Jomaili to Asharq Al-Awsat: Iraqi Intelligence Suggested Khomeini’s Assassination in Najaf but Saddam Refused

Jomaili to Asharq Al-Awsat: Iraqi Intelligence Suggested Khomeini’s Assassination in Najaf but Saddam Refused
TT

Jomaili to Asharq Al-Awsat: Iraqi Intelligence Suggested Khomeini’s Assassination in Najaf but Saddam Refused

Jomaili to Asharq Al-Awsat: Iraqi Intelligence Suggested Khomeini’s Assassination in Najaf but Saddam Refused

Is it true that Saddam Hussein saved Khomeini’s life when he rejected a suggestion to assassinate him while he was staying in al-Najaf? What about the tale of the explosive that was placed in Khomeini’s pillow at his home in Tehran?

These questions, and many more, had remained unanswered for decades. I sought the man who would provide the answers and found them with Iraq’s former intelligence officer Salem al-Jomaili.

When the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, al-Jomaili was director of the US branch in the intelligence agency. He was quick to destroy whatever documents he could find before American forces found him. He was soon arrested by the invading forces and spent nine months in prison. He left for Oman soon after his release.

Asharq Al-Awsat sat down with al-Jomaili to discuss several intriguing events that took place during his time in office. In the mid-1960s Khomeini came to Iraq. After the July 1968 revolution, Iraq opposed the Shah of Iran’s decision to annex the three Emirati islands.

Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi mobilized his forces to the Iraqi border as a threat. Khomeini urged Iranian soldiers to mutiny against the Shah, saying no Muslim should fight another. The Shah also backed the Kurdish opposition in Iraq and Iraq started backing the Iranian opposition against the Shah, recalled al-Jomaili.

“We allowed Khomeini’s supporters to carry out activities in Iraq and granted them permits. They were allowed to set up a radio station and he kicked off his political activity,” he added.

After the 1975 Algiers agreement, Iran stopped its support to the Kurds and their movement collapsed. Among the agreement’s conditions was for the Iranian opposition to cease its activity in Iraq. Khomeini was urged to take into account the new situation and respect the conditions of Iraq’s ties with Iran. He refused.

“We informed him that he must leave Iraq if he remained insistent on continuing his activity. So, he headed to Kuwait where he remained stuck in a border region before Iraqi authorities agreed to his return to al-Najaf,” said al-Jomaili.

The relationship with Khomeini and between Iraq and Iran became complicated after authorities realized that he would not comply with orders and that he would not be easily contained. Amid the tensions, the intelligence agency met to discuss the situation. One officer proposed that Khomeini be assassinated with the blame being pinned on Shiite Spiritual leader Abu al-Qasim Khoei, effectively eliminating both figures from the equation.

The intelligence agency did not dare present the second part of the plan to Saddam, but only revealed the part about Khomeini’s assassination, added al-Jomaili. The president opposed it, saying: “Doesn’t the intelligence agency know that he is Iraq’s guest?”

Soon after, Khomeini left for Paris. Saddam dispatched an envoy to ask Khomeini about what he would do if the Shah regime were to collapse. Khomeini revealed that once the Islamic revolution succeeds, attention would be focused on toppling of the Baath regime in Iraq.

Saddam then realized that a confrontation would be inevitable once Khomeini returned to Tehran.

The Shah was eventually toppled and Khomeini came to power. Shiite movements in Iraq soon began to express their support to him. Khomeini began inciting Iraqi Shiite Authority Mohammad Baqir al-Hakim to declare an Islamic revolution in Iraq. This hatred to the Iraqi regime led to a series of attacks by Iran’s proxies in Iraq. Among the attacks was the failed assassination attempts against Tariq Aziz and Saadoun Hamady.

It appeared that a clash was imminent, “which is why we kept detained an Iranian pilot whose plane was downed over Iraq. We kept him as evidence before the eruption of the war to show that Iran was the side that started the fight,” al-Jomaili said.

After the Islamic revolution, Khomeini turned against the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran in spite of its role in ousting the Shah. The war then erupted and “we had to bring in essential forces. The confrontation with Iran was open and unrestrained,” recalled al-Jomaili. “The Mojahedin members had experience in military and security work and had deep roots in society. We also had relations with the Kurdistan Democratic Party in Iran. These ties allowed Iraqi intelligence to deal painful blows to the Iranian regime.”

Painful blows

The Iraqi intelligence agency offered all forms of media, technical, financial and military support to the Kurdistan Democratic Party and Mojahedin. The first target was the Iranian Shura Council and the operation was to be overseen by head of intelligence and Saddam’s half-brother, Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti.

