Iraq’s Mosul Struggles to Rebuild without Funds

A wholesale foodstuffs store is seen at the Corniche market in Iraq’s second city of Mosul. (AFP)
A wholesale foodstuffs store is seen at the Corniche market in Iraq’s second city of Mosul. (AFP)
TT
20

Iraq’s Mosul Struggles to Rebuild without Funds

A wholesale foodstuffs store is seen at the Corniche market in Iraq’s second city of Mosul. (AFP)
A wholesale foodstuffs store is seen at the Corniche market in Iraq’s second city of Mosul. (AFP)

Iraqi shopkeeper Ahmad Riad is busy again serving customers at a Mosul market four years after the city was destroyed in battles against extremists, but he still awaits war reparations.

“Life has gradually resumed,” said Riad, who runs a shop selling rice, pasta and tins of tomato paste in the Corniche market, along the banks of the Tigris River.

“But we have not received any compensation from the government.”

Mosul, the country’s second city in Nineveh province, was the last major Iraqi bastion of the ISIS group’s failed so-called “caliphate” between 2014 and 2017.

The city was retaken by the Iraqi army and a US-led coalition after intense bombardment and fighting that left it in ruins.

The market was “devastated” in the battles, Riad said, with shopkeepers using their limited savings to rebuild.

“We are the ones who paid,” he said.

Of the 400 stalls that once crammed the market, just a tenth have returned to business, he added.

According to official sources, the cost of reconstruction for Nineveh would top $100 billion, a staggering sum for a country mired in an economic crisis.

It outstrips the total annual budget of oil-rich Iraq, which stands at nearly $90 billion in 2021.

Many buildings are still in ruins, their facades dotted with bullet holes and piles of rubble lie strewn all around.

100,000 claims, 2,600 paid
When Pope Francis visited Mosul last March, he held a mass with the partially collapsed walls of the centuries-old church behind him.

On Sunday, French President Emmanuel Macron is expected to visit Mosul, a day after attending a regional summit in the Iraqi capital Baghdad, some 355 kilometers (220 miles) to the south.

Mosul, capital of Nineveh province, is a melting pot of diverse ethnic communities and was once one of the key cities on the Middle East trade route, lying close to both Turkey and Syria.

Ammar Hussein runs a restaurant.

“The government should compensate the merchants who suffered damage so that they can rebuild their stores and the market can return to its former glory,” he said.

The list of claims is long.

Some 100,000 claims have been filed by those who suffered damage during “liberation operations”, according to Mahmud al-Akla, director of Nineveh’s compensation department.

Not even three percent have been paid: while more than 65,000 files have been examined, just 2,600 claimants have received cash, he said.

On top of that, the centralized nature of the Iraqi state -- and the graft-riddled bureaucracy that governs it -- means that disbursements are paid out extremely slowly.

Mosul district chairman Zuhair al-Araji blames officials in Baghdad.

Promises as elections approach
Progress is patchy.

While 80 percent of basic infrastructure such as sewers and roads have been restored, only around a third of health facilities have been rebuilt, according to Araji.

Mosul resident Saad Ghanem filed a claim for his destroyed home.

“As far as I know, the compensation department in Nineveh finalized the transaction and then submitted it to the government in Baghdad,” he said. “They still have not compensated us.”

Mosul did not take part in October 2019 popular protests decrying corruption and government misuse of power in Baghdad, as well as much of the country’s Shiite south.

Residents said they feared the benefit of reconstruction could be wiped out by the unrest.

With parliamentary elections in two months, the slow pace of reconstruction prompted Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi to visit earlier this month.

Kadhimi said he was “sorry” to see the problems, ordering a committee to draw up an “action plan”.

At his wooden furniture store, carpenter Ali Mahmoud said he is exhausted.

“I hope to rebuild my workshop, which was my livelihood, and return here,” he said. “But I don’t have enough money.”



