Known affectionately as "Hawkie," Hawke was Australia's prime minister from 1983 to 1991, winning four elections and becoming the country's third longest-serving leader.
His wife, Blanche D'Alpuget, released a statement on Thursday describing her husband as "the greatest Australian of the post-war era."
"Bob Hawke and Paul Keating and their governments modernised the Australian economy, paving the way for an unprecedented period of recession-free economic growth and job creation," her statement said.
A Rhodes scholar who graduated from Oxford University in 1956, Hawke quickly rose through the ranks of Australia's trade union movement to become the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions in 1970, according to the Museum of Australian Democracy.
In 1983, after only being in parliament for three years, he became Australia's prime minister and would go on to serve for almost nine years in the country's top job.
Famous for his bouffant hair and cheeky sense of humor, Hawke reportedly held the world record for skolling a yard of beer in the quickest time when he was a student at Oxford.
When an Australian yacht won the America's Cup in September 1983, Hawke famously declared, "Any boss who sacks anyone for not turning up today is a bum."
But he was also a major economic reformer who with his then-treasurer Paul Keating liberalized the Australian economy, floating the Australian dollar and brought in universal healthcare for all citizens.
In the end, it was Keating who took his job as leader of the Labor Party in 1991 coup.
But even after he left office, Hawke remained one of Australia's most popular prime ministers, regularly invited to quickly drink beers at major sporting events by attendees to cheers and applause.
In a statement, opposition Labor leader Bill Shorten said that "the Australian people loved Bob Hawke because they knew Bob loved them."
"In Australian history, in Australian politics, there will always be B.H. and A.H: Before Hawke and After Hawke. After Hawke, we were a different country. A kinder, better, bigger and bolder country," he said.
China's Commerce Ministry warned Thursday that U.S. actions against companies such as Huawei could escalate trade tensions.
On Wednesday, U.S. President Donald Trump declared a national emergency over threats against American technology. The U.S. Department of Commerce subsequently announced the addition of Huawei Technologies and its affiliates to the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) Entity List. Now U.S. businesses will need a license to sell or transfer technology to Huawei, likely making it far more difficult for the Chinese telecom giant to conduct business with them.
We ask the U.S. to stop further actions, so Chinese companies can have a more normal environment to trade, to avoid further escalation of U.S.-China trade tensions, spokesperson Gao Feng said in Mandarin during a press conference Thursday, according to a CNBC translation.
He criticized the use of national security as a tool for protectionism, and emphasized that overseas operations of Chinese companies should respect local laws.
Trade tensions between the U.S. and China took a negative turn in the last two weeks, upsetting expectations that both sides would soon reach a deal. The U.S. raised tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods on Friday, and China retaliated Monday with plans for tariffs on $60 billion worth of U.S. goods set to take effect June 1.
Gao said Beijing has not received any details on a U.S. visit to China for further trade negotiations. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin plans to visit Beijing in the near future, according to a Dow Jones report.
On the topic of a meeting between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping next month, the Ministry of Commerce referred CNBC to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
PARIS — The Trump administration said on Wednesday that it would not sign an international accord intended to pressure the largest internet platforms to eradicate violent and extremist content, highlighting a broader divide between the United States and other countries over government’s role in determining what content is acceptable online.
Citing free speech protections, the administration said in a statement that “the United States is not currently in a position to join the endorsement.” It added that “the best tool to defeat terrorist speech is productive speech.”
The statement coincided with President Emmanuel Macron of France and Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern of New Zealand meeting in Paris to sign what they have labeled the Christchurch Call. The agreement was crafted after a terrorist attack on mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, in March that left 51 Muslim worshipers dead. The massacre was live streamed on Facebook, and spread virally over the internet.
[Get the Bits newsletter for the latest from Silicon Valley and the technology industry.]
Ms. Ardern has used the Christchurch killings to rally support for increased vigilance toward keeping violent and extremist content off the world’s largest internet platforms. Facebook, Twitter, Google, Microsoft and Amazon have vowed to monitor their services more aggressively for material that encourages and facilitates violence.
Yet the debate about regulating the internet is raising broader questions about what constitutes acceptable free expression online. Companies and governments have largely coalesced around addressing violent, terrorist-related and child-exploitation content online, but there is less consensus on issues like what qualifies as hate speech and misinformation, and what forms of political rhetoric are tolerable even if they are offensive and polarizing.