The operation called for booby-trapping the location of the council meeting. It took place in June 1981. Seventy-two leading figures were killed in the attack, including head of the judicial authority Mohammad Hosseini Beheshti, ministers, lawmakers and other senior officials.

Iran’s current Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was another target. He was targeted by an explosive, which was placed in a tape recorder, while he was delivering a speech in Tehran. The attack left him with a paralyzed right hand. Khomeini was also set to attend the event, but he was delayed and survived.

Tikriti then set his sights on a bigger target, Khomeini himself. The opportunity presented itself in 1981. Reaching Khomeini would be difficult, but a cleric, who was close to him and also sympathetic to the Mojahedin, helped carry out the plan. Intelligence agents prepared a small explosive and placed it in Khomeini’s bed pillow. The bomb went off at the wrong time when Khomeini was out of his house

The attacks continued. Iranian President Mohammad-Ali Rajai was assassinated in Tehran in August 1981, less than two months after he came to power.

Bitter conflict in Kuwait

Al-Jomaili said the bitter conflict between Iraq and Iran was not restricted to their territories. It even reached Kuwait. Iraq’s pro-Iran Dawa party supported the use of Kuwaiti territory to carry out attacks against Baghdad.

Al-Jomaili accused Iran of attempting to assassinate Emir of Kuwait Sheikh Jaber al-Ahmad Al Sabah in 1985. The Dawa party targeted Tariq Azaz in an attack at Kuwait’s Mustansiriyah University. Iraqi intelligence retaliated with the attempt on the life of Iranian Foreign Minister Sadegh Ghotbzadeh, who was on his way to meet the Emir.



Desperate Gazans Pull Iron Bars from Rubble to Construct Tents and Scratch Out a Living

A Palestinian worker breaks concrete to extract steel bars from destroyed homes, using only simple hand tools amid a severe shortage of construction materials caused by long-standing restrictions on the entry of cement and iron, in Khan Younis, southern Gaza Strip, December 9, 2025. REUTERS/Haseeb Alwazeer
A Palestinian worker breaks concrete to extract steel bars from destroyed homes, using only simple hand tools amid a severe shortage of construction materials caused by long-standing restrictions on the entry of cement and iron, in Khan Younis, southern Gaza Strip, December 9, 2025. REUTERS/Haseeb Alwazeer
TT

Desperate Gazans Pull Iron Bars from Rubble to Construct Tents and Scratch Out a Living

A Palestinian worker breaks concrete to extract steel bars from destroyed homes, using only simple hand tools amid a severe shortage of construction materials caused by long-standing restrictions on the entry of cement and iron, in Khan Younis, southern Gaza Strip, December 9, 2025. REUTERS/Haseeb Alwazeer
A Palestinian worker breaks concrete to extract steel bars from destroyed homes, using only simple hand tools amid a severe shortage of construction materials caused by long-standing restrictions on the entry of cement and iron, in Khan Younis, southern Gaza Strip, December 9, 2025. REUTERS/Haseeb Alwazeer

As winter bites in Gaza, displaced Palestinians set out every day to homes destroyed by Israel. There they rip out iron rods from the walls and use them to prop up their flimsy tents or sell to scratch out a living in an enclave that will take years to recover from war.

The rods have become a hot item in Gaza, where they are twisted up in the wreckage left by an Israeli military campaign that spared few homes. Some residents spend days pounding away at thick cement to extract them, others do the back-breaking work for a week or more, Reuters.

With only rudimentary tools such as shovels, pickaxes and hammers, work proceeds at a snail's pace.

UN SAYS WAR GENERATED 61 MILLION TONS OF RUBBLE

Once the bars helped hold up cement walls in family homes, today they are destined for urgently-needed tents as temperatures at night fall. Heavy rainstorms have already submerged many Gazans' meagre belongings, adding to their misery.

Palestinian father-of-six Wael al-Jabra, 53, was putting together a makeshift tent, trying to hammer together two steel bars.

"I don’t have money to buy wood, of course. So, I had to extract this iron from the house. The house is made of five floors. We don’t have anything apart from God and this house that was sheltering us," he said.

In November, the UN Development Program said that the war in Gaza had generated 61 million tons of rubble, citing estimates based on satellite imagery.

Most of it can be cleared within seven years under the right conditions, it said.

A ROD CAN COST $15

A 10-meter metal rod costs displaced families $15 - a steep amount because many barely have cash.

