Inside Iraq’s Shadow Economy of Parties, Militias and Oil

Cash seized from a home in connection with the case of detained official Adnan al-Jumaili (Judiciary Council)
Cash seized from a home in connection with the case of detained official Adnan al-Jumaili (Judiciary Council)
TT

Inside Iraq’s Shadow Economy of Parties, Militias and Oil

Cash seized from a home in connection with the case of detained official Adnan al-Jumaili (Judiciary Council)
Cash seized from a home in connection with the case of detained official Adnan al-Jumaili (Judiciary Council)

It was the summer of 2010. After hours of questioning, a suspect in an embezzlement case remained composed.

He sat with one leg crossed over the other, waiting for the interrogation to end so he could leave. Across the table, the investigator was running out of options.

“When will all this be over?” the suspect asked.

“When you answer all the questions,” the investigator replied.

A veteran financial auditor, the investigator believed he had enough evidence to convict a cornered embezzler. At the time, theft from the Iraqi state was spreading like water hyacinth — beginning as a small patch before covering an entire river.

The investigator pressed harder, placing evidence on the table.

“My dear, why are you tiring yourself?” the suspect said. “I have $1 million set aside to get me out of this room.”

“I do not take bribes,” the investigator replied.

“Who said it was for you?” the suspect said, appearing surprised.

Silence filled the room.

“Get some rest, my dear,” the suspect said.

The interrogation was over.

The investigator retired in 2012. The case, he said, remains open.

He now hopes a wave of arrests that began in mid-June and has swept up officials and political figures will produce a different outcome.

That interrogation offered only a narrow view into a sprawling, multibillion-dollar system. The $1 million was not merely intended to protect one suspect. It belonged to a broader protection structure built by shadow entities that have evolved into what one former official called “Iraq’s black book.”

For years, Iraqi political parties and Iran-aligned armed groups have operated what are locally known as “economic offices.” Their function is to capture part of the country’s oil wealth and channel it through government contracts and commissions into unofficial financial portfolios.

Criminalizing the system has proved difficult. Confronting it has carried a potentially high political price.

A state of economic offices

This investigation reveals how Iraq’s economic offices operate as an algorithmic system: carefully selected individuals sit at the center, surrounded by cells of government employees, contractors and businesspeople operating inside and outside Iraq.

Testimony from former investigators, officials, accountants, lawmakers and political advisers shows that the offices were designed in a way that allowed them to become self-sustaining.

Over time, they created new subsidiary offices, drawing power from armed groups and from elections — the same elections that determine who controls the state.

A rare account by an adviser familiar with government structures described how the system evolved from a primitive model that began taking shape around 2006 into a complex network that passed through three stages of growth and adaptation.

Iran benefits from the influence of these parallel financial entities, using some of the money to support the so-called Axis of Resistance, according to officials and political sources. That does not mean Tehran monopolizes the profits.

Its more important advantage, the sources said, is that the system helps conceal efforts to evade US sanctions.

The economic offices operate on two broad levels.

The first can be described as the VIP tier. It includes leaders of Shi’ite and Sunni political parties whose roles are largely confined to securing government contracts and collecting an agreed-upon share of the profits.

Implementation is left to the second, broader and more fragmented tier — the economy-class network.

Officials and political sources believe the suspects under investigation in recent weeks, along with the cash authorities say they have seized, belong mainly to this second tier.

It remains too early to say whether investigators are approaching the first’s inner circle.

On June 28, 2026, Iraqi authorities staged a dramatic show of force. Tanks and armored vehicles entered Baghdad’s fortified Green Zone as security forces raided the offices and homes of political figures and detained dozens of people.

Some Iraqi politicians described the operation as a coup.

It was given a name designed to convey both attack and spectacle: Operation Dawn Strike.

The raids that followed were quieter. Arrests continued without tanks, armored vehicles or public displays.

The investigation has centered partly on two senior officials in Iraq’s energy sector: Deputy Oil Minister for Refining Affairs Adnan al-Jumaili and Deputy Oil Minister for Distribution Affairs Ali Maarij.

Investigators and political sources believe one or both men may have served as key links in an Iranian program to smuggle oil and evade US sanctions, while also financing armed groups and election campaigns for competing political players.

When corruption carries no shame

Successive Iraqi governments have launched campaigns against the theft of public money. Journalists, former officials and politicians say none has produced lasting accountability.

