Allawi: America Ruined Iraq, in Partnership with Iran

Allawi and Al-Maliki in one of their meetings in Baghdad in 2010 (Getty)
Allawi and Al-Maliki in one of their meetings in Baghdad in 2010 (Getty)
TT

Allawi: America Ruined Iraq, in Partnership with Iran

Allawi and Al-Maliki in one of their meetings in Baghdad in 2010 (Getty)
Allawi and Al-Maliki in one of their meetings in Baghdad in 2010 (Getty)

When the United States invaded Iraq, the Arabs were astonished and worried, and chose to stay away from the Iraqi scene so as not to be accused of supporting the occupation.

Iran took advantage of this Arab absence and launched a massive operation to prevent the establishment of a pro-Western Iraqi regime.

Tehran facilitated the invasion, but hastened to shake the stability that the Americans were betting on to build what they called the new democratic Iraq. Iran also benefited from dangerous decisions taken by Washington, including the dissolution of the Iraqi army, the de-Baathification, and the illusion of being able to rebuild Iraq from scratch after the dismantling of the state.

Once I asked President Jalal Talabani, who was returning from a trip to Tehran, what Iran really wanted from America. He said that he had concluded that it was ready to negotiate with Washington over files ranging from Afghanistan to Lebanon.

He explained: “Iran does not say that it wants a share, but rather that it seeks normal relations with the US, an end to hostility and to the seizure of Iranian funds in America.”

Talabani was more realistic than former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi. He realized that the relationship with Washington was not enough, and it was necessary to pass through Tehran.

In 2007, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited Baghdad, which was under the US occupation.

As American checkpoints facilitated the passage of the visitor’s convoy, it soon became clear that the Iranian president’s visit constituted a message that the American army would leave one day, but Iran, by virtue of geography, would remain near and inside Iraq. This is what actually happened, especially when slain IRGC Commander Qassem Soleimani began to destabilize Iraqi soil under the feet of the American army.

Iyad Allawi was not pro-American. He did not recognize their right to tailor the new Iraqi political scene as they wanted. Moreover, his meetings with a number of US officials were not fruitful. In parallel, no language of understanding was found with Tehran. He did not accept its terms, while the Iranian capital failed to tolerate his approach.

On March 7, 2010, general elections were held in Iraq. The “Iraqiya” list, led by Allawi, won 91 seats, while the State of Law coalition, led by Nouri al-Maliki, obtained 89 seats.

According to the applicable interpretation of the constitution, Allawi was supposed to be entrusted with the task of forming the new government. Al-Maliki was able to get from the Federal Supreme Court another interpretation of the article that talks about the largest bloc. A severe political crisis erupted that lasted about nine months, and ended in Al-Maliki’s favor.

I asked Allawi about the parties that prevented him from forming the government, he replied: “We achieved victory in the elections despite everything we were exposed to. Five hundred people were subjected to procedures under the pretext of “de-Baathification.” Among them were a number of our candidates. They assassinated nine persons. They closed entire regions to prevent our supporters from voting, and yet we were ahead of them by three seats. In fact, I was surprised by what happened. I did not expect the American and Iranian stances to reach this point. America and Iran prevented me from forming a government. They worked together.”

Allawi continued: “During that period, then-US Vice President Joe Biden visited Baghdad about three times a month. His concern was that I would give up in favor of Al-Maliki. He asked me to assume the presidency of the republic, and I told him that the people elected us to form the government, so how could I become president of the republic without a job or work (the nature of the position is quasi-protocol)... Biden repeated his demand, and I replied: “By God, if you do not allow me to become prime minister, terrorism will grow stronger... as will hatred for the regime...”

“During that period, US-Iranian negotiations were taking place in Muscat. The American delegation was headed by Ben Rhodes, Deputy National Security Advisor under then-President Barack Obama. The Iranian side conveyed to the Americans a threat, stating that Iran will stop negotiations and cause problems in Iraq if Iyad Allawi becomes prime minister.”

“The truth is that I met Biden about 20 times. I’ve known him since he was in charge of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. His personality is shaky, and he is a liar and a hypocrite,” Allawi stated.

I asked the former premier whether the US destroyed Iraq, he replied: “Yes, America ruined Iraq.”

On whether Washington had partners, he said: “Yes, Iran. Beginning with the dissolution of the Iraqi army, to the Popular Mobilization Forces, the armed militias and terrorism, the death of democracy and the spread of political sectarianism...”

I am Major General Qassem Soleimani

After the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime, a prominent player appeared on the Iraqi scene: General Qassem Soleimani, commander of the Iranian Quds Force. His role was not only limited to draining the American army, but went beyond to impose his decision in choosing presidents, forming governments, and determining paths. He assumed a similar role in Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen.

