 January 3rd, 2022 marked two years since the assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani and Iraqi Commander Abu Mehdi al-Muhandis on the orders of then U.S. President Donald Trump. This shocking, provocative and illegal act led to the rise of tensions in the region and mass mobilizations against the U.S. It also led to the people of the region coming together in an unprecedented manner to honour a man who played a vital role in defeating the brutal Islamic State Group. Two years later, once again, as his life was commemorated, many of the strategic goals of the U.S. lie in tatters. The U.S. was not able to destroy the coalition Soleimani and its associates built, nor has the maximum pressure campaign on Iran worked. In fact, the U.S. is in a weaker position than before. Rania Khalek of Breakthrough News talks about the legacy of Qasem Soleimani and the impact of the assassination. So when the Americans assassinated the Iranian General Qasem Soleimani two years ago, I think that they thought that if they just got rid of this one man, they could kind of, you know, weaken the resistance to their hegemony across the region. But the opposite has actually happened and I'll explain why, you know, when we talk about Qasem Soleimani, I mean he really was the sort of brains behind Iran's military strategy across the Middle East. And as a result, he became this kind of local hero against Western hegemony across the region. And really the lead figure of resistance to imperialism for very large Shia constituencies, especially in Iraq and Iran and Syria and Lebanon Afghanistan Yemen and Gaza. He also had support across sects, you know, there was many Kurds that supported him. He was popular among many Sunnis as well. And you really could see it by the millions of people that came out for his funeral after he was killed. But also when we talk about the U.S. assassination of Qasem Soleimani. I want to mention who was with him, because he wasn't the only one that was killed that day by the Americans alongside him in that drone strike was Abu Mahdi Al Mohandis who was the commander of the Iraqi popular mobilization forces, or the PMF. And, you know, along with Qasem Soleimani and the Iranians, the PMF under Mohandis's command was crucial in saving the region from collapse to ISIS in al Qaeda. So, these two figures Mohandis and Soleimani they created these kind of like new symbols of heroism and martyrdom around which millions of people rallied across the region, and the Americans were, you know, really ignorant of the fact that they were so beloved and revered and admired by tens of millions if not more. And, you know, I would even say, you know, Qasem Soleimani on top of being this kind of military symbol for Shias around the region, and on top of him and Abu Mahdi being seen as like correctly seen as having played the central role in defeating ISIS and Shias as well as other minorities from ISIS in al Qaeda and preventing the collapse of the entire region. He really was a kind of like Che Guevara like figures, especially for Shias in the Middle East. So the US decision to kill these two men was stupid and counterproductive. And there's a price to pay for these things you know you can't go around just murdering and military, militarily occupying a region with zero resistance. And that's why until this day, the Americans were face they face retribution from Iraqi militia groups in fact, there's actually much less discipline among those Iraqi militia groups because these two men are gone. And also, you know, their absence is the reason they're I mean they're their murders is actually the reason that the Iraqi parliament ended up voting for the US is complete withdrawal from the country. So, I mean, in the end, they're the losses is significant. You know, as these were two men who like I mentioned impose discipline and strategy and provided organization and structure and vision. There's also kind of been a significant loss for the US in the sense that there's like less discipline and organization around even the most hard line. So called you know Shia militia groups that the US hates, you know used to listen to these two men and now there's this vacuum because of their absence. And also though on the other side it rallied the region against the US in a way that I've never seen, and that stands until this day. You know, they've been they, you know, while they they've been hard to replace it did create this kind of vacuum of leadership, especially in Iraq which, you know, it's made it more difficult in Iraq to reach political consensus. And which is actually contributed to the current crisis and the government formation there, but behind these men was this big machine you know it wasn't just some simple gorilla movement that can be weakened when its leaders killed. Suleymani is death especially they made him into a greater hero. And but this killing also came when they had finished their primary mission in the region that is saving the region from ISIS and creating these kinds of resistance forces against US hegemony and Israeli hegemony and Saudi hegemony that are capable of being effective after their deaths. And as we've seen two years on those institutions those various forces in different countries that Suleymani really helped train, they still exist they've outlived him. So in the end, you know, the US killed him to try to destroy that and it only made it stronger. One of the countries where the effects of the assassination was most powerfully felt was Iraq. There was a strong demand for the withdrawal of US forces and the Iraqi parliament also passed a resolution to this effect. What is the current situation Iraq with respect to the presence of the US. Yeah so any rock I mean Iraq is sort of at a standstill in terms of government formation because you know the government that was imposed on Iraq after the US invaded and occupied is one that's very weak and one that has a very difficult time coming to consensus and that's intentional I think. But that said the US role in Iraq I think has already been weakened, and this assassination weakened it even further, and this is happening at a time when the US has been kind of slowly withdrawing from the region, and a lot of US allies in the region including those in any rock locally who are allied with the US are, you know have been watching as the US left Afghanistan, and in their minds they're like oh my goodness the US has abandoned its allies in Afghanistan, that could happen to us anytime. So, this kind of weakened role of the US and the possibility of the US further withdrawing from the region. I think of course is ultimately good because it will force people to deal with their neighborhood and not rely on the US to help them you know be the most powerful or in charge and work on behalf of the US and I think also it'll be better for you know Iran for one because Iran is Iraq's neighbor and the US presence in Iraq is one that promotes hostility towards Iran and promotes this kind of you know this kind of obstacle to having any sort of economic cooperation in the region whether we're talking about Iraq with its neighbor Iran or even Iraq with its neighbor Syria. So, at this point you know I think it's a very positive move and I think ultimately, it's not going to happen tomorrow, but ultimately we're going to see the US withdrawal even further from the region now I want to be clear this isn't because the US Empire is necessarily like falling though I think it's in some sort of decline. It has more to do with the fact and we've heard Joe Biden say this and we've even read it you know a national security documents. It has more to do with the fact that the US wants to move its resources towards this new Cold War with China. In that respect you know that side of it is negative but I think for the Middle East, this kind of move towards a more multipolar world with less of a US presence in the region which has been so destructive is going to be very beneficial for sort of regional stability. The allies of the US in the region have also recalibrated their approach in light of the impending US withdrawal. Over the past few years, fierce rivals have begun engaging each other diplomatically, and new political equations are being forged. Nanya Khalik explains some of the new dynamics that are emerging in West Asia. Well, I think under this administration under Biden it's a bit different for these countries because you know under Trump they could they had a blank check to do whatever they wanted. But under Biden you know Biden of course is not going to stop Saudi Arabia and the UAE from doing what they want necessarily, but isn't encouraging them to like start a war with Iran. It's actually forced over the last few months Saudi Arabia to actually sit down with media intermediaries to try to like come to some sort of, you know, reproach ma with their Iranian counterparts at least temporarily and interestingly enough, the UAE, which was so hawkish and hostile to Iran has actually become what I think Iran's become its second largest trading partner at this point. And now they you know the US has begun threatening the UAE to stop doing business with Iranian companies or else they might be subject to sanction. So I think that what we're seeing happen again as the US kind of withdraws a little bit from the region is these US client states are being forced to contend with the fact that they don't have the capacity to actually go to war with Iran. They have to learn to live in a neighborhood in their neighborhood that has an Iran that sits as a power that it honestly deserves to be it's a massive country with 80 million people. It has a huge economy, and it has relationships with countries across the region, it's Iran's neighborhood as well, and they need to learn to live in it with Iran in it and that is what the sort of US, you know, removing the US from the region will allow.