The Palestinian group Hamas triggered the conflict after attacking Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, killing 1,200 people and taking 251 back to Gaza as hostages, according to Israeli calculations. Israel responded with a military campaign that killed over 70,000 people and laid waste to Gaza.

Carrying heavy buckets of rubble and pushing a wheelbarrow, Suleiman al-Arja, 19, described a typical day in the quest for iron rods.

"We pass by destroyed houses and agree with the house owner. He gives us a choice, whether to clean the house (clear the rubble) in exchange for iron or clean the house for money. We tell him that we want the iron and we start breaking the iron. As you can see, we spend a week, sometimes a week and a half," he said.

FOCUS IS ON DAILY STRUGGLE TO LIVE

US President Donald Trump promised to put together an international stabilization force and an economic development plan to rebuild and energize Gaza, which was impoverished even before the war. Palestinians in Gaza can't look so far ahead even though a ceasefire was reached in October. Every day is a struggle for Palestinians who have seen peace plans come and go over many decades.

Their minds are focused on finding ways to survive, every single day.

"We do this work to get our food and drink, to cover our living expenses and not need anyone, so we earn a living through halal (legitimate) means and effort. These are my hands," said Haitham Arbiea, 29.

Palestinians accuse Israel of depriving Gaza of the iron bars.

An Israeli official told Reuters that construction materials are considered dual use items - items for civilian but also potential military use - and will not be allowed into Gaza until the second phase of the US-led peace plan. The official cited concerns that the materials could be used for the building of tunnels, which have been used by Hamas.


Washington’s Opening Toward Damascus Clashes with Israel’s Ground Strategy

A meeting between Trump and Netanyahu at the White House, July 2025 (AFP). 
A meeting between Trump and Netanyahu at the White House, July 2025 (AFP). 
TT

Washington’s Opening Toward Damascus Clashes with Israel’s Ground Strategy

A meeting between Trump and Netanyahu at the White House, July 2025 (AFP). 
A meeting between Trump and Netanyahu at the White House, July 2025 (AFP). 

Washington’s recent openness toward Damascus is increasingly colliding with Israel’s assertive on-the-ground approach, highlighting a widening rift between the two traditional allies over the future of Syria following the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

The United States now appears to be pushing for expanded security cooperation with the new Syrian government led by President Ahmed al-Sharaa, aiming to confront shared security threats and stabilize the country.

At a conference convened to assess the new phase in Syria, Admiral Brad Cooper, commander of US Central Command (CENTCOM), placed future cooperation with Damascus at the center of discussions about US policy toward “post-Assad Syria.”

Cooper stressed that Washington is working “increasingly” with the Syrian army to counter common security threats, asserting that integrating the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) into the national army would enhance internal stability, improve border control, and strengthen Syria’s ability to pursue Daesh.

Cooper added that since last October, US forces have provided advice, assistance, and enablement to Syrian authorities in more than twenty operations against Daesh and in thwarting weapons shipments bound for Hezbollah, noting that such gains are only possible through close coordination with Syrian government forces.

This American trajectory, however, now overlaps with an expanding disagreement between Washington and Tel Aviv over the contours of a “new Syria,” according to the Wall Street Journal. The paper reported an unusually sharp divergence between the two allies over Syria’s future one year after Assad’s fall, as President Donald Trump pushes a more open approach toward Damascus with Saudi and Turkish backing.

Trump has lifted sanctions on al-Sharaa, praising him as a “young, attractive, tough guy" with a “real shot at doing a good job", which signaled Washington’s readiness for a major policy shift.

In contrast, Israel quickly moved after the regime’s collapse to establish a military presence in southern Syria, taking control of an estimated 250 square kilometers.

The area became a launchpad for an expanded Israeli security posture that has included arrests, weapons seizures, airstrikes deep inside Syrian territory, and even a strike on the military command headquarters in Damascus, actions justified as protection of the Druze community.

The WSJ attributes this assertive field strategy to a shift in Israel’s security mindset after the Oct. 7, 2023 attacks, noting that Israeli decision-makers now believe any security concession could open a dangerous breach.

Former Israeli national security adviser Yaakov Amidror remarked that making decisions from Washington is far easier than making them from the Golan Heights, reflecting Israel’s preference to secure its interests unilaterally.

While the US administration works to broker security negotiations between Damascus and Tel Aviv - parallel to de-escalation efforts in Gaza and Ukraine - Trump is urging Israel to engage in a “strong, honest dialogue” with Syria. Yet these efforts face obstacles, chief among them al-Sharaa’s rejection of Israel’s proposal for a demilitarized zone stretching from southern Damascus to the border, which he argues would create a dangerous security vacuum.

