Iran 'withdraws' from disputed well

Iranian troops have withdrawn partially from a disputed oil well in the border region with Iraq, the Iraqi government has said.

Ali al-Dabbagh, a government spokesman, said that a group of Iranian troops who had allegedly seized control of the well last week had pulled back in the early hours of Sunday morning.

"The Iranian flag has been lowered," Dabbagh told Al Jazeera. "The Iranian troops have pulled back 50 metres, but they have not gone back to where they were before."

Maysam Lafta, the provincial chief of security and defence, said: "The Iranian troops left overnight and the workers of the oil company returned to the well on Sunday."

Iraq considers the well to be part of its al-Fauqa oil field.

Iran's armed forces, however, issued a statement on Saturday saying that, in Tehran's view, there had been no incursion into Iraq as the oil well was within Iranian borders.

"Our forces are on our own soil and, based on the known international borders, this well belongs to Iran," the statement said.

Foreign ministers from both countries late on Saturday discussed a "misunderstanding" between the countries' border guards.

Iraq's state-owned South Oil Company in the southeastern city of Amara said on Friday that an Iranian unit had taken control of the the well.

Baghdad demanded that Tehran pull back the soldiers who they said had "occupied" the disputed well, and condemned the incident as "a violation of Iraqi sovereignty".

The al-Fauqa field is one of several oil rich areas that Iraq unsuccessfully put up for auction to oil companies in June. The field has estimated reserves of 1.55 million barrels.

Muhammad al-Hajj Hamud, Iraq's deputy foreign minister, said it was the first time the well had been taken over during years of tension.

"In the past, the Iranians would try to prevent our technicians from working on the well ... by firing in their direction," he said, adding that Iraq had dug the well in 1974.

A joint commission is set to start work on demarcating the two countries' land and sea border along the Shatt al-Arab waterway in the south next month.

The well lies about 500 metres from an Iranian border fort and about one kilometre from an Iraqi border fort, US Colonel Peter Newell said.

Al Jazeera

Afghanistan: Barack Obama sets date of July 2011 to begin withdrawal

For the first time, the president set a timeline on America's military involvement in the country it invaded in October 2001.

The White House hopes that the addition of 30,000 US troops, which will begin almost immediately, combined with the pressure of the new deadline, will spur the government of Hamid Karzai into action.

In a speech televised live across America, Mr Obama said that "these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011".

He continued: "Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We will continue to advise and assist Afghanistan's fecurity forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul.

"But it will be clear to the Afghan government – and, more importantly, to the Afghan people that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country."

The speech came as it was announced that British and American troops in Afghanistan are to launch a major new onslaught against the Taliban within weeks.

Thousands of soldiers will be deployed to "deliver a punch" to insurgents responsible for attacks in Helmand province.

The move is part of President Barack Obama's plans to increase US troop numbers by 30,000 to be announced in a speech to the nation.

He will send 9,000 US marines to fight with British forces in an offensive early in the New Year as the advanced guard of a major surge.

Final preparations for the US marines' departure will begin almost immediately. They are expected to deploy shortly before Christmas for an offensive against Taliban strongholds in the south of the country.

Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said "we're going to get in there quickly" in order to "deliver a punch quickly".

More at the Telegraph

Debate Shifts to Afghan Exit Plan

By PETER SPIEGEL and YOCHI J. DREAZEN

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown have turned the focus of Afghan war planning toward an exit strategy, publicly declaring that the U.S. and its allies can't send additional troops without a plan for getting them out.

The shift has unnerved some U.S. and foreign officials, who say that planning a pullout now -- with or without a specific timetable -- encourages the Taliban to wait out foreign forces and exacerbates fears in the region that the U.S. isn't fully committed to their security.

"It's not a good idea," said Rep. Ike Skelton (D., Mo.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

"When the area has been stabilized...then it's time to go home. But to set up a timetable for people in that neck of the woods, they'll just wait us out," said Rep. Skelton, a prominent supporter of proposals by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Kabul, to send more troops for a counterinsurgency campaign.

Mr. Obama isn't asking for the firm, publicly declared handover dates in Afghanistan that were the feature of early Iraq war plans, according to senior administration and military officials.

