Uncategorized

Issue Summarized: The creation of the Al-Muhandis Company by the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) in Iraq has significant regional implications:

1. The establishment provides a substantial means to increase PMF funding, which will bolster its influence over state sectors and further diminish the government’s authority and control.
2. This entity poses as a national security threat not only to Iraq but also to neighboring Gulf states and the interests led by the United States in the region.
3. The company’s possession of land along the Iraqi-Saudi border, previously used for operating drones in the Gulf region, raises further concerns about its potential activities.

Solution Summarized: The United States and the Gulf Cooperation Council should draft an urgent smart sanctioning agreement against al-Muhandis Company. 

 

The Issue Unfolded:

Iraq is currently facing an increasing epidemic of Iranian-led militias and political coordination frameworks with persistent control over every facet of the state. Iranian-led militias present the state with growing national security concerns. Among the most recent threats the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) have presented is the recent development of the PMF-led company, Al-Muhandis company. 

This entity is a clear umbrella establishment that claims to serve all sectors of the state ranging from agricultural to construction projects, while simultaneously seeking to fund the PMF and their future initiatives. A company led by mobilization forces that have long presented various human rights violations, political fraud, and embezzlement allegations exhibits a high threat to the security of Iraq, surrounding states, and U.S.-led interests in the region. 

What should we do? 

To counteract the threats that lie upon all members, the U.S. and the Gulf Cooperation Council should seriously consider a multilateral smart-sanctioning agreement directed at this developing company. 

Smart sanctions when implemented with precision, can pinpoint specific entities, individuals, or activities without inflicting widespread harm on the general public. This approach aims to reduce collateral damage by focusing on the company’s activities, assets, and key individuals involved. 

Internal Instability:

To truly grasp the magnitude of this threat, consider that the PMF didn’t require a parliamentary endorsement to claim the land for their company’s establishment. In fact, they failed to secure approval for the establishment of the al-Muhandis company from all former prime ministers, but the Coordination Framework,  a political bloc closely aligned with Iran and PMF leaders, was able to secure the current administration through manipulative tactics within the system. This maneuvering placed Mohammed Shia’ Al Sudani in power, a member of the 

What did the current administration do for the company?

• Al-sudanis’s government granted immediate approval to the creation of the company. 
• Provided an initial amount of $67 million for the establishment. 
• Allowed the company to seize 1.2 million acres of land along the Iraqi-Saudi border with no paper trail. 

 

A pressing concern arises from the 1.2 million acres of land acquired by the PMF. While the designated purpose of the land is for a proposed agricultural project, the land lies along the Iraqi-Saudi border and in the same area where the militias were reportedly activating drones in the Gulf states on many occasions in 2019. This fact alone should flag potential concerns from the Saudi government and other Gulf states surrounding the region. 

Many have been referring to al-Muhandis Company as “Iraq’s Khatam al-Anbia” due to the similarities between the two entities. Khatam al-Anbia, a U.S.-sanctioned entity, serves as the official engineering arm of the IRGC and is a significant revenue generator for them. Clearly, al-Muhandis Company possesses the means and potential to be a funding source for the PMF. 

Given the heightened tensions between Iranian-led militias in Iraq and U.S. forces, provided by the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, it is advisable for the U.S. and its regional allies to concentrate on restricting all potential sources that could facilitate the expansion of Iranian militias in that area. That starts with honing down on entities such as al-Muhandis Company and halting its development.

 

           Human trafficking. It’s safe to say that you’ve heard about human trafficking before. Every once in a while, the media releases a story about a sex trafficking ring that was busted by local law enforcement officials. Months or years later, we see a conviction of the individuals who perpetuated that crime – the traffickers. This is good news, or at least it is supposed to be. If the traffickers have been arrested and prosecuted, then the issue of human trafficking has been solved, right? 

 

Not really. 

 

Human trafficking victims are rarely spoken about in the media. For obvious reasons, victim privacy and security need to be protected. But what happens to these victims after their traffickers are arrested? Are law enforcement officials even aware that they have been victimized in the first place? In most cases, law enforcement is not aware. 

 

Why?

 

Because law enforcement officials lack the training necessary to accurately identify victims of human trafficking. This lack of victim identification training makes it difficult for victims of human trafficking to access the support services that they need to reenter society. So, victims become invisible, and their stories rarely come to the attention of our popular media. I want to bring one of those stories to your attention today.

 

A young girl, let’s call her Maria, was visited by an American woman in her hometown in Mexico. Maria had been looking for work opportunities for a while. When the white American woman came by her home offering a comfortable job as a maid in Texas, she could not refuse. The American woman promised Maria good money, a bed, and opportunities to build eventual residency status in the United States. Maria took the job and traveled to Texas with the unknown American woman.

