis. there are many voices and each voice is having a different preference on whether the troops stay or leave and how they leave and when they leave. >> thank you very much. steve, would you like to -- >> i have nothing to add. i agree entirely on this. >> the one thing i would say is by no means a security expert. businesses definitely look at the security dynamic in iraq and look at its outlook. you know, one thing to always keep in mind if you are a large multi-national, you have a presence in the region, maybe your headquarters is in dubai. you have one level of sophistication about the security levels in iraq and it's usually pretty sharp. if you are an sme based in texas going to new york is like going to a foreign country, let alone like going to the middle east and iraq. so i think as the business community, you know, we're in a

constant mode of trying to educate u.s. companies that maybe aren't really international, certainly don't have a presence in the middle east on how dramatically the security situation in iraq has improved over the years. having traveled there, we went from -- when we were first traveling there to a very heavy, you know, security footprint with the chamber and our companies to one that's barely there in many respects. so it's something we'll certainly keep an eye on going forward because it's -- having to have that creates a massive overhead cost for u.s. and western companies that other nations don't necessarily incur and puts us immediately at a competitive advantage. looking at it from that business case. >> thank you very much. and there's lots more security topics that i'd like to get on to, but just to make sure that our panelists get equal time on some of their other fields of expertise, i'm going to turn it over. you obviously are tracking the

fifth anniversary of the protests in baghdad, 2019 october. part two separate questions there.

because it's truly their only way out of the social situation they're in. but if you look at the wide growing middle class the idea is they truly want a government

that pace for everything from them from the cradle to the grave literally and they're not that different from their parents generation. and a lot of the protest in that case were about preserving this. and if you speak to a lot of them they have this idea that they want to be like the gulf with a population of, you know, 40 plus million people which is unsustain coble there's a big component that have. there's a component of wanting to fight corruption in a huge issue that i think everyone in society is aware of and, of course, there's a -- smaller group of activist who have a strong political orientation and understanding where they want the country to go and who are the one who is write out their plans for what they want iraq to look like and message gets carried across but i think we have to be a bit more honest about the full taps industry about what is in the country and, of course, we focus on ones that are like oh look they don't want iran but opinion polls in iraq they have the same

favorable among iraqis but we portray the ones that we think is beneficial to our vision of what we want to push in iraq. so i really strongly recommend reading more about the protest movements from new wave of judge scholars who have been embedded in them and have more clear eyed vision of differentiating between the echelon and every day iraqis why and they want protest and like i said as for the u.s. i can't really comment on whether they would have done more or less own they wouldn't have done anything to demock ar- and we get really -- we get very worried because it is a country going in the right direction or is there going to be a democratic back flighting x, y, z party going to control everything but we tonged forget this is a very young political system.

and for 80% of its history, after 2003 it is embroiled in war so i think a generation actually develop before immediately jumping in to intervene or portray them in one way or another. thawnch very much and is this something you've been counted as you -- your role is trying to expand investment in -- in -- from west u.s. in iraq, and mentioned the younger population, and is this something that you -- come across is a -- is a go for young population to be -- doing more? >> so many interesting things a couple of observations is definitely when it come to the work force. and having kind of wholesome educations that equip them for, you know, the jobs of tomorrow. so i think and again that has been to be driven by iraq but i think there's opportunities for u.s. companies to help guide

like, you know, as we do invest as we do business with iraq. what type of, you know, talents and skills are we looking for. and ij that it is important to take those two consideration -- when you think, you know, what type of economy does iraq want to have, obviously, there's going to be a role for engineers in the energy field. but beyond that. you know when you look at the risk flight in the economy and i do think it is interesting, you know, there's definitely a clique or grouch people who are very interested in having that vibrant start of ecosystem and it is empowering and it does create a so it is creating regulatory and policy environment, and the enablers that allow for that. and there can be, you know, a role for outside, you know, u.s. investment or incubators to play but a lot of that has to come internally and people have to be allowed, you know, to be unleashed and to succeed. but i think it is --