Within Israel, influential voices warn against overreliance on force, fearing conflict with Washington’s desire to rehabilitate the new Syrian state and potentially integrate it into the Abraham Accords framework.

Some Israeli experts propose allowing Syrian army deployment near the border while banning heavy weapons and Turkish forces, shifting from displaying military power to building diplomatic power. Diplomats predict any future agreement may resemble the 1974 disengagement framework, albeit updated for current realities.

The Wall Street Journal concluded that the US–Israeli dispute over Syria is no passing episode but a test of the resilience of their longstanding alliance amid a reshaped regional landscape.

“The new Syria” has become an open arena for redefining Middle Eastern power balances, as Washington attempts to merge counterterrorism efforts with rebuilding the Syrian state and crafting a new security formula between Damascus and Tel Aviv.

 

 


Lebanese Foreign Minister Declines Invitation to Tehran, Proposes Meeting in Neutral Country

Lebanese Foreign Minister Youssef Raji receives his Iranian counterpart Abbas Araghchi in Beirut in June 2025 (File – IRNA)
Lebanese Foreign Minister Youssef Raji receives his Iranian counterpart Abbas Araghchi in Beirut in June 2025 (File – IRNA)
TT

Lebanese Foreign Minister Declines Invitation to Tehran, Proposes Meeting in Neutral Country

Lebanese Foreign Minister Youssef Raji receives his Iranian counterpart Abbas Araghchi in Beirut in June 2025 (File – IRNA)
Lebanese Foreign Minister Youssef Raji receives his Iranian counterpart Abbas Araghchi in Beirut in June 2025 (File – IRNA)

Lebanese Foreign Minister Youssef Raji has declined an invitation from his Iranian counterpart Abbas Araghchi to visit Tehran, proposing instead that the two meet in a mutually agreed-upon neutral country.

In a post on X on Wednesday, Raji said he was “unable to accept” the invitation at this time, citing unspecified “current circumstances.”

He stressed that his reply “does not mean rejecting dialogue,” rather “the proper atmosphere is not appropriate.”

He added that any renewed engagement with Iran must rest on clear principles, including respect for Lebanon’s sovereignty, non-interference in its internal affairs, and adherence to international norms governing state-to-state relations.

Araghchi had recently invited Raji to Tehran for talks on bilateral relations.

Official Lebanese sources told Asharq Al-Awsat that the invitation was sent personally to the minister, not to the Lebanese state, and that Raji’s response “expresses his own position.”

Lebanon and Iran continue diplomatic engagement despite Beirut’s repeated warnings - conveyed directly to visiting Iranian officials - that Lebanon rejects any foreign meddling in its internal affairs.

Tensions between Raji and Tehran were visible during the August visit of Ali Larijani, secretary-general of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council.

Larijani said he lacked the time to meet Raji; the minister replied: “Even if I had the time, I would not have met him.”

Former Lebanese foreign minister Fares Boueiz said Raji’s latest stance is a clear diplomatic message that relations between Beirut and Tehran are “incomplete.”

When differences arise, Boueiz noted, first meetings are often held in a third country to establish a framework for resolving disputes.

Boueiz added that a foreign minister rarely deviates from the official position of the state. He argued that Raji’s move reflects the views of President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, and implicitly signal that Iran should halt its support for a particular Lebanese faction and stop its interference.

Lebanon has repeatedly accused Iran of meddling in its internal affairs. During his meeting with Larijani in August, Aoun reiterated that no group in Lebanon may carry weapons or rely on external backing.

While open to cooperation with Iran, Lebanon insists such engagement remains within the limits of sovereignty and mutual respect.

Boueiz recalled that Lebanese-Iranian diplomatic relations stabilized after 1990, when he restored protocol-based engagement in line with the Vienna Convention. During the civil war, Iranian delegations routinely entered Lebanon via Syria without coordinating with the Lebanese government and met directly with Hezbollah.

After Boueiz confronted Tehran’s ambassador in 1990, then-foreign minister Ali Akbar Velayati agreed to normalize diplomatic procedures, leading to formal exchanges and signed agreements.

Some Lebanese observers view Raji’s stance as evidence of diminishing Iranian influence in Lebanon, long bolstered by Tehran’s support for Hezbollah.

Boueiz, however, argues that Iran’s role is closely tied to its evolving relationship with Washington. US-Iran dynamics, including ongoing discussions over sanctions relief and frozen assets, inevitably ripple into Lebanon: “Whenever US-Iran negotiations worsen, tensions rise in Lebanon; when talks calm down, Lebanon feels the relief.”