Al-Zaidi between Washington and Tehran.. Who believes Iraq? Iraq is facing a delicate stage in which regional and international calculations are intertwined, with Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi moving from Washington to Tehran in a visit that came a few days after signing broad economic understandings with the United States.
International relations researcher Shahu Al-Qaradaghi believes that mutual visits between countries represent a natural matter that serves security and economic cooperation. However, he considered the timing of the Prime Minister’s visit to Tehran remarkable, because it came after the statements of the Iranian guide’s advisor, Ali Akbar Velayati, in which he attacked Al-Zaidi’s visit to Washington, and described it as affecting the dignity of Iraqis.
Details
He adds that the continued activity of armed groups and attempts to smuggle weapons out of Iraq sends negative messages that hinder the conversion of agreements signed with Washington into actual projects, calling for taking truly sovereign decisions, foremost of which is ending the dangers of militias and confining weapons to the state.
Al-Qaradaghi also links the visit to the results of Al-Zaidi’s visit to the United States, which witnessed the signing of more than fifty agreements worth approximately $60 billion, considering that the Prime Minister sought to explain the nature of these understandings to the Iranian leadership in light of the objection by Iraqi and Iranian voices close to Tehran to them.
He concludes by confirming that the Al-Zaidi government faces an extremely difficult test, but it represents an opportunity that may not be repeated to consolidate sovereignty and build an independent foreign policy based on the highest interests of Iraq, far from the logic of pleasing external parties.
Al-Qaradaghi asserts that the absence of an official and firm Iraqi response to these statements gave, in his estimation, the impression that Iraq is still viewed as a “backyard” for Iran, considering that Baghdad was required to send a clear message confirming the changing nature of the relationship.
He points out that even if Iraq plays a mediation role between the parties to the conflict, this does not detract from the position of the Prime Minister, but rather reflects a legitimate diplomatic role, citing the experiences of countries such as Pakistan and Qatar in regional mediations.
As for Al-Moussawi, he confirms that the Iranian side supports the Iraqi government’s steps towards stability, and believes that the stability of Iraq is in Iran’s interest by virtue of the historical, religious, border and commercial relations between the two countries, denying the existence of a conflict with arms control measures.
On the other hand, Al-Moussawi rejects the link between these files and the subordination of the Iraqi decision to Iran, stressing that Iraq is a sovereign state that possesses constitutional institutions, a parliament, and a political reference, and that its decision is independent, with some individual actions that are being addressed.
Considering that the success of this path requires sending a clear message to Iran to respect the privacy of the Iraqi decision and not to continue with previous policies because, according to him, Iraq seeks to build a national vision based on economic and regional openness.
Context
As for Al-Moussawi, he confirms that Baghdad bases its foreign relations on its national interests and that the dialogue with Iran takes place within the framework of normal relations between two countries with common interests, considering that preserving Iraq’s stability and making the path of sovereignty a success.
And that Iraq no longer needs to consult Tehran regarding its foreign options at a time when, according to his words, Iran acts with complete freedom in its international relations without referring to anyone,
He warns that if Iran feels that these agreements will lead to a decline in its influence inside Iraq, it may work to disrupt them, as happened in previous stages, according to his assessment.
Al-Qaradaghi considers that the continued Iranian bombing of the Kurdistan region, in addition to the use of Iraqi lands to settle scores, contradicts talk about respecting Iraqi sovereignty, and believes that such practices close the door to fruitful cooperation between the two countries, and also undermine the confidence of investors and major companies looking for a stable environment to implement projects.
While the visit is presented as an attempt to maintain a balance in foreign relations, the differing readings around it reveal the extent of the division in interpreting its goals and implications among those who see it as a test of the independence of Iraqi decision-making in the face of Iranian influence.
This discrepancy, as highlighted in the “Radar” program on Sky News Arabia, reflects a profound difference in assessing the nature of the Iraqi-Iranian relationship, the future of the arms file, and the limits of the role that Baghdad can play in a very complex regional environment.
He added that a number of Iranian writers read the visit as carrying messages between other parties, and not as a visit by a prime minister seeking to achieve his country's interests, which he considered an indication of the continuation of the traditional Iranian view of Iraq.
He adds that Baghdad made direct contact with the Iranian ambassador, who clarified that Velayati’s statements do not represent the official position, and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi also made contact with his Iraqi counterpart in the same context.
What to watch next
In the same context, Al-Qaradaghi links the success of these agreements to the Iraqi government’s ability to confine weapons to the state, noting that the armed factions declare their loyalty to Iran and, according to his description, move according to its directives, which makes dealing with this file from his point of view.
So that Iraq can open up economically and regain the confidence of its regional and international environment.
Those who consider it an extension of Iraqi diplomacy seek to spare the country from the repercussions of the regional conflict and perhaps contribute to reducing the escalation.
Provided that Iraqi sovereignty is guaranteed, foreign forces are removed, and the military presence is replaced by an economic presence,
They keep the common goal that should govern the relationship between the two countries away from readings that link the Iraqi decision to any external tutelage.