it is an incredibly youth will absolutely kind of drive the future and it will absolutely therefore drive a lot of economic future of iraq. >> thank you do you have anything else to add in that? >> thanks very much. okay so -- let's go back to one of the, obviously, the broader things that was mentioned at the top. you know we've got the elections coming up. question to all of you really just to point of discussion. how different do you think harris administration or trump administration would view bilateral relations with iraq? start over here. >> we've seen both administrations. we've seen fourer years of form or president trump and we know u.s. iraq relations a lot and that term. we don't expect differences in

the philosophy of mostly president trump will bring either the same people or similar like minded people to the foreign policy, and yeah. there will be some changes that happen because fourer years have since president trump left office. so i think it will depending on whether people who will come to get the received the office from the current administration will admit that four years at best because we meet some people sometimes who served in iraq in 2009 or -- they still look for, you know, the same solutions that they presented then as if nothing happened between 2009 and now. we hope that there will be a fresh look at u.s. iraq relations. if trump wins. if -- vice president harris wins, then, i mean, she promised to

maybe have her own administration crafted the way that she envisions this and we expect that to happen to a certain degree. but you know, again, i think the depends again who will be continuing to serve and their president harris if she wins and who will come in as people -- i believe that there are many of the aspects of u.s. iraq relations transcend administrations because there are interests that are durability and problems with solutions for them need to be worked out without regard to who the administration will be. you know, and that's i think -- how the relation will be. i believe that not only we will have new administration and the united states. but by end of 2025 we'll have

new administration as well. and most likely, you know, we will have to elect recalibrate that one as well, and relations to the all of that. iraq will continue, i believe, to be important for washington. and i believe that the iraqis also will continue to recognize the importance of working with washington and trying to reconcile their differences as much as they can and build toward the future and what steve just mentioned area basically we need to move to the sectors that the strategic framework agreement have not been addressed to the ul fullest extent that was the agenda that prime minister soleimani brought with him when he came to the united states earlier this year. he didn't bring any person from the security sector by intention he left it to bilateral

negotiations he brought with him people whorn who were interested in the trade and education and in the other fields economics, et cetera. so that's a message from both administrations that they want to move in that direction. >> one area that we can expect some change is trump administration was presumed going to be a lot more -- even more on israel. especially when it comes to we can bring tony in on this one especially when it comes to trying to -- trying to mediate her response to iran. this, obviously, expecting strike any day now. and the biden administration has been quite, quite lax in terms of what it does present in terms of constraints to israel. however, there is been some pushing back we know under trump

administration those constraints probably going to go away. so tony i know you don't want to talk about politics. but i wondered if yowgd address this one. in terms of how -- further emboldened trump regime i see you roll your eyes might impact the broader region especially in terms of, you know, iran backed militia in iraq? >> yeah. i mean i'm not going to be able to make any comments on what a -- what a future u.s. administration might do differently than a current u.s. administration. anyway, so -- sorry if i can't help you out there. if i were to make some comments on this, it is the problem any administration is going to have is -- is figuring out how to intervene

in a process where, you know, iran has lost much of its deterrence against israel so there's not a lot of incentive on israeli side. to allow threats to -- to what they perceived as threats to remain what leverage we have whatever administration we have to -- to -- you know, to manage that. i don't know that we -- i don't know that we have a lot of leverage no matter who we are to do that at this time. that could change. but sorry i -- said earlier i can't really talk about differences between the administrations. >> do you see -- do you see this changing how the iran backed militia will impact civil society in iraq? >> how they're going to impact civil society? >> in terms of like, you know, on the potentially on even more emboldened netanyahu regime what

