

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Iraqi authorities should stop blocking peaceful demonstrations and arresting and intimidating organizers, Human Rights Watch said today. Iraqi security forces should also respect the right of free assembly and use only the minimum necessary force when violence occurs at a protest.
After thousands of Iraqis took to the streets in the summer of 2010 to protest a chronic lack of government services, Iraqi authorities cracked down on demonstrations. The Interior Ministry issued onerous regulations about public protests, and the prime minister's office apparently issued a secret order instructing the interior minister to refuse permits for demonstrations about power shortages. In the past few months, the government has refused to authorize numerous requests for public demonstrations, with no explanation. Authorities have also arrested and intimidated organizers and protesters, and policing actions have led to deaths and injuries. The clampdown has created a climate of fear among organizers and demonstrators.
"To take away the rights and freedoms Iraqis have been promised in exchange for all the suffering they have endured since the war is to add insult to injury," said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director for Human Rights Watch. "When will Iraqi officials learn that silencing the voice of the people is only a formula for strife?"
In recent months, public frustration has mounted across Iraq at the government's inability to provide sufficient electricity and other basic services. With as little as a few hours of electricity a day in many areas, and with summer temperatures soaring to 50 degrees Celsius, demonstrations broke out across the country in June. The protests in Basra culminated on June 19, when security forces killed two protesters and wounded two others after demonstrators tried to force their way into the provincial council building.
Other demonstrations started to spring up around Iraq with some turning violent, injuring some protesters and police. In an attempt to calm public furor, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki replaced the electricity minister, and several government officials promised to improve services and to investigate the lethal actions by security forces. However, behind the scenes, Iraqi authorities have moved to prevent other demonstrations and to target organizers for arrest or harassment.
New Regulations
On June 25, the Interior Ministry issued new regulations with onerous provisions that effectively impede Iraqis from organizing lawful protests. The regulations require organizers to get "written approval of both the minister of interior and the provincial governor" before submitting an application to the relevant police department, not less than 72 hours before a planned event. The regulations fail to state what standards the Interior Ministry, governors, or police may apply in approving or denying demonstration permits, effectively granting the government unfettered power to determine who may hold a demonstration. It is not clear whether an organizer can challenge a permit denial.
These regulations undermine guarantees in the Iraqi constitution of "freedom of assembly and peaceful demonstration." The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Iraq is a state party, also guarantees the right to peaceful assembly and to be free from arbitrary arrest and detention. The ICCPR makes clear that restrictions on peaceful demonstrations should be exceptional and narrowly permitted, only if found to be "necessary in a democratic society" to safeguard "national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others." Iraq's grant of over-broad approval authority to government agents fails to meet the narrow criteria international law allows for limits on the right to assembly, Human Rights Watch said.
The Interior Ministry regulations are also problematic because they explicitly permit Iraqi security forces to use unlimited force against protesters, whether proportional or not, Human Rights Watch said. The regulations state that, in the case of any violence occurring during a demonstration, "all known methods to disperse protesters will be used."
On September 5, a high-ranking Interior Ministry official told Human Rights Watch that on the day the new regulations were promulgated, the prime minister's office sent a secret order to the ministry instructing Interior Minister Jawad al-Bolani to deny approval for all demonstrations dealing with electricity shortages or other government services, and telling him to "make up excuses if needed."
"Squashing Iraqis' ability to express their grievances about the government's failure to provide basic services certainly only makes people angrier and more frustrated," Whitson said. "If the government can't even provide electricity to Iraq's cities and towns, it should at least allow public complaints."
Falah Alwan, president of the Federation of Workers' Councils and Unions in Iraq, told Human Rights Watch that since the new regulations were introduced, "it has become impossible to get permission to protest the government's failure to provide services, so people stop trying." Alwan, who has organized dozens of marches and protests since 2003, said that the law effectively bans demonstrations.
"It amounts to the same thing," he said. "When we try to get a permit from the Interior Ministry, we either get no response, or they keep telling us that they are 'checking on it.' After a while, organizers just give up."
Four other would-be organizers told Human Rights Watch that they have not received permits - or responses to permit requests - in the months since the regulations went into effect.