The Christchurch Call is not binding and does not include penalties for platforms that do not comply. But as governments around the world consider new laws and regulations, tech companies are under growing pressure to demonstrate that they can police their platforms. On Tuesday, before the gathering in Paris, Facebook said it would place more restrictions on the use of its live video service
Last week, France proposed new laws that would require companies to eliminate harmful content. Britain put forward a similar proposal last month. And after the Christchurch massacre, Australia passed a law that made company executives personally liable for the spread of violent material.
Dipayan Ghosh, who worked on privacy policy issues at Facebook and in President Barack Obama’s administration, said the absence of the United States from the accord showed that it was ceding tech regulation to other nations.
“That the U.S. is a no-show to such an important meeting indicates a shocking lack of concern about the tremendous harms perpetuated by the internet, including terrorism and killing,” said Mr. Ghosh, who is now co-director of the Platform Accountability Project at Harvard University. “Further, our lack of participation will reinforce the intellectual divide between Americans and the rest of the world.”
He said the agreement was symbolically significant and put tech companies on notice that they must meet new safety obligations.
“If companies participate in the accord, they are necessarily representing to consumers that they will live up to its demands, and they will be compelled by governmental agencies to live up to those commitments,” he said.
On Wednesday, Amazon, Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Twitter signed on to the Christchurch Call and to a nine-point plan for addressing extremist and violent content. The plan calls for the companies to take steps like updating their terms of use; identifying checks on live streaming; sharing technology development; and collaborating on protocols for responding to crises. The companies also agreed to improve tools for users to report objectionable content, and to publish transparency reports on efforts to detect and remove such material.
In a joint statement, the companies called the Christchurch shootings a “horrifying tragedy” and said “it is right that we come together.”
Brad Smith, Microsoft’s president, said in an interview that the companies’ plan was part of the tech industry’s broader shift away from self-regulation.
“Now you see a clear reaction and, in some cases, rejection of that,” Mr. Smith said in an interview.
Mr. Macron and Ms. Ardern said the Christchurch Call was the start of a wider effort to address the use of the internet to spread violent and extreme ideologies. The push is to continue at a meeting of Group of 7 leaders later this year and a meeting of the United Nations General Assembly in September.
“We have taken steps to act,” Mr. Macron said.
Ms. Ardern said, “The social media dimension to the attack was unprecedented and our response today with the adoption of the Christchurch Call is equally unprecedented.”
At a news conference at the French presidential palace, the two leaders played down the Trump administration’s position. Ms. Ardern noted that American officials had expressed support for the pledge’s broad goals.
In its statement on the subject, the Trump administration said it supported the Christchurch Call’s “overall goals” and would “continue to engage governments, industry, and civil society to counter terrorist content on the internet.”
Mr. Macron, acknowledging the differing views on free speech, argued that stricter policies were needed to stop the spread of not just explicitly violent content, but also anti-Semitic and other types of hate speech, bullying and racist material, which he said could incite extremist behavior. There have not been clear definitions about what is acceptable in those areas.
“That’s the gray zone,” Mr. Macron said.
Both leaders praised the tech companies for vowing to make changes. “We have an agreement here that involves both tech companies and countries,” said Ms. Ardern. “In the past we have had either one or the other.”
The current ramping up of U.S. military posturing against Iran was triggered by U.S. intelligence that showed Tehran-backed militias in Iraq moving rockets to locations that could hit bases where American troops are positioned in the nation, according to sources familiar with the intelligence.
Trump administration officials have said the Pentagon’s bumping up of the deployment last week of a U.S. aircraft carrier and bomber group to the region was justified by intelligence on threats of a potentially imminent attack by Iran on U.S. interests in Iraq, but have provided no specific details publicly.
However, a report on Wednesday said Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s surprise trip to Iraq earlier this month came after U.S. intelligence had picked up communications related to the movement of rockets in Iraq by Iran-backed militias there.
Mr. Pompeo told top Iraqi military officials during a sudden visit to Baghdad on May 7 that Iraqi forces needed to keep the Iran-backed militias in check, according to the report by Reuters, which cited two Iraqi security sources as saying the secretary of state warned that Washington would respond with force if the militias weren’t contained.
“The message from the Americans was clear. They wanted guarantees that Iraq would stop those groups threatening U.S. interests,” a senior Iraqi military source with knowledge of Pompeo’s trip said, according to the report. “They said if the U.S. were attacked on Iraqi soil, it would take action to defend itself without coordinating with Baghdad.”