would be -- >> there's a differentiation particularly among group that works on human rights and demock are demock -- you know, they've read all of the literature about it they work actively for it. we can, you know, discuss the personal movement right now. and i think one thing that a lot of people in the west have missed about this group is that the u.s. has lost all moral lijts legitimacy among them and no longer the bearer of hule rights that once was for these groups to the extent that i've noticed diminished appetite for american and european funding. of course places like spain or belgium for example, but particularly the u.s., the u.k., germany have lost a lot of moral legitimacy within iraq and within civil society across the middle east. and i've known, you know, from the personal contact with civil society various activist who don't want to partner with the u.s. or any u.s. funded

organizations -- and i think because of their genuine commitment to what human rights is they see the u.s. as a hypocrite for basically funding a genocide and palestine now funding illegal invasion in lebanon. i think -- these iraqis are ones to have been raised with a vision of in a new iraq they're working towards and they've -- are now looking for defining that for themselves and looking forward it is a positive development because i think it is self-sustaining not reliant on outside support so i think that's positive in terms of the impact of arm groups in iraq on their activity, i mean they were preyed upon by different groups during the protest movement. but a good chunk of that was also because they were associated with the left so much so i think maybe breaking up this association will be beneficial for them. when you think about their -- you know, their security. essentially it is too early to

tell right now. so we'll have to wait and see. but they have transformed fundamentally. >> thank you. >> it was a -- there was an distinct if you can call it that week where israeli tv channel had a picture of a hispanic excuse me with a target on his face that seemed to be indicating that israel was, you know, going to start systemically targeting senior -- what was the reaction to that in iraq that you were tracking? >> i can specifically talk about the reaction of because i did get on the phone and discuss them when it happened. so i think he must have seen channel 14 they had a photo of various armed shiitte leaders they also had -- the new leader of hezbollah and they had one has been nothing

but a figure of peace in a war torn area for 20 years and only way i can really reason this out is a, they just which is what some people have been saying like leaders came up with that which is widely racist and b, they have actually -- declared a target the senior most scholar in the world and from another perspective this enraged they're very angry. i think u.s. ambassador in response to the anger because for the last since the isis war it has been working on trying to work on interfaith dialogue both within iraq and outside, outreach to scholars in the u.s. facilitating conference as these kinds of things and to be told that, you know, your leaders a target now of this broad like armed campaign against different figures of the middle east. what i really want to explain here is that it is not that and everyone around him is insult

because israel thinks he's the enemy. i think there's a famous kind of that's about it. that i'm sure that's how they feel about it. but it's that they would have the gulf actually targeting or saying they want to target such an important figure. this was a man who called for iraq to have its own constitutional elected by britain by elected people person who incentivize people to vote he was very much in on the democratic process in iraq. he called for desectorianization at the height of the civil war. so it's -- you know, it's akin for people to targeting the pope simply for being catholic. and that's how he feels about that in particular. i can't speak to the rest iraq with as much authority but i can assure you those in iraq a predominantly one feels this way and other iraqis who usually have a very positive view of hezbollah in iraq will share that image. >> your view is it a simple

mistake by the production crew of channel 12 or 14 -- >> simple mistake when it is racist it is a racist mistake or it's, you know, israel is really -- pushing the line on everything. as it has done repeatedly in the last year. >> and -- steve mentioned some of the civil society groups take u.s. funding. and i was wondering if you've experienced -- we're hearing that -- from the iraqis they want more u.s. investment. what are some of the challenges that you're perceiving in terms of getting more u.s. and western investment into iraq? >> very good question. and one thing i just would mention, you know -- i think when going back to original question the difference between harris and trump administration i did want to mention and it came up on i think the first panel was the focus that the prime minister in iraq has had on methane em

baitment with goal of ending by 2030 that's one goal that the u.s. business community has been active in a number of projects to capture the gas converted to gas electricity and it helps with the budget and other issues so i think that's one that we would be worried about if the election were to go one way because we think that's important progress also on the health front. for iraqi citizens. now, yes, there are a raft of issues that presented challenges to more u.s. commercial participation investment, and they range from, you know, just over the security concerns like we talked about. to a number of, you know, regulatory -- granular things from different custom standards. you know, we've seen essentially kind of legacy or anti-waited stands for certain products that