"After I told them that we were going to protest in solidarity with the Basrans and against the power shortages, I was redirected from one Interior Ministry building to another for over a week, with each saying it was not their responsibility to help me," said Rashid Ismail Mahmoud, of the Worker-Communist Party of Iraq. Mahmoud tried to get permission for a small gathering at Baghdad's traditional protest site, Firdos Square.
"I finally told an officer that if they were going to purposely withhold permission, we would protest anyway, as was our right," Mahmoud said. "He threatened that there were orders to disperse illegal demonstrations by firing over their heads and to arrest everyone involved."
At one unauthorized demonstration in the southern city of Nasiriyah on the evening of August 21, clashes between police and protesters injured about 16 people, on both sides, news reports said. Security forces arrested 37 people and fired water cannons and used batons to disperse the protest, while demonstrators threw rocks and sticks. An Associated Press journalist, Akram al-Timimi, who witnessed the protest, said that organizers in the area are now afraid to identify themselves, and that the behavior of the security forces raised tensions and made the situation much worse.
"The police acted very aggressively and started to fire their guns over the heads of the people," he told Human Rights Watch. Security forces prevented news cameramen from filming the event and, al-Timimi said, beat up one television correspondent and smashed his camera.
The next day, Vice-President Adel Abdul-Mahdi condemned authorities for their response to the protest.
"Peaceful demonstrations that respect the public interest and public property are one of the means of expression guaranteed by the constitution and Iraqi law," read the statement, which was sent to Human Rights Watch. "It is the duty of the security forces to protect the demonstrators, not to harm and arrest them.... We call upon the local government and security forces to abide by the law and stay within the limits of its powers and to listen to the requests of the protesters and citizens. Instead of using force and oppression, they should work to address the deterioration of government-provided services."
At a protest decrying water shortages on August 11 in the northern city of Chamchamal, security forces demanded footage from a cameraman that showed them firing over the heads of protesters. According to witnesses, security officials fired at the journalist after he refused and ran away.
"What happened in Chamchamal is absolutely outrageous," said a statement by Reporters Without Borders. "Journalists are often the targets of verbal threats or physical violence from the security forces, but this time the security forces deliberately fired on a journalist in the middle of a city street."
Targeting Organizers
Immediately after the death of the two protesters at the June 19 Basra demonstration, Iraqi authorities moved on the organizers, arresting at least two suspected organizers in the following days. On June 22, Iraqi Army forces raided the house of a suspected organizer, Matham Kadhem, who was not home. Basra local officials and media reports said that the soldiers arrested Kadhem's two sons and told his family they would be held until Kadhem turned himself in.
"This is completely unacceptable," Ahmed al-Sulaiti, deputy head of Basra Provincial Council, told Human Rights Watch on September 8. "We [in the local government] made many calls to security forces, telling them to stop targeting the organizers of the protest. This was not about security, but was politically motivated."
One of the organizers of the Basra demonstration who spoke to Human Rights Watch said: "Three of us went into hiding. Those who weren't arrested were harassed. Soldiers would come to my neighborhood every day and question me about what I was doing, where I was going, and who I was meeting.... Treating me as though I was a criminal was a message to me and to others to not take part in organizing."
The regulations require protest organizers to register with the Interior Ministry, causing concern among some activists that they will be targeted for harassment or worse. An organizer from Baghdad told Human Rights Watch: "The government's reactions in Basra have really affected people in the rest of the country. Now, I'm trying to organize a demonstration in Baghdad about employees' rights, and it is difficult. Not only are organizers afraid now, but many regular people do not want to be a part of any demonstration because of the chance of being arrested, and they are fearful of how security forces will use violence to break up the crowd."
"This is all too reminiscent of Iraq's bad old days of scaring activists into keeping their mouths shut and their heads down," Whitson said. "Iraqis who care about what's happening in their country and want to voice their opinions about the country's problems should be celebrated, not intimidated."
While the crackdown has focused primarily on preventing demonstrations about the lack of government services, other protests have not been immune to government interference - even if organizers have proper permits.
On September 7, security forces prevented protesters urging Iraq's political parties to form a government from continuing along their planned route in Baghdad even though organizers had all the necessary permits from the Interior Ministry, including written permission from the interior minister himself, and the route was pre-approved by government and security officials. The protest, organized by the Iraqi Al-Amal Association, a human rights nongovernmental organization, was scheduled to be held in front of Parliament, where the organization had held protests over the years without incident.