Instead, the officials said, the administration wants the Pentagon to identify key milestones for Afghanistan to meet, in its governance and the capability of its security forces, and then give a rough sense of when each objective is likely to be achieved. Reaching these goals would allow the U.S. role to shift away from direct combat, allowing troop levels to decline.

Mr. Obama said Wednesday in a CNN interview that he believed his new Afghan policy needed to include an "endgame" because "unless you impose that kind of discipline, [U.S. policy] could end up leading to a multiyear occupation that won't serve the interests of the United States."

Keeping the public eye on an exit strategy -- rather than on how many new troops would be deployed, the subject of much of the U.S. public debate so far -- could also help Mr. Obama sell his strategy at home.

"What the White House wants is a strategic glide path that gives a sense of the path ahead and the time it will take to meet each specific target," the defense official said. "It's not a hard-and-fast timetable for withdrawal.

More at WSJ

Canada to Withdraw from Afghanistan

By: Michael van der Galien

Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced yesterday that Canada would withdraw its troops from Afghanistan ASAP.

Canada has been committed to bringing peace, stability and democracy to Afghanistan for long enough, he said. In fact, the North-American country spent more time fighting terrorists in the Middle East now then it spent fighting Hitler during World War II.

Enough is enough; time for the troops to come home, Harper said.

The announcement came days after the Dutch Parliament voted for withdrawal in 2010. The Netherlands has 1.650 troops in Afghanistan’s southern province of Uruzgan. If the government does what Parliament wants, they’ll come home next year.

This means that at the very least two of the ten key allies of the US in Afghanistan will withdraw their troops within max. 1.5 years time.

Germany, the third most important provider of troops, has also talked about withdrawal, as have several other important allies.

I expect it will not take long before the West’s coalition decides to withdraw altogether and hand the country back to the Taliban – especially considering America’s unwillingness to do what’s necessary to win this war.

Source: PoliGazette

Iraqis Take Control as US Troops Leave Cities

30 June

Iraqi security officers parade with their rifles during a display in the southern city of Najaf, 160 kms south of Baghdad. (AFP)

An Iraqi police officer lights a flare during festivities celebrating the pull out of US troops from cities and towns on June 30, in the Zawra Park in central Baghdad. (AFP)

Iraqi security forces celebrate in Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province, 115 kilometers (70 miles) west of Baghdad, Iraq. (AP)

BAGHDAD (AFP) – Iraqi forces prepared to take control of towns and cities nationwide on Tuesday as American troops finally withdrew in a milestone for the country's recovery six years after the US-led invasion.

Baghdad's streets were quiet and traffic much lighter than usual as people stayed at home for a national holiday to mark the June 30 pullback, ahead of a complete US withdrawal from Iraq by the end of 2011.

Iraqis celebrated into the night but soldiers and police were out in force to prevent insurgent groups spoiling the party as American troops quit their posts in urban centres.

Iraqi President Jalal Talabani marked the security handover by thanking US forces for the sacrifices they made in overthrowing now executed dictator Saddam Hussein in 2003, and in the years of violence that followed.

"They beared the burden and dangers against the most cruel regime and against the mutual enemy -- the terror," Talabani said on state television.

The US army announced that four of its soldiers died from combat-related on Monday, taking to 4,321 the number of US soldiers killed since the invasion.

The pullout is part of a landmark security agreement signed last year between Baghdad and Washington covering the fate of the some 133,000 US troops still in Iraq.

Security was tight in the the wake of several massive bombings that have killed more than 200 people this month alone.

All leave for security force personnel has been cancelled and motorcycles, a favoured form of transport for several recent bombers, have been banned from the streets.

"Our expectation is that maybe some criminals will try to continue their attacks," interior ministry operations director Major General Abdul Karim Khalaf said.

"That is why orders came from the highest level of the prime minister that our forces should be 100 percent on the ground until further notice."

On Monday, the former defence ministry building in the capital, taken over in the wake of the US-led invasion, was handed back to the Iraqi government.

"This marks the end of the rule of the multinational force," said General Abboud Qambar, the head of Baghdad Operation Command.