haven't been updated to reflect innovation. and certain product, you know, so companies have found it impossible to, you know, bring, you know, new type of products that we suspect and rocky customers would relish to be able to purchase. so there's those types of very granular specific things. you know corruption was mentioned as one of the key issues and rule of law by the past panel. and i think those are two overarching things and the progress is being made on the banking system and bringing it into the international standards, and best practices is important, and tied with that, you know, is the effort to try to digitize and move things away from, you know, what signatures, you know, to, you know, that kind of the e -- e economy i think that's a way number one to bring iraq's economy forward in the modern global economy and it is also a way to indirectly combat

corruption at the end of the day, but those -- that's big overarching challenges definitely things that -- that have been more granular in sector specific. >> so under trump administration you would expect to less less informsment in i think used the example of me saying abatement to deal with a problem of gas flairing. >> if you look at the time and pulled out of the paris accords -- you know, and that was basically said everything that needed to be set on that. now i think where the business community at it sees a very important commercial opportunity. and meeting a need in iraq. you know, so the question would be would there be u.s. financial support through the dfc and other -- you know, other entities like that under trump administration that would be a huge question mark. you know, with the administration put money into that. but regardless i think the business community, you know, sees that it is important i think the iraqi government, you know, understands that it is

important, and it's in error that we would want to continue to work on regardless of who wins in november. and again i think that comes back to, you know, the elections in iraq will probably be more consequential ultimately for u.s. business participation in the iraqi economy. >> and be on the investment be on the -- be on the energy sector what are some of the other areas investment that u.s. could be getting more involved in? >> we've -- we've taken a couple of what we call farm and fort delegations actually to the region, and you know we're looking at everything from bringing companies that sell and that produce and sell seeds. and you know, the farm commitment, you know, to the irrigation, all the way through processing, you know, produce and the yields from the fields. you know, to the table -- and to the franchise opportunities. so that is, i think, a huge area and it's an area where there's a

lot of u.s. expertise in water management irrigation, and producing seeds that are climate resistant and can grow with very little water. you know, so bringing that type of technology and making that available in iraq and in a bigger way, i think can have a really dynamic effect on agriculture for example, so that's one area. you know, health care is another area. interestingly, you know, i think companies or people would be shocked to know that we have more health care companies on our iraq council than we do energy companies and again i think it is one of those untold stories, you know, you have -- whether they're medical device -- you know whether they're pharmaceutical, you know, whenever they're at in the ecosystem not just business with government of iraq but business with the iraqi private sector and health care community. and again, that's a huge area of opportunity, you know, to bring iraq i would say and to the

international best standards and practices to deliver the best patient outcomes. you know, for iraqi citizens. so that's another big area that we are focused on and then one other that i would mention is just financial services and banking. again, you know, that has complications across the whole economy so it's important for reforms underway to continue in iraq and to align with international, you know, standards and best practices -- and then that can fuel investment and commercial activity in a whole host of other areas. >> thank you. and i would like to remind viewer that anyone can ask a question any time it is ask ac.org and i'll receive a question here on the ipad. general question for everyone actually what's in terms of keeping to the topic of the discussion today. what start with you. what's the biggest -- challenge and biggest opportunity for u.s./iraq relations over the next 12 months? >> change of administration is a

big thing because now if -- as i said the question here is -- where would the u.s. policy be in the region? certainly iraq is an important piece of that. so that will be important and i believe that we have this relation that needs to be -- to be sorted out depends on which philosophy will be taking over the white house. there will also be the question of the impliation of the immigration of the troops but that all -- if, you know, nothing really drastic happens which will hope nothing happens in the -- in the general middle east conflict right now that the situation takes a downturn and then iraq is dragged into it. then a lot of the -- what we have been working on will be completely up in the air.