"Our organization has a history of many peaceful demonstrations, but we were suddenly not allowed to [proceed]," said Al-Amal's secretary-general, Hanaa Edwar. After speaking to security officials on the phone, she was told that, by order of the prime minister's office, no demonstration would be permitted.
"Today, they are preventing peaceful, legal demonstrations," she told Human Rights Watch. "Tomorrow, we are afraid they will do more than this."
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said it reserves the right to "respond to any ceasefire violation by the aggressor US army."
The Iranian military said early Tuesday that it shot down an American Reaper drone after the Trump administration launched what it characterized as "self-defense strikes" on southern Iran, further complicating efforts to secure a diplomatic resolution to the illegal US-Israeli war.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said in a statement, carried by Iranian news agencies, that it downed an MQ-9 Reaper drone and "fired upon an RQ-4 drone and an intruding F-35 fighter jet." The IRGC cast its actions as defensive and said it has the right to "respond to any ceasefire violation by the aggressor US army."
Late Monday, shortly after President Donald Trump claimed peace talks were progressing, the US Central Command announced that the American military "conducted self-defense strikes in southern Iran today to protect our troops from threats posed by Iranian forces." The strikes, according to CENTCOM, targeted "missile launch sites and Iranian boats attempting to emplace mines."
Hamidreza Azizi, a foreign policy expert and visiting fellow at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, noted that the Iranian side provided "a different—and more detailed—account of what happened," saying the "exchange unfolded in several rounds over roughly 24 hours."
"It reportedly began when US forces attacked two IRGC naval boats, killing four Iranian military personnel," Azizi said, citing Iranian sources. "Iran responded with anti-ship missiles targeting US vessels. Iranian air defense systems then shot down at least one—some reports say three—US drones operating in the area."
Azizi continued:
The US subsequently struck Iranian anti-ship missile launch sites and air defense systems. Iran responded again, firing multiple anti-ship missiles at U.S. vessels in the Arabian Sea.
Independent verification of these claims—including the casualty figures and the extent of damage on both sides—remains limited. The competing narratives follow the familiar pattern in which each side frames its actions as a response to the other’s aggression.
The more significant point is that the exchange has now moved through multiple rounds of attack and counter-attack within a single 24-hour period. That pattern is harder to contain than a single incident. It also raises the question of how this cycle interacts with the indirect negotiations currently underway.
Iran has publicly pushed back against Trump's claim of an imminent peace deal, though a spokesperson for the Iranian Foreign Ministry told reporters on Monday that "it is correct to say that we have reached a conclusion on a large portion of the issues under discussion."
The Wall Street Journal reported Monday that "the two sides are working toward a memorandum of understanding that would end the fighting and lift constraints on shipping traffic in the Strait of Hormuz over 30 days while setting the stage for talks about Iran’s nuclear program in a second phase."
"Relief from sanctions would depend on progress, a senior U.S. administration official said Sunday," the Journal added. "The US is seeking clearer commitments from Iran about its nuclear program up front, while Iranian negotiators are pressing for details from the US about relief from sanctions and asset freezes, mediators said."
Trump declared in a social media post Monday evening that Iran's enriched uranium "will either be immediately turned over to the United States to be brought home and destroyed or, preferably, in conjunction and coordination with the Islamic Republic of Iran, destroyed in place or, at another acceptable location, with the Atomic Energy Commission, or its equivalent, being witness to this process and event."
Iran has not formally agreed to such terms.
Samir Puri, a visiting lecturer in war studies at Kings College London, told Al Jazeera that the new US strikes on Iran create an “extremely precarious situation" for negotiators.
“Fighting and talking at the same time is quite a common thing in a negotiation at the end of a conflict that has been very intense and hasn’t been resolved,” said Puri. "The key... is to keep talking and to not allow the talks to collapse by these escalations—because these may not be the last escalations.
“What we don’t know is whether this is the storm before the calm or the calm before the storm,” he continued. "We don’t know whether these negotiations need to be sustained and to absorb these sorts of escalations for days, for weeks, for months. It could be a very long negotiation process still to come."
"The delay in detecting the outbreak means that we are now playing catch-up with a very fast-moving epidemic."
World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus warned Monday that the swiftly spreading Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Uganda "will get worse before it gets better," as a deadly delay in detecting infections has responders to the epidemic "playing catch-up."