It was a landmark celebrated by huge crowds of revellers in Baghdad's largest park on Monday evening.

Popular Iraqi singers including Salah Hassan, Kassem Sultan and Abed Falek, who all live abroad, returned home for the celebration.

"Since 2003, I have never been to a party but today I am coming to hear the singers I love," Ahmed Ali, 20, told AFP.

Revellers had to undergo three security checks to enter the park but no one seemed to complain amid a jubilant atmosphere, where an onstage banner declared that Baghdad's sovereignty and independence had been recovered.

Even policemen joined in the fun, dancing with the party-goers.

"Today is the day that we got back our country," said Salim Mohammed, from the sprawling Shiite working-class district of Sadr City.

Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki warned earlier this month that insurgent groups and militias were likely to step up attacks in the run-up to June 30 in a bid to undermine confidence in Iraq's own security forces.

There have been several large bombings since, the deadliest near the northern oil hub of Kirkuk on June 20, when a truck loaded with explosives was detonated, leaving 72 people dead and more than 200 wounded.

A source close to Iraq's counter-terrorism office revealed on Monday that a truck loaded with 64 mortar rounds believed intended for use in sabotaging the pullout had been intercepted in Baghdad after successfully negotiating 11 roadblocks.

But Maliki and senior government officials have insisted that Iraq's 750,000 soldiers and police can defend the nation against attacks.

Only a small number of US forces in training and advisory roles will remain in urban areas, with the bulk of American troops in Iraq quartered elsewhere.

The Status of Forces Agreement, which set the pullback deadline, says US commanders must seek permission from Iraqi authorities to conduct operations, but American troops retain a unilateral right to "legitimate self-defence".

Source: Asharq Alawsat

Obama committed to Iraq troop pullout despite attacks

June 25

BARACK Obama is having no second thoughts about pulling US troops out of Iraqi cities, despite attacks that have killed 150 people in the past week, the White House says.

The latest incident, just six days before a deadline for American soldiers to withdraw from the cities, towns and villages under an agreement with Iraq, killed at least 62 people when a bomb went off in a Baghdad market.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the top US commander in Iraq, General Ray Odierno, had told Mr Obama the deadline would be kept.

“I know the president has had meetings and continues to have meetings about ensuring that we're making sufficient political progress on the ground,” Mr Gibbs said.

“General Odierno has mentioned that we have seen violence greatly decrease even in the past many months from what it was, and he feels confident in moving forward.”

Asked whether Mr Obama had any second thoughts about the pull back, or whether he had approached the Iraqi government about a change in arrangements, Mr Gibbs said: “No, No.”

Violence has dropped markedly in Iraq in recent months, with May seeing the lowest Iraqi death toll since the 2003 invasion. But attacks remain common, particularly in Baghdad and Mosul.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki warned earlier this month that insurgents and militiamen were likely to step up their attacks in the coming weeks in a bid to undermine confidence in the Iraqi security forces.

Source: The Australian

British conclude combat in Iraq

May 01

BASRA, Iraq: British forces formally ended combat operations in Iraq last night, one month ahead of schedule, after a ceremony to remember their dead from six years of warfare.

The conclusion of the military campaign, which began with the war that toppled Saddam Hussein launched in 2003, came as British Prime Minister Gordon Brown met his Iraqi counterpart, Nuri al-Maliki, in London.

"Today marks the closing chapter of the combat mission in Iraq," Mr Brown said. "The flag of 20 Armoured Brigade will be lowered as British combat patrols in Basra come to an end and our armed forces prepare to draw down."

"Today, we are taking steps to strengthen and deepen our relationship and to make it a long-term partnership of equals," he added.

A formal transfer-of-authority ceremony was held in the southern city of Basra after British forces paid tribute to their 179 colleagues killed since the US-led invasion of March 2003.

British troop numbers were the second-largest in the Iraq campaign, peaking at 46,000 at the height of combat operations that resulted in Saddam's ouster and his eventual execution for crimes against humanity.

The official withdrawal of forces was launched on March 31 when the pennant of the British headquarters in Basra was lowered and the base handed over to US control.