because you know, if there's some especially if there's some decision to target iraq by israel then certainly the iraqi government will not be able to control some of the groups that are right now they're engaged on a smaller scale but it can be -- it can be on a bigger scale. and if there is some perceived u.s. involvement in a way because this is not me talking. it is how iraqis are thinking. you know, the united states is in charge of the air defense of iraq, for example, the united states is the country that is in control through the coalition, and through its troops. so israelis work to target iraq they'll have to go through the u.s. and it will be interpreted as a grand light from the united states then. and the rhetoric and narratives that are in iraq right now this happens and u.s. target will be fair game. u.s. interests -- you know, you're talk about

troops whether it is the embassy. or interest companies, maybe. that would be a huge challenge. we hope we will not get there and that's why i said earlier in the program -- we are close if the current efforts that are being undertaken by the europeans and by the united states fail and cannot contain this conflict and nobody really knows where the, you know, you could start the war or probably control if elements of the factor of the war but nobody can tell where it will catch, and you know, i don't see many same people who are -- you know, in this conflict. so the question here is, you know can it be expanding in a dangerous way, yes and to now we have seen limited role by iran, and we have seen limited role by iraq. but if it really catches the

region by, you know, the certain targets that are deemed unacceptable to, you know, crossing certain right right lad lines that might turn in a fast way into a year. a different game of together. that would be the -- the worst scenario from a u.s. iraq foreign relations perspective. but you know, again we are still optimistic on hoping this will not happen and there is, you know, the conferences that are being planned will -- will bring some good fruits. then what we talk about is just a classic challenges that are working on in the past, you know, few years since the -- you know, the we started having, you know, i mean, mending fences between iraq and the united states. it's pushing how to work the troops with a schedule allowed to deal with the trying to

establish business relations. those issues, but you know, so probably i would really focus on that sort of -- conflict will be bad or will be contained. that would be the one thing that american foreign policy makers have to cope their eyes on. >> thank you. timing actually if we can bring you again on the same question so looking forward to the next 12 months the biggest challenges and potential opportunities that you see. and u.s. iraq relationship. >> yeah. no it is a great question. i was recently in a conversation to ambassador of the united states who said something similar he said this is in context of the iraq engagement program and you have to stop looking at iraq as a problem but as an opportunity. and that may actually be as a lot of folks who they've pointed out that may be the biggest

challenge is finding those opportunities that get beyond security -- security cooperations. but right now our biggest window in security cooperation and this is something with security sector reform is going to require kind of rethink how we are -- how we can do that in a way that brings about or supports kind of institution reforms that -- that the iraqi security sector needs if we can't do that, it will be pretty much more of the status quo. ... government is one mediator and actor that brings

instability of the region. for years it was embroiled and roars constantly been the aggressor. our rock really wants to move past that and has been working on that even with regards to the recent conflict in the region. it is meant very difficult to balance iran and the u.s. i think there is potential in the year going forward to that become untenable. truly i have never been an appointment in the middle east where i don't know it's going to happen next in terms of whether were going to be approaching something that is impossible to come back from. iraq us right in the middle of that. the presence of u.s. troops in iraq on one hand suggests maybe israel will not attack iraq because it is not the retaliation to be on the united states. but, at the same time i do not know if that will deter israel. it creates problems for iraq and if it's being attacked, how's it

going to retaliate? the potential that to go downhill is stronger than it has ever been. it's a problem for the iraqi government for years. both in the united states and iran have costley pushed and pushed for dominance and hegemony in the country. i think the successful side is a side that understands iraq was to be a mediator and constantly looking at a source of threat in the region or something on which they have to intervene strongly to reform institutions. the prior panel is talking about i think 360 relation. emphasizing person-to-person food. these kinds of things i want to bring an example for my own experience on academic. i recently found it difficult to work with the iraqi academics particularly but we are looking for shared funding. because of the sanctions on the