The campaigns often begin with major announcements of arrests. They rarely end with convictions or reforms to the rules governing public administration.

That pattern has reinforced a widespread belief that anti-corruption drives are often designed to settle disputes among powerful factions or contain a political crisis.

A government official said the current campaign appeared different.

International actors, he said, had responded bluntly when Iraqi officials complained about the country’s financial crisis, US restrictions and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

“The money is around you. It is everywhere,” the official recalled them saying. “And it smells dirty.”

For nearly two decades, suspected corruption has carried little social stigma in Iraq.

Businesspeople surrounded by allegations are often treated like celebrities. Critics of Islamist political parties say the normalization of state theft has also been reinforced by religious opinions believed to permit the seizure of state or bank funds on the grounds that they have no known private owner.

Politicians routinely circulate wildly different estimates of how much has been stolen over the past two decades. The figures range from tens of billions to hundreds of billions of dollars.

Authorities frequently neither confirm nor challenge them.

Sadiq al-Rikabi, a London-based economist, estimates that the economic offices capture about $15.3 billion from the state budget each year.

He said dozens of intermediaries and companies have also controlled investments linked to state assets worth hundreds of billions of dollars.

The previous government of Mohammed Shia al-Sudani had operated since 2023 under a three-year budget worth about $450 billion.

Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi says he took office to find only about $1 billion in the public treasury.

Ghosts inside the ministries

The basic idea behind the party offices is strikingly simple. That simplicity is also the source of their complexity.

A party selects trusted individuals it can control. They manage financial operations that require access and influence inside official institutions, while remaining ghosts who sign no government documents.

A former investigator who left public service about a decade ago after receiving threats said some members of the networks were easy to identify.

They might belong to a party leader’s immediate family circle.

Others were chosen precisely because nobody would think to look for them.

“The driver’s wife, the cousin of a bodyguard, or the reckless teenager who causes trouble in the neighborhood,” the former investigator said. “Someone selected because he can be tempted and controlled, not because he has influence.”

Over time, the political parties accumulated a workforce with specialized skills: negotiation, knowledge of bureaucratic procedures, an understanding of market needs, access to banks and currency exchanges, and an ability to evade oversight and sanctions.

Survival skills alone are not enough to lead an economic office.

Ziad al-Hashimi, a Baghdad-based economist, said the official in charge must have extensive political and government contacts, including links to companies, ministries and directors-general.

“He can knock on the door of powerful people at any time carrying a lucrative deal,” al-Hashimi said.

Political parties compete to secure the most effective operators.

“The head of the economic office is a name that grows in the shadows,” the political adviser said. “He becomes a force that cannot be ignored, but in most cases he remains under the party leader’s cloak. The relationship between them is extremely sensitive and obscure.”

An economic office has no official title, but its authority can exceed that of a minister.

“The minister may be their employee,” said two senior members of the Coordination Framework, the Shi’ite political alliance that has underpinned successive governments.

After every election, Iraq’s parties enter negotiations that appear to concern politics, ideology and cabinet formation.

At their core, however, the talks also redraw the borders of the economic offices and determine their shares for the next four years.

Under an informal points system, parliamentary seats are converted into bargaining power for distributing ministries and senior state positions.

“From the minister’s first week in office — or the deputy minister’s or director-general’s — a team from the party’s economic office begins negotiating the ministry’s contracts,” said a former official who requested anonymity.

“If everything goes according to plan, they tell the minister: ‘Sign here.’”

It is rare, the former official said, for a government institution to award major contracts beyond the reach of the offices.

Elections, therefore, do more than form governments. They redistribute the market among political parties.

The minister and hundreds of senior appointees become, in effect, bank guards who leave the key to the vault under the door.

Al-Rikabi describes the economic offices as the undeclared financial center of Iraq’s sectarian power-sharing system.

“Their danger does not lie only in stealing public money,” he said. “It lies in the fact that they shape the Iraqi state.”

He estimates that about 40 party-linked economic networks operate through roughly 200 influence cells inside ministries, provincial councils, municipalities, banks and other institutions.

Those cells, he said, have created more than 1,000 front companies or affiliated contractors.

Businesspeople who participated in this investigation said that companies connected to party offices often engage in genuine, legitimate trade.

But genuine business opportunities, they said, are difficult to obtain without dealing with the people who control the illicit side of the market.

“Some parties created their own businesspeople,” a former lawmaker said. “They turned members of the party entourage into influential merchants.”