"The outbreak is spreading rapidly," Tedros said during a virtual ministerial meeting on the matter. "So far, 101 cases have been confirmed in DRC, with 10 confirmed deaths. But we know the epidemic in DRC is much larger. There are now more than 900 suspected cases and 220 suspected deaths."
"Countries bordering DRC are at especially high risk and should take immediate action," he asserted. "In Uganda, there are five confirmed cases and one death."
Tedros pointed out that "there are several aspects of this outbreak that make it especially challenging."
"First, the delay in detecting the outbreak means that we are now playing catch-up with a very fast-moving epidemic," he said. "We are urgently scaling up operations, but at the moment, the epidemic is outpacing us."
"Second, as you know, the provinces of Ituri and North Kivu are highly insecure, with intensified fighting in recent months, causing more than 100,000 people to be newly displaced," the WHO chief continued. "There is also significant distrust of outside authorities among the local population. In the past week, there have been two security incidents at health facilities."
"WHO is fully committed to working under the leadership of the governments of DRC and Uganda, side by side with Africa [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] and all other partners," Tedros added. "We will not rest until we bring this outbreak under control."
Ebola—which typically kills between 25% and 90% of infected people, depending upon the strain of the virus and quality of available medical care—causes widespread and often catastrophic damage to the body’s blood vessels, immune system, and organs.
Critics say US President Donald Trump's ideologically driven decision to withdraw the US from the WHO, his administration's dismantling of the US Agency for International Development (USAID), and reduced funding for the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's global public health efforts have adversely affected the response to the current Ebola epidemic, compared with 2014 and 2019 outbreaks.
After US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said last week that the WHO was "a little late" in identifying new Ebola infections, Tedros retorted that "we don’t replace the country’s work, we only support them," and suggested that Rubio's comments could be rooted in "a lack of understanding" of the agency and countries' responsibilities.
While Rubio said that “our number-one objective on Ebola, before anything else... has to be, we can’t have it affect the United States,” public health experts warn that Trump administration actions could make it more likely that the virus will make its way to the country.
There is currently no confirmed CDC director, Food and Drug Administration commissioner, or surgeon general.
Taking aim at Trump's evisceration of key public health agencies and programs, Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) said last week: “Ebola does not wait for bureaucratic reorganizations. It spreads when surveillance systems are weakened, health workers are laid off, clinics lack protective equipment, and communities lose the trusted partners who help detect and contain outbreaks before they become public health emergencies."
"This is the perfect storm President Trump created," she continued. "He recklessly dismantled USAID, withheld and slashed other United States assistance to the region, fired critical staff, and created global health chaos. This is not efficiency. It is dangerous neglect."
"The United States spent years building the relationships, supply chains, laboratories, and community health networks that help stop deadly diseases at their source," DeLauro added. "The Trump administration tore into that capacity and now wants to pretend the consequences were unforeseeable.”
"We have reached a conclusion on a large portion of the issues under discussion," said an Iranian spokesperson. "But to say that this means the signing of an agreement is imminent—no one can make such a claim.”
Officials in Tehran on Monday swatted down President Donald Trump's assertion that an agreement to end the nearly three-month Iran War was imminent, citing frequently shifting US positions and Israeli "sabotage" as obstacles during ongoing talks.
“It is correct to say that we have reached a conclusion on a large portion of the issues under discussion," Iran Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei said during a press briefing. "But to say that this means the signing of an agreement is imminent—no one can make such a claim.”
Trump tempered his own Saturday claim that a peace deal had "been largely negotiated" with Tehran, "subject to finalization."
"Negotiations with the Islamic Republic of Iran are proceeding nicely!" the president said Monday on his Truth Social platform. "It will only be a Great Deal for all or, no Deal at all—Back to the Battlefront and shooting, but bigger and stronger than ever before—And nobody wants that!"
A 14-point memorandum of understanding between the US and Iran reportedly contains a ceasefire and 30-day negotiation period for a broader agreement, reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, easing or lifting the US naval blockade on Iran, unfreezing Iranian state assets abroad, relief from US sanctions, and restrictions on Iranian nuclear development.
Naming countries including Turkey, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Jordan, Trump wrote that "after all the work done by the United States to try and pull this very complex puzzle together, it should be mandatory that all of these Countries, at a minimum, simultaneously sign onto the Abraham Accords," the US-brokered normalization pacts between the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, Sudan, Kazakhstan, and Israel that the Palestinian writer Karim Kattan called "a fever dream of dictators."