iraqi minister of higher education. trickle-down to every professor in iraq. it is nice to hear things about iraq in the u.s. wanting to have a good relationship. but even the most innocuous relationship which is the research project between two professors which ought to be honest no one reads anything academic appeared it's not going to amount to huge difference in the world. everyone in this relationship has said something and acted in a different way. that's the biggest trouble going forward. >> have any of these sanctions think it's the banking sector is subject to some u.s. measures is that impacting things of your perspective? >> definitely in the sector you are seeing some of the sanctions play out. but again, what is important is the reform continues to progress

because at the end of the day iraq has to part of the global economy. in order to do so the financial services and capitol flow is absolutely critical to the iraq's future in micro economies. to getting that right is very important. what course it can cause difficulties in the short term. in the long term does reap results. one of the big opportunities we see historically a lot of u.s. companies have been doing business with the government of iraq. what they have not been focused on is the iraqi private sector. granted it's a small private sector. focusing on those companies big can do business with is important. it is an area that we as the chamber we are going to focus on going forward is to try to help develop more of

business-to-business partnerships and taken government and a back seat perhaps. do not get me wrong. they're going to continue to pursue opportunities with the government. i think it is important to look for those opportunities with the business community as well. prior panel on the business side there were some furniture analogy to the stool of different pegs on the stool. the economic as part of the 360 that is important to give more attention the other penalty they talked about visions, visions for different economies across the region. keep with the furniture analogy the vision can create at la-z-boy approach and you kind of sit there without doing the work. the challenge is to focus on the economic leg of the stool.

as the development built roadmaps that are five or 10 years out promo for government the private sector the stakeholder community to work together on the real tangible sometimes granular reforms that need to take place to inject more investment. to hold people accountable and make decisions. sometimes just the challenges for decisions to be made when it comes to the bureaucracy. streamlining that making those reforms on having the long-termm vision for getting into the here and now i'm making those often times in granule very specific reforms are actually critical. >> the next 12 months? >> again will be more impactful

obviously the u.s. government will have opinions on some of these things. for example earlier this year that's a lot of discussion between our government on the pipeline, the energy sector at large. also in health, agriculture and education is always government to government dialogue. i think at the end of the day the reforms are going to be driven and baghdad upping the bill that is what the business community is going to look for it. they want to be able to engage two and have a seat at the table keeping with the furniture analogy may be a large dinner table. have a seat there to share recommendations with working in other markets? what other types we need to see to create more ground up commercial activity as well. that empowers the privacy. >> thank you very much.

a reminder we had questions one has come in, what lessons from the u.s. invasion of iraq can be implemented and america's approach of expanding regional conflicts caused by the israel/hamas work? >> what lessons? assume the 2003 invasion. >> what lessons from the u.s. invasion of iraq can be implemented in its approach to expanding the conflict caused by the war? >> it is a good question. my immediate response or my immediate thought is just say no. certainly i think i guess what i

don't see them progressing in the same way for the same reasons. the escalatory dynamic that resulted in one is not exactly the same here. the idea of a permanent occupation of any area by any one is not exactly all on the table. and if it is it's more of a last resort than the first one. now, a, i don't know what i would euthanize these dead wishes try to occupy any particular territory. which tells us then we have got to figure out another way to de-escalate. and get to a point the continued

fighting is no longer the best option. in terms of lessons i would simply say i think they'll have to work with some point will have to figure out is not going to be an overthrow or defeat of any of the other side. so finding a new equilibrium means more of the focus and there becomes a de-escalating conflict. which is not exactly how things developed in 2003. >> you think we are anywhere near any kind of de-escalation? it seems like the biden

administration's talk about you try to contain the conflict do you see any hopes of being real back and examine soon? i don't know what that would look like. there is not a lot that's currently deterring israel from continuing and trying to meet its current military objectives. i don't get a sense from israel of any desire to occupy, govern, any of the areas they are currently operating. so with that off the table it is not -- without any kind of deterrence, i guess from an israeli point of view it may make sense to continue to go after what it considers