Other party leaders forced existing businesspeople to accept them as partners, he said.

“In the early stages, business expanded through threats.”

Two categories of businesspeople emerged from years of party control.

The first are “the party leader’s people.” They enjoy tax exemptions, exceptional privileges and unusual access to state institutions.

In return, they finance election candidates, companies and television stations that provide political services.

The second category consists of private-sector contractors who struggle to receive payments owed by the government. According to the Iraqi Contractors Federation, those unpaid obligations had reached about $28 million by 2025.

Taken together, dozens of economic offices are estimated to seize about 10% of the state budget — roughly $15 billion a year — through contractors who steer government contracts and individuals who move between the state and political parties.

That estimate does not include revenue from smuggling or the seizure of private-sector assets.

The money cycle: From hunting to institutional control

Over two decades, the flow of money through the economic offices passed through three stages.

Each brought new methods, new risks and new forms of adaptation.

In the first stage, between 2004 and 2008, proceeds from embezzlement were smuggled abroad and used to buy property, land and hotels, al-Rikabi said.

In the second stage, between 2010 and 2014, the offices began establishing local banks where stolen money could be deposited, without ending the transfer of funds overseas.

The banks acted as safe containers. They allowed money to be withdrawn through transactions that appeared semi-official and provided profits from exchange-rate differences through the central bank’s foreign-currency auction.

The third stage began after the US Treasury exposed money-laundering and smuggling methods and restrictions were imposed on banks and outward transfers.

The offices responded by creating companies designed to meet real market demand, including property developers and shopping malls. More recently, they established small factories.

Government and political sources agree that the earliest economic offices emerged during Iraq’s sectarian conflict, when armed groups realized that control over revenue was essential to sustaining war.

A former US Army officer who served in Baghdad between 2004 and 2007 described the early system as a struggle for resources among warlords.

Groups seized goods to buy weapons and recruit fighters.

A soft-drink factory, he recalled, financed a Sunni faction. On the other side of the conflict, a Shi’ite militia traded in medicine.

The system later expanded into kidnapping for ransom.

The first clearly established model appeared under the short-lived government of Ibrahim al-Jaafari and the first government of Nouri al-Maliki between 2006 and 2010.

It was crude and improvised, resembling the work of an inexperienced trader entering a large market.

Under that model, a political party seized control of a ministry’s contracts and sold them directly to companies that carried out the work in return for a share of the profits, sometimes about 30%.

Before taking office, many party cadres had spent years opposing Saddam Hussein before the US-led invasion of 2003.

When they entered state institutions for the first time, they encountered administrative procedures they had never seen and joined meetings conducted in the language of international business and government bureaucracy.

A former official recalled one senior figure who held a central position in a prime minister’s office about two decades ago.

The official, who was also a leading member of the ruling party, was helping arrange foundational meetings for the new Iraqi state.

A representative of US oil company Exxon Mobil had an appointment with the prime minister.

An hour before the meeting, the official told his colleagues that the prime minister had already met the company’s representative the previous day. Why, he asked, did Exxon Mobil need another meeting?

Confusion spread through the prime minister’s office.

How could two representatives of the same company be inside the Green Zone? Was one an impostor?

Eventually, officials discovered that the prime minister had met a representative of a mobile-phone company.

The aide had confused “mobile” with Exxon Mobil and assumed the US oil producer was also a telecommunications company.

The primitive system appeared fractured and inexperienced. It nevertheless created rules for dividing the state.

A party that controlled the Health Ministry, for example, could not easily interfere with contracts controlled by the party holding the Electricity Ministry.

In later years, the boundaries between offices and political parties began to overlap.

The early system resembled hunting without knowing the value of the prey.

“The offices were naive in the beginning,” the former official said. “They sold contracts without understanding what was in them. Some were never implemented.”

An oversight official at the Planning Ministry recalled contracts for streetlights in Baghdad’s Shula district, electrical transformers in Sadr City, public parks in Hilla and sewer networks in Mosul.

The projects existed on paper.

The infrastructure did not.

As political parties learned to navigate the bureaucracy, a second model emerged and profits increased.

Party leaders concluded that selling contracts to outside companies deprived them of larger returns.

They began creating their own companies.

Experience accumulated. The party share rose from about 30% to 50% or 60%.

But when the new companies attempted to carry out the projects themselves, problems emerged involving audits, accounting, quality and technical capacity.