The report could not be immediately verified Wednesday. Mr. Pompeo’s office did not respond to a request by The Washington Times for comment. Reuters cited a second Iraqi security source as saying communications intercepted by U.S. intelligence had shown that Iran-backed militias had “redeployed to take up suspicious positions, which the Americans considered provocations.”
The report follows hand wringing in the international community over the current uptick in tension and mounting brinkmanship between Washington and Iran.
On Wednesday, the State Department ordered all nonessential U.S. government staff to leave Iraq, while both Germany and the Netherlands suspended their military assistance programs in the nation.
The sudden deployment of an American aircraft carrier and bomber task force to the Middle East last week, in concert with the one-year anniversary of Mr. Trump’s withdrawal from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, has underscored the tensions, amid frustration from some U.S. allies.
A top British commander working within the current U.S.-lead coalition of forces in Syria and Iraq on Tuesday disputed the administration’s claims about intelligence, telling a news conference there has been “no increased threat” from Iranian proxies in Iraq or Syria.
The Pentagon later pushed back at the comments by British Maj. Gen. Chris Ghika, with U.S. Central Command spokesman Capt. Bill Urban asserting they had “run counter to the identified credible threats available to intelligence from U.S. and allies regarding Iranian backed forces in the region.”
The Washington Times Comment Policy
The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
British broadcaster ITV on Wednesday canceled a popular, long-running daytime reality show after the death of a guest who failed a lie-detector test during a recording.
ITV chief executive Carolyn McCall said "The Jeremy Kyle Show" was being scrapped "given the gravity of recent events."
The tabloid-style talk show, which had run for 14 years, was pulled after 63-year-old Steve Dymond was found dead at a home in Portsmouth, southern England, on May 9.
Media reported that he had killed himself. Police said the death was not suspicious, and a post-mortem will be held to determine the cause.
On an episode filmed earlier this month, Dymond took a lie-detector test to convince his fiancee that he had not been unfaithful, but was told he had failed.
The episode has not been aired.
"The Jeremy Kyle Show" was canceled after a guest died by suicide. The guest overdosed after failing a lie detector test about his alleged cheating on the British tabloid-style talk show.
(Getty)
Dymond's death has heightened concern in Britain about the stress put on people appearing on reality television and online shows, and program-makers' duty to protect their guests.
It's a debate that has raged, off and on, for close to two decades since Britain began making home-grown equivalents of sensationalist U.S. programs like "The Jerry Springer Show" and putting ordinary people under intense scrutiny on reality shows such as "Big Brother."
ITV was already under pressure following the deaths of two former contestants, Sophie Gradon and Mike Thalassitis. on reality show "Love Island." Gradon's 2018 death was ruled a suicide at an inquest. An inquest has not yet been held for Thalassitis, who died in March.
Lawmaker Damian Collins, chairman of the House of Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, said the panel would discuss "what should be done to review the duty of care support for people appearing in reality TV shows" during a private meeting on Wednesday.
Simon Wessely, a former head of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, said shows like "Jeremy Kyle" were "the theatre of cruelty."
U.S. officials are pointing the finger at elite Iranian military forces for the sabotage attacks on oil tankers near the Persian Gulf.
A week after claiming Iranian "preparations for possible attack" on U.S. forces in the region, the U.S. has ordered most State Department personnel out of neighboring Iraq.
U.S. and Iranian officials insist nobody wants a war, and President Trump has denied plans to send 120,000 troops to the region.
The U.S. military has refuted a senior British commander's assessment that there has been "no increased threat from Iranian-backed forces in Iraq and Syria."
U.S. officials have said they believe Iranian combat divers were behind the attacks on four oil tankers near the Persian Gulf over the weekend, and they tell CBS News senior national security correspondent David Martin there's still no sign Iran is backing off purported plans to attack Americans in the region.
On Wednesday the State Department ordered all non-emergency staff and their families to leave Iraq, a nation on Iran's southern border in which the Iranian government backs various militia groups which have fought U.S. troops before.
"U.S. citizens in Iraq are at high risk for violence and kidnapping. Numerous terrorist and insurgent groups are active in Iraq and regularly attack both Iraqi security forces and civilians. Anti-U.S. sectarian militias may also threaten U.S. citizens and Western companies throughout Iraq," the State Department said in its advisory.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo renewed the Trump administration's warning on Tuesday that the U.S. would retaliate against Iran if it does attack American interests in the Middle East, but he declined to pin the blame for the tanker sabotage on Tehran.