A deal signed by Baghdad and London last year had agreed that the last 4100 British soldiers would complete their mission - primarily training the Iraqi army - by June, before a complete withdrawal from the country in late July.

The names of the 179 soldiers, as well as those of 55 multinational forces personnel who died in British-led operations in the Basra area, were read out at the memorial service, which was attended by British Defence Secretary John Hutton.

The drawdown of foreign troops comes amid an upturn in violence last month.

A series of bombings, suicide attacks and shootings killed at least 48 people yesterday.

Source: The Australian

Israel rushes to exit Gaza Strip before inauguration

Abraham Rabinovich, Jerusalem January 21, 2009

ISRAEL hastened its pullout of troops from the Gaza Strip yesterday, aiming to have the last units out before Barack Obama was sworn in as US President this morning.

Jerusalem was hoping to keep its neighbourhood disputes from cluttering Mr Obama's desk on his first day in office.

Although Israelis share the excitement of Mr Obama's ascension to power and the widespread sense of a new beginning, there is concern about where his promised involvement in the Middle East will take him.

There is some fear that any attempt at "even-handedness" will inevitably move him closer to the Arab point of view compared with George W. Bush, who was one of the most pro-Israeli presidents Washington has seen.

But there were also hopes Mr Obama may be able to promote a peace process precisely because he is perceived in the Arab world as being less committed to Israel, despite his pro-Israel statements.

The Jewish state yesterday began releasing reservists mobilised three weeks ago for the Gaza operation as troops from the standing army emerging from Gaza deployed on the strip's periphery. Israel permitted more than 200 trucks carrying humanitarian aid to cross into Gaza.

The Egyptian newspaper Al Ahram reported yesterday that Hamas political leader Khaled Meshaal said on Friday that Hamas had not expected the Israeli attack to last more than three days. It lasted 22 days. He told Arab leaders at a conference in Qatar that he had expected masses of demonstrators to turn out in Arab countries demanding that Egypt open its crossing point into Gaza. There were some demonstrations but the crossing remains closed.

Hamas officials emerged from their hideouts in the Gaza Strip yesterday to find entire streets and neighbourhoods laid waste by Israeli air and ground attacks.

"The Israelis did this deliberately to tell the people 'This is because you elected Hamas'," an official said as he surveyed some of the massive destruction. "And they were saying 'This is what will happen if you elect them again'."

Officials in Gaza remained defiant. "We are in a powerful, victorious position," said Mushir al-Masri, a Hamas spokesman. "Israel will soon learn that the balance of power has shifted in Hamas' favour."

A major question is whether the Israeli attack will make Gaza's population identify more closely with Hamas or whether a majority will come to blame Hamas for the destruction.

Both points of view could be heard in media interviews.

Israel and Egypt have portrayed Hamas as a proxy of Iran and said Tehran was using Hamas to further its own interests.

An Israeli official said the "real battle for Gaza" was only beginning, as the relevant parties attempt to shape the political fallout of the war.

At an Arab economic summit in Kuwait, $US2 billion ($3 billion) was pledged in aid for Gaza. Egypt and other moderate Arab states said the money would be channelled through the Palestinian Authority to give its moderate leader, President Mahmoud Abbas, a foothold in Gaza.

Source: The Australian

Iraqi cabinet backs military pact

November 17, 2008

BAGHDAD: Iraq's cabinet defied fiery opposition from Shia hardliners last night to approve a wide-ranging military pact that includes a timetable for the withdrawal of all US troops by the end of 2011.

Baghdad and Washington have been scrambling for months to reach an agreement that will govern the status of more than 150,000 US soldiers stationed in 400 bases across the country after their UN mandate expires on December 31.

The cabinet approved the agreement after a 2 1/2-hour meeting, with 27 ministers out of 38 voting for it, according to government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh.

"There was a positive position taken on the part of the larger blocs and all the most important blocs," Mr Dabbagh said.

"They all expressed a positive position because they consider it the best (agreement) possible, because it will manage and end the military presence and guarantee the complete withdrawal of the troops."

The measure will now need to be approved by a majority of the 275-member parliament through a process that will take at least aweek.

It would then be ratified by Iraq's presidential council before Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki would sign the deal with US President George W. Bush.