 

At first, the American was kind, offering Maria warm food and new clothing for her cleaning job. Things were going well. Then, the American woman locked Maria in a small shed in her backyard, chaining her to a post in the ground. The American woman threatened Maria with death and harm to her family were she to disobey her. In the following weeks, Maria was consistently abused, threatened, starved, and tortured in manners that are too gruesome to describe here. She was never compensated for the work she completed on the American woman’s behalf. Eventually, a neighbor spotted her in the yard and called the police for help. 

 

Maria is one of 300,000 victims of human trafficking in Texas alone. Her story reflects the unbearable reality of many residents of Texas who are forced to work or have sex for little to no pay. It is up to us, the general public, to identify these victims of human trafficking. If law enforcement cannot do it, then the public must step in to help. 

 

What can you do to help?

• Learn to identify the signs of human trafficking; victims may:
  • Appear malnourished
  • Avoid eye contact or other forms of social interaction
  • Be accompanied by older males 
  • Lack identification documents
  • Be living at their place of employment

 

If we learn to educate ourselves, we can bridge the gap between law enforcement and the public and ultimately provide law enforcement with the necessary resources to train and build up their capacity to accurately identify victims of human trafficking. 

 

On January 6^th, 2021, a crowd of people, mostly supporting Donald Trump, congregated at the US Capitol after a political rally in front of the White House. Police officers were immediately overwhelmed as they were forced to converge on the Citadel of Democracy as protests broke the barriers surrounding the complex. Although most people peacefully exercised their right to protest an allegedly illegitimate election, a small group of so-called patriots forcefully entered the Capitol building to disrupt the certification of electoral votes that was presided by Vice President Pence. They smashed windows, attacked police officers with fire extinguishers and bear spray, forced congress members and staffers to barricade themselves, and recorded the first intrusion of the Capitol since the Civil War. Some of the intruders threatened the lives of senior government officials like Nancy Pelosi and Mike Pence, while others appeared to have planned the intrusion, as indicated by their body armor, gas masks, and zip ties.

Fast-forward to hearings with FBI Director Christopher Wray, I was astonished that the United States did not have a domestic terrorism list or framework for punishing violent domestic extremism in the United States. The Capitol Intrusion was the largest and most consequential event for law enforcement officers but a slew of terrorist acts occurred throughout 2020 that should have prompted lawmakers to renovate domestic terror statutes. These events include targeted killings of police officers and arson on government buildings from the far-right and far-left. As the premier law enforcement agency that is apolitical, I agree with the FBI’s assessment that some of the January 6^th protests were domestic terrorists; I appreciated Director Wray’s nuance that divided those present at the Capitol into three groups, or a triangle; the vast majority of Americans who were peacefully protesting, some who became violent and entered the Capitol building as a result of becoming riled up in emotion, and those who planned and intended to violently challenge a cornerstone of our democracy, which by the way, was declared legitimate by multiple US courts. This minority of people who justified their actions for democracy prompted me to try and solve the problem of weak domestic terrorism laws while preserving constitutional liberties.

Before diving into my proposal, let me acknowledge the potential critiques. I understand there have been instances of government overreach from the Nixon Administration’s enemies list to the National Security Agency’s illegal wiretapping of US citizens after 9/11. I understand many libertarians’ concerns that if they give an inch, the government will take a mile. Civil liberties groups oppose any potential legislation that would potentially infringe on individual rights. These concerns are understandable and can be supported with historical examples. However much of these concerns attempt to idealistically preserve rights that might be gone if another January 6^th succeeds in overturning democratic principles in support of an ideology or candidate. And in an increasingly polarized nation where there is little compromise and where democracy is eroding across the world, giving up some rights preserves most other rights. Think about it, our rights have never been absolute. And keep in mind, many of the infringements people worry about occur sporadically and are not daily occurrences. As much as I’d love to propose punishments for those who choose to unlawfully use a domestic terrorism list, accountability just would not be possible. That’s where the American people come in; because the list and criteria are public, they can question the courts’ decisions and express their opinions non-violently. A public list will not compromise secret operations against violent domestic extremists while providing a level of accountability for the government. Now my proposal in three parts: 1) Create a domestic terrorist list that includes mostly individuals. This will prevent overextending the list in the government’s favor. 2) Criminalizing domestic terrorists. This will enable the country to use the stigma of terrorism to its advantage and deter people from making purely emotional decisions as we saw on January 6th. 3) Forming a government-wide framework to define domestic terrorism and empower law enforcement to prosecute domestic terrorists, like the minority in January 6^th, to the fullest extent of the law. This is so important to preserve our country’s democratic experiment and allow our children to enjoy the institutions we love…with a little compromise.