I asked Allawi about his relationship with Soleimani, he said: “I met General Soleimani in the house of Adel Abdul Mahdi (later Prime Minister). Adel invited me to dinner, but he did not tell me who would be present... Half an hour later, two men arrived at the place... The first one approached me and said: “I am Major General Qassem Soleimani.” During the meeting, Soleimani told me: “We worked against you all the time.” I replied: “And I was against you all the time.”

Allawi recounted his conversation with the Iranian commander.

“I told him: Why did you work against us? I included you in the Sharm El-Sheikh meeting in defiance of international will. I opened all ways for you. We stopped the activity of the Mujahideen Khalq and seized their heavy weapons. I sent you the strongest economic delegation, on the basis of improving the position of the Iraqi neighborhood. He replied: “We made a mistake, and I am now in the presence of a senior commander.” I told him: “I am neither a big leader nor a watermelon. Do not interfere in Iraq’s internal affairs, and things will return to their normal course.”

Putin: Why don’t you go to Iran?

I asked Allawi to recall the most important pieces of advice he was given to visit Iran, and I will let him narrate it.

“In the seventh month of 2010, I visited Moscow, but I did not have any official status. President Vladimir Putin invited me to a dinner in the Kremlin, attended only by the interpreter. Putin asked me why I don’t go to Iran, and I replied: “Would you, for example, go to Finland to become President of the Republic of Russia?” He said: “No.” I said: “Why do you want me to go to Iran to become their follower? I don’t want the premiership nor the presidency. I am a servant of the Iraqi people and the Arab nation and I am honored to do so, and I am not ready to beg Iran or others for a position.” He asked me: “Do you mind if I send them an advisor of my own?” I replied: “No, but on the condition that I meet them here, in Egypt, or in Baghdad, but I will not go to Iran.”

Allawi continued: “The truth is that Putin is a nice, important and knowledgeable person. My personal opinion is that Russia’s morals are closer to the Arabs than America’s. They are more serious, frank and direct than the Americans.”

Bush does not deserve to be president

I asked Allawi about his impression of his meeting with President George W. Bush. He replied: “He does not deserve to be president of America. I did not see him steadfast in clarity or ideas. They had no policy after the fall of the regime... Disbanding the army, de-Baathification, and all these random practices. I explained this to British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and asked him to talk to him more about the Iraqi file.”



Ali Shaath Appointed Head of Gaza Administration Committee: What Do We Know About Him?

Palestinian Ali Shaath, the leading candidate for the chairmanship of the Gaza Administration Committee (photo released by his family). 
Palestinian Ali Shaath, the leading candidate for the chairmanship of the Gaza Administration Committee (photo released by his family). 
TT

Ali Shaath Appointed Head of Gaza Administration Committee: What Do We Know About Him?

Palestinian Ali Shaath, the leading candidate for the chairmanship of the Gaza Administration Committee (photo released by his family). 
Palestinian Ali Shaath, the leading candidate for the chairmanship of the Gaza Administration Committee (photo released by his family). 

Mediators from Egypt, Qatar, and Türkiye announced on Wednesday the formation of a Palestinian technocratic committee to administer the Gaza Strip, headed by Ali Shaath. The move follows changes to the committee’s membership and broader political maneuvering that point to an imminent transfer of governance from Hamas.

Earlier on Wednesday, US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff announced the launch of “Phase Two of President Donald Trump’s 20-point plan to end the conflict in Gaza,” saying it marks a shift “from a ceasefire to disarmament, technocratic governance, and reconstruction.”

The plan calls for the establishment of a technocratic body to oversee governmental and civilian affairs in Gaza as an alternative to Hamas rule.

While several well-known figures had previously been mentioned as potential leaders, Gaza residents and observers were surprised by the emergence of new names. Among those reported by Asharq Al-Awsat on Tuesday evening was Ali Shaath, who has since emerged as the leading candidate to chair the committee.

Who Is Ali Shaath?

Ali Shaath was born in 1958 in Khan Younis, southern Gaza, into a prominent Palestinian family and large clan with a long record of national and political engagement. Many members of his family are affiliated with Fatah.

He earned a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from Ain Shams University in Cairo in 1982, a master’s degree in 1986, and a PhD in civil engineering from Queen’s University in the United Kingdom in 1989, specializing in infrastructure planning and urban development.