Ceasefire Ends Iran-Israel War, Stakeholders Weigh Costs and Benefits

US President Donald Trump (Reuters)
US President Donald Trump (Reuters)
TT
20

Ceasefire Ends Iran-Israel War, Stakeholders Weigh Costs and Benefits

US President Donald Trump (Reuters)
US President Donald Trump (Reuters)

In a stunning development, US President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire that effectively ended the conflict between Iran and Israel.

The announcement came shortly after a carefully calibrated Iranian retaliation targeted a US military base in Qatar, an attack that caused no casualties or material damage.

Trump expressed gratitude to Iran for pre-warning Washington about the strike, framing the gesture as a face-saving move.

The question now gripping regional and international capitals is: What have the United States, Iran, and Israel each gained if the ceasefire holds?

United States

The United States has once again asserted itself as the dominant and decisive power in the Middle East. It delivered a crippling blow to Iran’s nuclear facilities without escalating into full-scale war, thereby undermining the very justification for Israel’s initial strike on Tehran.

Recent events have underscored that Israel cannot engage Iran militarily without close coordination with Washington, nor can it exit such a conflict without a pivotal American role.

The confrontation has also highlighted the unparalleled strength of the US military machine, unmatched by any other power, large or small.

Iran, for its part, clearly showed reluctance to escalate the conflict in a way that could trigger direct, open confrontation with the United States.

Trump himself demonstrated tactical skill by combining military pressure with diplomatic overtures, swiftly moving to invite Iran back to the negotiating table.

Meanwhile, the limited role of Europe and the modest involvement of Russia became apparent, unless aligned with US efforts. China appeared “distant but pragmatic,” despite its broad interests in Iran and a vested concern in keeping the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz open.

Iran

Iran demonstrated that the devastating initial strike it suffered from Israel did not undermine its military or political resolve despite the severity of the attack.

The Tehran regime confirmed that, although Israeli fighter jets controlled Iranian airspace briefly, its missile arsenal remained capable of unleashing scenes of destruction across Israeli cities unseen since the founding of the Jewish state. Iran’s missile forces, it showed, could sustain a costly war of attrition against Israel.

Tehran also succeeded in preventing calls for regime overthrow from becoming a shared objective in a US-Israeli war against it.

Yet, Iran appeared to lack a major ally comparable to the United States or even a lesser power, despite its “strategic” ties with Russia and China.

The confrontation revealed Tehran’s inability to fully leverage its proxy forces in Gaza and Lebanon following the fallout of the “Al-Aqsa flood” escalation.

The exchange of strikes further highlighted Israel’s clear technological superiority and the success of Israeli intelligence in penetrating deep inside Iran itself, raising alarming concerns in Tehran.

Israel

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu can claim credit for persuading the Trump administration to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, particularly those beyond the reach of the Israeli military.

Israeli forces succeeded in gaining control over distant Iranian airspace within days, a feat Russia has not achieved after three years of war in Ukraine.

Israeli intelligence breakthroughs inside Iran played a crucial role in the conflict, culminating in Israel’s public release of videos it labeled “Mossad-Tehran branch” and drone bases.

Netanyahu can argue that he made a difficult decision to attack Iran and convinced the Israeli public that the fight was existential. He can also remind critics that he expelled Iran from Syria and curtailed Hezbollah’s ability to wage war on Israel.

He may also point to new regional power balances he has imposed - part of his broader ambition to reshape the Middle East - with Israel maintaining the region’s most powerful military force.

However, Netanyahu’s policies risk renewed clashes with many, especially as tensions over Gaza and the “two-state solution” resurface.

Observers say the gains made by the parties at the end of the Iran-Israel conflict remain fragile and could shift depending on how events unfold.

Any calm could enable Israeli opposition forces to reopen debates on Netanyahu’s “wars” and their costs. It might also prompt the Iranian public to question their leadership’s responsibility for the military setbacks and Iran’s regional and global standing.

For now, the spotlight remains firmly on the primary player: Trump.