U.S. officials believe Iran was involved in attacks on Persian Gulf oil tankers
He said he didn't have anything "concrete about the connection" between Tehran and the tanker attacks, adding: "I think in the coming hours and days we'll know the answer to that."
At a campaign rally on Tuesday evening, President Trump emphasized what is becoming one of the hallmarks of his hardline foreign policy, telling supporters that his administration was "holding dangerous regimes accountable by denying them oil revenue to fund their corruption, oppression and terror."
But as Martin reports, while the U.S. has put a stranglehold on Iran's economy, the country remains dangerous.
U.S. officials told Martin it was highly likely that Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards were responsible for Sunday's attacks that blew holes in the hulls of Saudi and Norwegian tankers anchored off the Emirati port of Fujairah, just outside the Persian Gulf.
Iranian combat divers are believed to have attached explosives to the ships' hulls, but a defense official told CBS News that further investigation was still needed.
Trump sending troops to Iran?
Mr. Trump, meanwhile, dismissed a New York Times report saying the administration was planning to send 120,000 American troops to the region to counter Iran. The U.S. has already sent an aircraft carrier strike group and four B-52 bombers to the Persian Gulf.
President Trump's denial of the Times report came with a caveat: "Would I do that? Absolutely," he said as he left the White House on Tuesday. "We have not planned for that… and if we did that, we'd send a hell of a lot more troops that."
On Capitol Hill, Virginia Democratic Senator Tim Kaine blasted the president's thinking.
"It would be the height of idiocy. It would be unconstitutional. There's no way this president should get us into a war with Iran," Kaine said.
Iran escalates nuclear threat
Iran has vehemently denied being involved in the attacks on the oil tankers and accused President Trump of playing a "very dangerous game, risking devastating war."
But on Wednesday, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said: "There is not going to be a war. Neither are we seeking war, nor is it to their (the United States') benefit to go after a war. They know this. We never start a war and have never started any wars. This is a confrontation of will-powers and our will-power is stronger than theirs."
He ruled out any negotiations with the current U.S. administration, saying they would be "poison" for Iran.
Iran's Revolutionary Guard rules out talks with U.S.
But while he downplayed the possibility of a conflict with the U.S., the ayatollah also dropped a loosely-veiled threat that Iran could take steps -- within a few months -- that would almost certainly draw a significant American response.
Iran announced a week ago that in response to President Trump pulling the U.S. out of the nuclear deal agreed in 2015 with world powers, it would partially withdraw from the terms of the agreement, too.
The Iranian regime said if the other parties to the agreement, which still want to keep it viable, couldn't figure out a way to work around new U.S. sanctions to keep doing business with Tehran within 60 days, it would resume enriching uranium to levels barred under the deal.
Iran is permitted under the terms of the nuclear deal to enrich uranium to just under 4% concentration -- a level at which it can be used for medical and scientific purposes, but not be easily refined to a level required to make nuclear weapons.
The regime said if no agreement was reached with Europe, Russia and the Chinese to keep the 2015 deal in play, it would resume enriching uranium to 20% -- which officials in the country have said could be done within four days. That benchmark is significant because once uranium is refined to 20%, it becomes much easier to enrich it to the 90% needed for weapons.
On Wednesday, the Ayatollah said "achieving 20% enrichment is the most difficult part. The next steps are easier than this step."
It was the first hint from the Iranian regime that it might try to obtain the highly-enriched uranium needed for an atomic bomb -- though Iranian officials have always denied any interest in obtaining one.
Both the U.S. and Israel have made it clear they will not allow the Islamic Republic to obtain a nuclear weapons capability.
U.S. and allies on same page?
There have been signs of frustration from European allies over the Trump administration's decision to not only bail on the nuclear deal, but to mount the new pressure on the Iranian regime.
The Trump administration and U.S. military officials said just over a week ago that they had detected, "a number of preparations for possible attack" on U.S. forces at sea and on land in the Middle East.
The U.S. has about 5,000 troops still in Iraq, on Iran's border, and while the State Department order on Wednesday for non-emergency personnel to leave the country did not specifically mention a threat from Iran, that was the implication.
Again without specifically citing Iran, a spokesperson at the U.S. Embassy in Iraq told CBS News on Wednesday that Pompeo ordered the non-emergency U.S. personnel out of the country because, "these threats are serious."