Shaath has held several senior posts within the Palestinian Authority and is widely regarded as a technical expert rather than a political figure. Early in the Authority’s formation, he served as deputy to then–Minister of Planning and International Cooperation Nabil Shaath, helping draft strategic development plans for a future Palestinian state.

He later served as undersecretary at the Ministry of Transport, overseeing major infrastructure and road projects. He went on to lead the Palestinian Industrial Estates and Free Zones Authority, chair the Palestinian Housing Council, head the Palestinian Ports Authority, and advise the Palestinian Economic Council for Development and Reconstruction (PECDAR). Most recently, despite retirement, he served as an adviser to the Ministry of Housing and Public Works.

Politically, Shaath participated in final-status negotiation committees in 2005 and contributed as a technical expert on border and maritime access issues. His background in economic development and postwar reconstruction appears to have positioned him to lead the technocratic committee.

Sources close to the Shaath family told Asharq Al-Awsat that he has lived in the West Bank for years, including before the Gaza war, and has consistently avoided factional politics, focusing instead on technical and professional roles.


Israel Seeks to Cement Status Quo of Its New Occupation in Syria

Members of Israel’s special reserve unit “Alpine Mountains” during training on Mount Hermon in Syria (Israeli army) 
Members of Israel’s special reserve unit “Alpine Mountains” during training on Mount Hermon in Syria (Israeli army) 
TT

Israel Seeks to Cement Status Quo of Its New Occupation in Syria

Members of Israel’s special reserve unit “Alpine Mountains” during training on Mount Hermon in Syria (Israeli army) 
Members of Israel’s special reserve unit “Alpine Mountains” during training on Mount Hermon in Syria (Israeli army) 

A senior Israeli official has acknowledged that disagreements with Syria remain “very deep,” dismissing what the United States has described as a positive atmosphere surrounding negotiations. “The reality is quite different,” the official said.

The remarks indicate that Israel intends to preserve the current situation created by its recent occupation of Syrian territory and rejects any withdrawal, not only from Mount Hermon but also from the nine positions it established following the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

Israel has reportedly set far-reaching conditions in return, including barring Syria from deploying anti-aircraft missiles.

According to a report by Maariv political correspondent Anna Barsky, intensive talks held in Paris over two days last week, involving representatives from Israel, Syria, and the United States, produced only a limited outcome.

The discussions resulted in an agreement to establish a coordination mechanism aimed at preventing field-level friction, to be managed with active US involvement, but fell short of any broader political or security breakthrough.

Barsky wrote that there is currently no possibility of reaching a security agreement between Israel and Syria. While she cited Syria’s demand for an Israeli withdrawal from Syrian Mount Hermon as the main obstacle, the report suggests that Israel’s own demands are the primary factor blocking progress.

According to the senior official, Israel’s conditions include maintaining the new reality that emerged after Assad’s downfall in December 2024. This includes areas formerly designated as a UN-monitored buffer zone, an additional strip deeper along the border covering about 450 square kilometers, and all the peaks of Mount Hermon.

Israel is also seeking to strip the Syrian army of what it defines as strategic weapons, including advanced anti-aircraft systems or any arms that could disrupt the existing military balance. In addition, it demands that no foreign forces be present in Syria if they could restrict the Israeli army’s freedom of movement, specifically Russian or Turkish forces.

The report noted that the US administration, while pressing both sides to advance toward security understandings, supports Israeli demands it considers essential to Israel’s security, particularly remaining on Mount Hermon, though Washington is expected to propose compromise arrangements.

At the same time, Barsky reported growing concern in Tel Aviv over a parallel Syrian track: efforts by Damascus to coordinate with Moscow to redeploy Russian military forces in Syria, especially in the south.

Israel views such a move as a direct threat to its operational freedom and has worked to thwart initiatives aimed at restoring a Russian presence there. According to Maariv, Israel has conveyed a firm message to Damascus, Moscow, and Washington that it will not tolerate Russian forces in southern Syria.

The newspaper linked this stance to past experience, noting that while Russia maintained two main bases in Syria - Hmeimim Air Base and the naval facility in Tartus - it also deployed military police and observation posts near the disengagement zone in the south. Israel believes a return to that model would impose new operational constraints and alter the rules of engagement.

Although Russia’s footprint in Syria shrank after Assad’s fall, Israeli assessments suggest Moscow is seeking, in coordination with Syria’s new authorities, to rebuild its influence despite its preoccupation with the war in Ukraine.

The report said that both Moscow and Damascus view a Russian presence in southern Syria as strategically valuable, particularly as a means of constraining Israel.