capabilities at organizations as that represent a threat. i don't know what was going to put an end to that. or on the flip side some sort of incentive to find a new medicine entity that would give response to de-escalate. but right now i don't hear anyone talking about or see any of that on the table. >> thank you. >> may ask a question? i really wanted to answer this question i've been teaching a class on the iraq war this year. i had my students go to the national security archives. one of the really interesting things they found was that the rhetoric in the '90s of the potential to have weapons of mass destruction was they won't have it in the next century. suddenly close to the war they're going to have it within the next year. i feel like i've seen the same rhetoric about iran. i just want to reinforce people who work and intelligence aren't different human beings.

they have the same biases and are seen this mistake being made once more. instant belief is a nuclear weapon the nuclear taboo subjects russia in ukraine as well i see of how completely divorced from reality it is. much less accessible country if the claimant they know and iran. not just jumping because i feel an emotional or we feel like a something must be done.

really, really a dangerous position we place a lot of innocent people in the world then. we must take it must more seriously. the one lesson as they work and intelligence and government are not more capable or more smart than the average human being. in fact been to be pressured much more. they need to be forced to track not once, not twice but 10 times before they make any statement. >> thank you brings an interesting question just to go back you help in the u.s. navigate the sustainability concerns? >> eat previous conditioning the sanctions on the reduction without the bearing. how should the u.s. navigate the promotion of sustainability concerns? without becoming overbearing? >> a big role is from our perspective from the business

community is to bring the technology and make it available. not be overly prescriptive for the iraqi government has their goal to end by 2030. we want to be a partner. how can we help you achieve your goal? i think u.s. companies have the technology, have the wherewithal so as to showing up as a partner and making sure they understand here is what our technologies can do. and here is how it can achieve that but i don't think it necessarily got involved in the policy-setting and whatnot. it's showing up and bringing our technology and capability to america. >> thank you. go back to your point about some of the intel with iran and nuclear, perhaps we can bring into the conversation. how concerned are you about going back to the 2003 question about this idea the intel is

being hyped or pumped up to justify a strike. >> according to the last we heard about too have nuclear weapons, it was yesterday. we said in a week, eight days ago. from the intelligence. that's where it is. that is why they needed to do it. so it's one 100% right on the issue. on intelligence and how to handle it in a way. it is important. there is a lot that has been said about the intelligence going into the iraq war. worse than that, the biggest failure about the intelligence failure is accountability. do not get me wrong, i'm very happy that was removed. he put my life on the line to do it and i was okay with the

removal. but certainly that does not answer the question whether or not we should be careful about intelligence. the same thing here. it's nuclear weapons are dangerous. it's a dangerous phenomenon in the modern world. probably have a different view than many other people. as when everybody has them. not the third-best, the worst is when one side has it on the other. that side that has them will always feel unchecked. they can do whatever they want because they have that strategic advantage. if we were to stick to the philosophy of having nuclear weapons which is a short destruction and deterrence that

it prevents conflict. had happened with india and pakistan for a while. i do not know if it would work in the middle east. that is a different scenario. it's the curse of our generation. since they came into the world and people started to give nuclear weapons. they are a bad phenomenon as we said. people feel they could get away with what others don't. i don't know. the other question which is important can you prevent somebody from having them if they have the capability? that is the question. the iranians for example to have the capabilities to enrich.

they have a lot of expertise. at the end of the day if they decide what their claim is they do not want to use them. this depending upon the circumstances. there are other people if the iranians would have it i'm sure the saudi's would want to have it and may be others who have the memes. it is a problem. i do not see a way to prevent somebody from having nuclear weapons if they already have a program set they are having them. >> the iran backed groups that deal in iraq are they still taking their orders from tehran or do they have control over them at all? >> is a complicated sort of relationship.