British Maj. Gen Christopher Ghika, Deputy Commander-Strategy and Information for the Combined Joint Task Force - Operation Inherent Resolve, the U.S.-led military operation in Iraq, is seen in a handout photo.
HANDOUT
On Tuesday, however, a British deputy commander of the U.S.-led joint military operation in Iraq disputed the claim of an elevated threat to allied forces in the region.
"There's been no increased threat from Iranian-backed forces in Iraq and Syria," Maj. Gen Christopher Ghika said in a video briefing from Baghdad to the Pentagon, according to The Guardian. "We're aware of that presence, clearly. And we monitor them along with a whole range of others because that's the environment we're in. We are monitoring the Shia militia groups I think you're referring to carefully, and if the threat level seems to go up then we'll raise our force protection measures accordingly."
But the U.S. military's Central Command, which oversees Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR) in Iraq and all other American operations in the region, directly refuted Ghika's statement later on Tuesday.
"Recent comments from OIR's deputy commander run counter to the identified credible threats available to intelligence from US and allies regarding Iranian-backed forces in the region," Central Command spokesman Capt. Bill Urban said in the statement.
Germany's military, meanwhile, announced a halt to its training operations in Iraq on Wednesday, but said it had no information about heightened threats to German troops in the country from Iran.
Defense Ministry spokesman Jens Flosdorff cited heightened regional tensions as he confirmed Germany's military was temporarily suspending training of Iraqi forces, "orienting itself toward our partner countries," but adding there were "no concrete warnings of attacks against German targets."
U.S. officials are pointing the finger at elite Iranian military forces for the sabotage attacks on oil tankers near the Persian Gulf.
A week after claiming Iranian "preparations for possible attack" on U.S. forces in the region, the U.S. has ordered most State Department personnel out of neighboring Iraq.
U.S. and Iranian officials insist nobody wants a war, and President Trump has denied plans to send 120,000 troops to the region.
The U.S. military has refuted a senior British commander's assessment that there has been "no increased threat from Iranian-backed forces in Iraq and Syria."
U.S. officials have said they believe Iranian combat divers were behind the attacks on four oil tankers near the Persian Gulf over the weekend, and they tell CBS News senior national security correspondent David Martin there's still no sign Iran is backing off purported plans to attack Americans in the region.
On Wednesday the State Department ordered all non-emergency staff and their families to leave Iraq, a nation on Iran's southern border in which the Iranian government backs various militia groups which have fought U.S. troops before.
"U.S. citizens in Iraq are at high risk for violence and kidnapping. Numerous terrorist and insurgent groups are active in Iraq and regularly attack both Iraqi security forces and civilians. Anti-U.S. sectarian militias may also threaten U.S. citizens and Western companies throughout Iraq," the State Department said in its advisory.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo renewed the Trump administration's warning on Tuesday that the U.S. would retaliate against Iran if it does attack American interests in the Middle East, but he declined to pin the blame for the tanker sabotage on Tehran.
U.S. officials believe Iran was involved in attacks on Persian Gulf oil tankers
He said he didn't have anything "concrete about the connection" between Tehran and the tanker attacks, adding: "I think in the coming hours and days we'll know the answer to that."
At a campaign rally on Tuesday evening, President Trump emphasized what is becoming one of the hallmarks of his hardline foreign policy, telling supporters that his administration was "holding dangerous regimes accountable by denying them oil revenue to fund their corruption, oppression and terror."
But as Martin reports, while the U.S. has put a stranglehold on Iran's economy, the country remains dangerous.
U.S. officials told Martin it was highly likely that Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards were responsible for Sunday's attacks that blew holes in the hulls of Saudi and Norwegian tankers anchored off the Emirati port of Fujairah, just outside the Persian Gulf.
Iranian combat divers are believed to have attached explosives to the ships' hulls, but a defense official told CBS News that further investigation was still needed.
Trump sending troops to Iran?
Mr. Trump, meanwhile, dismissed a New York Times report saying the administration was planning to send 120,000 American troops to the region to counter Iran. The U.S. has already sent an aircraft carrier strike group and four B-52 bombers to the Persian Gulf.
President Trump's denial of the Times report came with a caveat: "Would I do that? Absolutely," he said as he left the White House on Tuesday. "We have not planned for that… and if we did that, we'd send a hell of a lot more troops that."
On Capitol Hill, Virginia Democratic Senator Tim Kaine blasted the president's thinking.