 

 


Hezbollah Raises Civil War Threat Over Disarmament Plan

Hezbollah members take an oath in front of a monument to Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in Beirut in 2022 (AP file photo)
Hezbollah members take an oath in front of a monument to Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in Beirut in 2022 (AP file photo)
TT

Hezbollah Raises Civil War Threat Over Disarmament Plan

Hezbollah members take an oath in front of a monument to Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in Beirut in 2022 (AP file photo)
Hezbollah members take an oath in front of a monument to Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in Beirut in 2022 (AP file photo)

Hezbollah escalated its response to Lebanese President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam over plans to press ahead with restricting weapons to the state and extending the move to areas north of the Litani River, raising the specter of civil war as tensions over the issue intensify.

Mahmoud Qamati, vice president of Hezbollah’s political council, said in a televised interview that statements by the president and prime minister on confining weapons north of the Litani meant the government was heading toward chaos and instability, and toward an internal situation that no one would accept, possibly even a civil war.

The government last week tasked the Lebanese army commander, during a cabinet session, with preparing a plan to restrict weapons north of the Litani, after announcing that the objectives of the first phase of the plan to confine arms to the state south of the river had been achieved.

Qamati’s Position

Hezbollah says that before any discussion begins on the fate of its weapons outside the area south of the river, Israel must stop violating Lebanese sovereignty, withdraw from points it occupies, and release prisoners.

Qamati said on Tuesday that some parties were insisting on implementing foreign dictates and offering concessions to Israel for free and without any return.

He added that the army’s role was not to protect Israel from any military action from Lebanon, but to confront Israel, which he said occupies Lebanese territory.

Accusing some members of the government of collusion to implement a US-Israeli plan for personal calculations, Qamati called for a return to reason, wisdom, and “Lebanese-Lebanese dialogue”.

War Against Whom?

Lebanese Industry Minister Joe Issa El-Khoury expressed surprise at Hezbollah’s threat of a civil war, asking between whom such a war would take place, between an illegitimate armed group and the legitimate army.

Civil wars, he said, usually erupt between illegitimate armed groups, warning that if Hezbollah did not hand over its weapons, other unarmed groups might rearm on the grounds that the army was unable to protect them.

Speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat, El-Khoury said it was unacceptable for one group alone to be armed to fight Israel, adding that Lebanon either builds a state together or looks for other projects. While the region was moving forward with strong momentum, he said, Lebanon was moving backward.

El-Khoury said the army’s forthcoming plan to restrict weapons north of the Litani should not include multiple phases, but rather a single phase running until the end of March.

He stressed that linking implementation to the army’s capabilities and resources was misplaced.

He recalled that the strongest militia after the civil war was the Lebanese Forces, which later committed to building the state and handed over its weapons to the army, thereby eliminating the need for army deployment in areas where the group had been present.

That, he said, was what should happen today with Hezbollah.

Party Warning

Sources familiar with Hezbollah’s internal thinking told Asharq Al-Awsat that the group did not want a clash with the army, and that the army did not intend to seize weapons by force.

The warning issued by Qamati, they said, was directed at political forces pushing for disarmament by force. The sources added that the current moves were an attempt to create the right conditions to reach a consensus solution to the issue.

Remarks by Rajji

Hezbollah’s veiled threats of civil war coincided with a fierce campaign by lawmakers from the Shiite duo, Amal and Hezbollah, against Lebanese Foreign Minister Youssef Rajji.

In a televised interview, Rajji said that the ceasefire declaration approved by the government provided for Hezbollah’s weapons to be confined in return for a halt to Israeli attacks, and that as long as the weapons were not fully confined, Israel, unfortunately, had the right to continue its attacks.

Hezbollah lawmaker Ali Ammar described the remarks as dangerous, saying they required a clear and firm stance from the president and prime minister, as well as a halt to such statements, which he said inflamed internal divisions and served only to benefit the enemy.

Qassem Hashem, a member of the Development and Liberation bloc, said Rajji’s comments went beyond impropriety to justifying Israeli aggression against Lebanon, calling it a violation of sovereignty and a blow to national dignity.

He said the remarks should not pass without accountability in cabinet, and that in a fully sovereign state, the minister would be dismissed.

Another lawmaker from the bloc, Mohammed Khawaja, asked the president and prime minister whether Rajji was truly Lebanon’s foreign minister, accusing him of focusing on finding justifications for Israel.

In response, El-Khoury told Asharq Al-Awsat that Rajji’s remarks reflected the government’s position, not a personal view.

He said the agreement approved by Hezbollah listed the parties authorized to carry weapons and did not include Hezbollah, meaning that the group’s insistence on keeping its arms constituted a breach of the agreement and provided Israel with a pretext to refuse to implement its provisions.