The two major parties in parliament, the Shia United Iraqi Alliance and the Kurdish bloc, already had enough votes on their own to approve the agreement, said Shia politician Sami al-Askary, who is also an adviser to Mr Maliki. But the Iraqi Government wanted a broad consensus on the deal, and the US and Iraq had been lobbying smaller blocs headed by Sunni politicians and others to approve the pact.

Iraq's lead negotiator Muwafaq al-Rubaie said on Friday he believed the draft agreement was a "very good text" and expected it to be approved by parliament as well. The White House, too, was upbeat, describing the text of the accord as a "good agreement" that suited both nations.

It took nearly 11 months of tense and detailed negotiations before Baghdad and Washington were comfortable with the Status of Forces Agreement on thefuture of US forces in Iraq. "At some stages we went through we said, well, this couldn't be done. It is very difficult, it is literally impossible to do. Other times we said, well, okay, it's better now, we have progressed," Mr Rubaie said.

The draft agreement includes 31 articles and calls for US troops to pull out of Iraqi cities by June next year and from the entire country by the end of 2011.

But the pact has drawn fire from hardline nationalists, especially the cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, whose supporters have called for mass demonstrations to oppose any agreement with the US "occupier".

Iraq has seen dramatic improvements in security over the past year as US and Iraqi forces have allied with local tribal militias to flush insurgents and militias out of vast swaths of thecountry that were once ungovernable.

The reduction in violence has also been partly attributed to an order by Sadr at the end of August last year to his thousands-strong Mahdi Army militia to observe a ceasefire.

But on Friday, Sadr announced the creation of a new militia - the Brigades of the Promised Day - to fight the US.

The objections of the firebrand cleric, who is believed to be living in Iran, will have little impact on the decision, given that his party has only hold 28 seats in Iraq's 275-seat parliament.

The SOFA comprises two sections, security chapters initially drafted by the US and the general document, the "strategic framework agreement", put together by the Iraqis.

On November 5, the US gave Iraq its amended version of the pact and stated the negotiations were finished.

Source: The Australian

Bam's Iraq Choice

November 8, 2008
By Amir Taheri

Barack Obama's original support base, the anti-war movement, still insists on a full and speedy withdrawal from Iraq, a position also backed by prominent figures of the Left. To them, Iraq is a political version of the "original sin" that can only be expiated by a clear US defeat and humiliating retreat.

But the president-elect no longer needs such people, at least not for now.

And Obama, cast by history in the role of a war president, probably won't want to have America defeated and humiliated on his watch, however happy that would make his old supporters.

One thing is certain: America can't terminate its military presence in Iraq in the 16-month timeframe Obama suggests. It took it almost 10 months to complete the buildup for the initial invasion in 2003 - and going into a country is always easier than coming out. When you go in, your strength increases each day as new units and material come. When you leave, on the other hand, your strength decreases daily, as fewer units and material remain to protect your positions and cover your retreat. The retreating army needs an agreement with a force strong enough to ensure its safety as it departs.

Obama might note that the United States needed only two years to get half a million men out of Vietnam (versus the 130,000 troops in Iraq). But the US withdrawal from Vietnam took place thanks to an agreement with North Vietnam and Vietcong and (in a broader context) the Soviet Union and China. There was also the million-strong South Vietnamese army and police to cover the retreat.

In Iraq, however, there is no agreement with al Qaeda and the dormant (but always dangerous) Shiite militias and death squads or their patrons in Iran, who regard killing Americans as a religious duty. Once they perceive that the Americans are running away, they'll almost certainly do whatever possible to make their retreat bloodier and more humiliating.

The newly created Iraqi army also isn't yet strong enough to ensure the retreating Americans' safety. Once persuaded that the Americans no longer count in the equation, the new Iraqi army may join the other side or split into rival ethnic and sectarian factions.

The only way America can withdraw from Iraq without humiliation is to help Iraqis complete the creation of a government and an army strong enough to cover the American retreat. And that can't be done in 16 months.

As the United States emerges from its election fever, Iraq heads toward its own. Municipal elections are scheduled for the end of this year, clearing the decks for the general-election campaign next year. (The actual voting day could be in January 2010.) It may well take 16 months before the new Obama administration concludes an agreement with a new Iraqi government expected to be formed by mid-2010.