"It would be the height of idiocy. It would be unconstitutional. There's no way this president should get us into a war with Iran," Kaine said.
Iran escalates nuclear threat
Iran has vehemently denied being involved in the attacks on the oil tankers and accused President Trump of playing a "very dangerous game, risking devastating war."
But on Wednesday, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said: "There is not going to be a war. Neither are we seeking war, nor is it to their (the United States') benefit to go after a war. They know this. We never start a war and have never started any wars. This is a confrontation of will-powers and our will-power is stronger than theirs."
He ruled out any negotiations with the current U.S. administration, saying they would be "poison" for Iran.
Iran's Revolutionary Guard rules out talks with U.S.
But while he downplayed the possibility of a conflict with the U.S., the ayatollah also dropped a loosely-veiled threat that Iran could take steps -- within a few months -- that would almost certainly draw a significant American response.
Iran announced a week ago that in response to President Trump pulling the U.S. out of the nuclear deal agreed in 2015 with world powers, it would partially withdraw from the terms of the agreement, too.
The Iranian regime said if the other parties to the agreement, which still want to keep it viable, couldn't figure out a way to work around new U.S. sanctions to keep doing business with Tehran within 60 days, it would resume enriching uranium to levels barred under the deal.
Iran is permitted under the terms of the nuclear deal to enrich uranium to just under 4% concentration -- a level at which it can be used for medical and scientific purposes, but not be easily refined to a level required to make nuclear weapons.
The regime said if no agreement was reached with Europe, Russia and the Chinese to keep the 2015 deal in play, it would resume enriching uranium to 20% -- which officials in the country have said could be done within four days. That benchmark is significant because once uranium is refined to 20%, it becomes much easier to enrich it to the 90% needed for weapons.
On Wednesday, the Ayatollah said "achieving 20% enrichment is the most difficult part. The next steps are easier than this step."
It was the first hint from the Iranian regime that it might try to obtain the highly-enriched uranium needed for an atomic bomb -- though Iranian officials have always denied any interest in obtaining one.
Both the U.S. and Israel have made it clear they will not allow the Islamic Republic to obtain a nuclear weapons capability.
U.S. and allies on same page?
There have been signs of frustration from European allies over the Trump administration's decision to not only bail on the nuclear deal, but to mount the new pressure on the Iranian regime.
The Trump administration and U.S. military officials said just over a week ago that they had detected, "a number of preparations for possible attack" on U.S. forces at sea and on land in the Middle East.
The U.S. has about 5,000 troops still in Iraq, on Iran's border, and while the State Department order on Wednesday for non-emergency personnel to leave the country did not specifically mention a threat from Iran, that was the implication.
Again without specifically citing Iran, a spokesperson at the U.S. Embassy in Iraq told CBS News on Wednesday that Pompeo ordered the non-emergency U.S. personnel out of the country because, "these threats are serious."
British Maj. Gen Christopher Ghika, Deputy Commander-Strategy and Information for the Combined Joint Task Force - Operation Inherent Resolve, the U.S.-led military operation in Iraq, is seen in a handout photo.
HANDOUT
On Tuesday, however, a British deputy commander of the U.S.-led joint military operation in Iraq disputed the claim of an elevated threat to allied forces in the region.
"There's been no increased threat from Iranian-backed forces in Iraq and Syria," Maj. Gen Christopher Ghika said in a video briefing from Baghdad to the Pentagon, according to The Guardian. "We're aware of that presence, clearly. And we monitor them along with a whole range of others because that's the environment we're in. We are monitoring the Shia militia groups I think you're referring to carefully, and if the threat level seems to go up then we'll raise our force protection measures accordingly."
But the U.S. military's Central Command, which oversees Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR) in Iraq and all other American operations in the region, directly refuted Ghika's statement later on Tuesday.
"Recent comments from OIR's deputy commander run counter to the identified credible threats available to intelligence from US and allies regarding Iranian-backed forces in the region," Central Command spokesman Capt. Bill Urban said in the statement.
Germany's military, meanwhile, announced a halt to its training operations in Iraq on Wednesday, but said it had no information about heightened threats to German troops in the country from Iran.
Defense Ministry spokesman Jens Flosdorff cited heightened regional tensions as he confirmed Germany's military was temporarily suspending training of Iraqi forces, "orienting itself toward our partner countries," but adding there were "no concrete warnings of attacks against German targets."