on mutual interests collapsed to the save the day? some of them are working very well with the iraqi government. and now they aren't public supporting the approach of the iraqi government. for regional some of them proudly and now they take and they take their instruction they would take their instruction so

the priorities are to defend the priorities for the rest of the world. they are strong second they are working is not on the top of the list of priorities for the iraqi government. it's also from iraq he government perspective maybe having a simple war on your hands part of your military goes against it. and your security forces i believe the best solution for the problem to implement the

2016 this was supposed to tackle the issue in the right way. so far we have three prime ministers actually for this not taken upon themselves for this law and put it in force. of the laws on the books. they do not need to have any special genius to solve the problem. which tells you how hard the situation is not simple to look out. a lot of the decisions are being made and iraq are based on the current equilibrium of security in iraq.

the iraq east don't want to risk disturbing the current equilibrium that's happening. not to mention why the united states because isis is still a threat. and we need their weapons. they are helping us. and they use also the same. when you tell them they say once wantto defeat isis come to us. i say go home. this excuse or this is a reason if you will has given by everybody for various purposes but there respective purposes. >> thank you. tony, isis is still a threat how big of a threat do you perceive it to be?

>> it is a good question. what i would point out i think it would be hard to get good numbers for it. i think it's down but not out. this goes back to something we were talking about a little earlier whether the tolerance would be for the extra year of u.s. basically look at the forces or troops in the curtis region supporting syria. a key factor in the ability of groups like isis to sustain themselves as having a safe haven. so if we are not able to degrade isis operation in syria and a presence in syria to a way that presence in syria is not able to sustain their operations in iraq, is going to become a bigger threat. a lot will hinge on what we are able to do. not just on iraq and keeping it manageable there but degrading the capability to research and grow again by getting at the

safe haven. i think that will be investment that will determine a lot and which way the trajectory goes. >> thank you. we have a few minutes left. a couple questions have come in for this is in general. going back to the question of the policy potentially changing with new administration what ideally will be the pillar of a long-term bipartisan u.s. strategy toward relationship building in iraq? i'll start with you steve. >> regardless of who is in the white house, will enable a top pivoting away from the middle east. that's usually military assets and geopolitics. but i would say he was in businesses are going to continue to be focused on iraq and looking at opportunities.

the key to that future is creating the business climate and a lot has a policy regulatory environment, rule of law, confidence and certainty in what you're investing into. creating a business environment for long-term investment. not just one and done is going to be critical to iraq's economy in the future of attracting american western investment. >> and perhaps of i might be idealistic but more straightforward policy it would be very much welcome the pedal middle east. it's intrinsically tied as a region. about palestine and 11 on in the security. >> thank you. >> optimistic i would look at and refer to so far the relations between iraq and the

united states. even if we take the last administrations i think we had a good relation so far. two countries that work there very difficult challenges. and again relations were collapsing somehow people who are working from both sides working on the relationships came up with solutions. and came up with solutions and also agreements. i think one of the hardest questions is this idea of whether or not the united states troops will stay in iraq. those of us who are watching the relations back in 2020 thought that u.s./iraq relations came to a point of the cliff. in the two administration compromised -- went to governments compromised.

a series of agreements that made it work. i think that is also -- steve was just talking about this and also the relationships are not monotonic right now and if you years ago we have a more diversified relation. we have good war between the two countries. i am very optimistic that whatever the administration comes next time, the project will not be affected negatively. >> thank you privileges have time to tell you jimmy closing thoughts on that question? >> i will just say it real quickly and agree with what everyone else said. if this theme is going to be treating iraq as more of an opportunity, not a problem. for governments in particular

can be a help a nonprofit and so on manage the risk i don't mean physical risk but iraq is a very different place to operate. to underwriting the risk for businesses or expertise and navigate it will go a long way to expanding on those opportunities. >> thank you very much. thank you to all the excellent panelists for very interesting conversation today. it's been a pleasure talking with you. thank you very much. [applause]