In Iraq, Obama has a choice.

He could manufacture an American defeat or work to translate the military victory that's already been achieved into long-term political gains for both Iraq and the United States.

What matters in Iraq isn't the number of US troops on the ground. Everyone in Iraq and in the Middle East understands that America can't be defeated on the battleground - that the only force capable of defeating America is America itself.

Thus, all depends on the signals coming from the new Obama administration.

If the perception is that, for domestic political reasons, it prefers defeat, there'll be enough forces in Iraq and throughout the region to help him secure it. If, on the other hand, the new administration opts to consolidate victory, again it would find many forces inside Iraq and in the Middle East ready to help it achieve that goal.

One encouraging sign: Starting last summer, Obama has stopped talking of withdrawal without any ifs and buts. Instead, he has spoken of "drawdown" and "redeployment," while trying to soothe his "anti-imperialist" constituency by insisting that America won't seek military bases in Iraq.

That is all well and good - as long as Obama understands that US national interest demands a firm commitment to building a new, democratic Iraq that is capable of holding its own against domestic and external enemies.

Amir Taheri's latest book, "The Persian Night: Iran Under the Khomeinist Revolution," is due out this month.

Source: New York Post

US-Iraq deal on 2011 pullout

Baghdad
August 23, 2008 - 12:00AM

Negotiators have finalised a deal which will see the complete withdrawal of US troops from Iraq by 2011, ending an eight-year occupation, the top Iraqi heading the team said today.

Under the 27-point deal all US combat troops will be withdrawn from Iraqi cities by next June, said negotiator Mohammed al-Haj Hammoud.

The agreement has already been approved by US President George W Bush and now needs to be endorsed by Iraqi leaders, he added.

Baghdad and Washington had agreed to "withdraw the US troops from Iraq by end of 2011", said Mr Hammoud.

"The combat troops will withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 2009. Both the parties have agreed on this," he added. "The negotiators' job is done. Now it is up to the leaders."

The security pact will decide the future of US forces in Iraq once the present UN mandate, which provides the legal framework for the presence of foreign forces in Iraq, expires in December.

Mr Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki had agreed last November to formalise such an agreement by July 31.

The arrangement was delayed due to strong opposition from Iraqi leaders over key issues such as when US combat troops would withdraw from Iraq, how many bases Washington would retain and whether American troops would be immune from Iraqi laws.

Mr Hammoud said all issues had been addressed in the deal.

He added, however, that there was a possibility that US troops could leave before 2011 or remain beyond the target date.

"There is a provision that says the withdrawal could be done even before 2011 or extended beyond 2011 depending on the (security) situation," he said.

Mr Hammoud said that even if the withdrawal does take place by 2011, some US troops could remain "to train Iraqi security forces".

He said the issue of how many bases Washington would retain in Iraq depended on the number of troops left behind for training purposes.

"The number of US military bases would depend on the size and the needs of the troops," he said.

A number of committees would also look into offences committed by American troops in Iraq.

The immunity offered to American soldiers currently in Iraq had been one of the main sticking points in the negotiations which began in February.

In a surprise one-day visit to Iraq yesterday, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the two countries were "very, very close" to finalising the agreement but had not yet clinched the deal.

Mr Zebari, however, went a step further and said the text of the deal was ready.

"We are very close, we have a text, but not the final agreement. Everything has been addressed," Zebari said yesterday.

The deal has drawn sharp criticism from Iraq's political factions, especially from the anti-American group of Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.

Dr Rice said that Washington had been very "flexible" in the negotiations.

"The US has gone very far in this agreement, it is a very advanced agreement," she said.

Any deal would first have to be ratified by the Iraqi parliament and the veto-wielding presidency council.

The White House said yesterday that US lawmakers would not be asked to approve the pact.

"It's not a treaty, so it would not require Senate ratification or anything like that," spokesman Gordon Johndroe told reporters at Mr Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas.

With 144,000 American troops in Iraq, the issue is politically sensitive in Washington as the November US presidential election draws nearer.

Source:The Age