Trump suggested that Iran could also normalize relations with Israel by signing the Abraham Accords and said that "it would be an Honor to have them also be part of this unparalleled World Coalition."
However, Baghaei threw cold water on Trump's optimism, stressing Monday that “the focus of the negotiations is on ending the war on all fronts, including Lebanon," and that this critical point is "one of the core elements of understanding in any agreement."
What negotiators aren't discussing at this time, according to both sides, is ending Iran's nuclear development.
"The focus of the negotiations is on ending the war, and at this stage we are not discussing nuclear issues," Baghaei said.
Also not under current discussion is the future management of the Strait of Hormuz, the Iranian-controlled maritime chokepoint through which around 20% of the world's oil is shipped.
"How this region should be managed concerns the littoral states," Baghaei said, referring to Iran and Oman. "We understand that the security of the Strait of Hormuz is a concern for the entire world."
Baghaei affirmed that negotiations on the 14-point memorandum of understanding would continue over the next two months, but that the US blockade of Iranian ports and shipping "must stop."
According to Iranian state media outlet Press TV, Baghaei "criticized the inconsistency in US policymaking, saying contradictory positions within short periods complicate negotiations."
A major sticking point in the talks is Iran's insistence that any agreement to end hostilities must also include an end to Israel's attacks on Lebanon, which have killed or wounded more than 12,000 people, according to officials there. After the current Pakistan-brokered ceasefire took effect on April 7, Israel responded by escalating its war on Lebanon, killing or wounding more than 1,400 people, many of them civilians, over a 24-hour period.
Baghaei said Monday that "one should expect nothing from Israel except the sabotage of any process."
It's not just Israel; Iranian, Pakistani, and Omani negotiators have accused US officials of blowing up previous Iran peace talks when they were on the verge of success.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed Sunday that while he supports the US effort to end the war, "President Trump and I agreed that any final agreement with Iran must eliminate the nuclear danger."
Israeli and US intelligence agencies have said for decades—including under Trump—that Iran is not trying to build nuclear weapons and stopped trying to do so in the early 2000s.
Pro-war Republican US lawmakers joined many Israeli leaders in both government and the opposition in expressing alarm over a potential peace deal that is widely viewed as a major win for Iran.
"Details of the deal between the United States and Iran are so disturbing," Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid said Monday in West Jerusalem. "The deal is bad for Israel, bad for the region, bad for the citizens of Iran."
"Netanyahu has failed to achieve every single one of the war's objectives as he himself defined them," he added.
Some US Congressional Democrats also said the outcome of the illegal US-Israeli war of choice is likely to favor Iran, even as airstrikes have killed or wounded more than 30,000 Iranians, many of them civilians, according to the country's Ministry of Health.
"If this deal with Iran is real, I will welcome it because every day this insane war goes on, America gets weaker," Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said Sunday. "The priority is to end the war—now. But make no mistake: These are Iran’s terms. Our nation emerges humiliated."
"The deal is basically this: We give Iran billions to get back to where we were before the war. And reports suggest the deal might codify Iran’s right to control the strait," he continued. "There are reports there may be a tiny nuclear concession from Iran in the deal and if so, great. But I doubt it—they are most likely postponing all the nuclear issues."
"But a promise to ship out enriched uranium (the reported concession) was also in [Former President Barack] Obama’s deal (as well as a lot of other things Trump will never get)," the senator noted, referring to the landmark Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—also known as the Iran nuclear deal—that Trump unilaterally abrogated during his first term.
"And now that we are dropping sanctions, we have less leverage to get them to give more in future negotiations," Murphy said. "And just remember, Trump hasn’t accomplished ANY of his constantly shifting goals. Iran still has its ballistic missile and drone program. They still have a navy that can close the strait. A hardline regime is still in charge."
"Of course, none of those things could be accomplished by an air campaign—which is why so many of us opposed this war," he added. "And now the new regime is emboldened. They took our best shot and beat us. Iran emerges more powerful."
Iranian leaders underscored their readiness to continue the fight should negotiations fail.
"Look, Americans talk too much and keep changing their story by the minute," Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters Commander Ali Abdollahi Aliabadi said Monday. "We've said it many times before: On the battlefield, we'll show what we're capable of."