Contracts stalled or were left unfinished because of theft, failure or delay, according to the political adviser.

Open-source research found that about 6,000 projects stalled between 2008 and mid-2014, when ISIS seized large areas of Iraq.

That was the period in which the first two models of the economic offices matured.

After the fighting against ISIS ended and the influence of armed factions expanded, powerful groups recognized that contracts assigned to their own companies were creating new problems.

A state bureaucracy rooted in nearly a century of administrative practice was not easy to circumvent. Audits and oversight consumed time and money.

The parties needed another model.

The algorithm of profits and costs

The third system abandoned both the direct sale of contracts for a fixed percentage and the use of party-owned companies to carry out the work.

Instead, the parties created officially registered shell companies that acted as intermediaries.

A shell company receives the government contract and negotiates with genuine specialized companies to secure the best offer.

It effectively holds an auction, awarding the contract to the company willing to provide the most favorable return.

The system does not calculate the party’s share as a percentage of the total contract value.

It calculates the expected profit by measuring the difference between the estimated cost of the work and the company’s bid.

If the projected cost of a project is $6 million and a company submits a bid worth $16 million, the expected profit is $10 million.

The parties then negotiate over the final profit figure. It may be reduced from $10 million to $9 million or $8.5 million, depending on the agreement.

Once the final figure is set, the office determines the percentage it will take.

A 35% share of a $9 million profit would produce a payment of $3.15 million.

“Most corruption case files are clean on paper,” the former investigator said. “There is no trace connecting the contracts to members of the economic offices because the documents are completed according to official procedures and the people behind the offices leave no incriminating signature.”

The judiciary, he said, now needs specialists capable of deciphering the manipulation of estimated project costs.

This mechanism largely belongs to the VIP tier and the contract-award stage.

Another stream of money emerges during implementation, through commissions divided among contractors, government offices and intermediaries waiting to fatten what one source described as “hungry cats.”

One figure in the VIP tier often believes he has been cheated: the minister or deputy minister who signs the contracts without receiving a satisfactory share.

Around that official, networks of bankers and intermediaries begin to form. Their influence grows during the implementation stage.

The political adviser described detained Deputy Oil Minister Adnan al-Jumaili as initially a marginal figure in the VIP networks controlled by party leaders.

He later became a major hub for producing subsidiary offices within the second tier.

New players then emerged to demand shares from companies that had already bought contracts from the first-tier offices and now needed approval from second-tier officials to complete the work.

A minor intermediary might tell an official: “We will give you 1% or 2%, a fixed amount or one billion dinars, depending on the agreement, in return for completing the contract.”

The company deposits money or a check with a currency exchange office.

The payment is released to the official only after the contract is completed, often following multiple administrative stages and the disbursement of government advances.

The exchange office is instructed to release the deposit only when specified individuals are present.

Intermediaries said the deposits can also take the form of checks, Chevrolet Tahoe sport utility vehicles or apartments in luxury housing developments.

The intermediaries serve as a buffer between officials and companies.

They receive the money and hold it until the conditions of the bribe are fulfilled. In some cases, the intermediary also owns the exchange office.

By preventing direct contact between the government official and the company, they reduce the risk to both.

Over time, however, the intermediaries became powerful enough to create a new class of wealthy operators.

In recent years, financial players have emerged within the shadows of the second tier who can be described as “treasurers of bribes.”

Some became well known in the local market despite appearing to come from nowhere.

Cross-checked accounts identified two brothers, Hassan and Mohammed al-Kurdi, among the best known.

They are widely rumored to have left Iraq carrying about $500 million connected to the al-Jumaili case.

The Iraqi judiciary has made no public statement about the brothers.

Media outlets have circulated dramatic stories about them without producing evidence. Some reports said they traveled through Iraq with dozens of armed guards while distributing money.

Unconfirmed accounts now place them between Greece and France.

The “genetic mutation”

Government sources describe al-Jumaili and his extensive network as a “genetic mutation” in the evolution of the economic offices.

He began as an ordinary Oil Ministry employee and rose through the ranks at the Baiji refinery complex north of Baghdad, which later became the center of his influence.

In 2023, an influential Sunni party negotiated with Shi’ite allies in the Coordination Framework over the post of director of the Northern Refineries Company, which oversees Baiji.

The position went to al-Jumaili, who had already advanced under the protection of an influential Shi’ite faction, according to several sources.

Within a year, he became a deputy oil minister.

Within two years, he had received extensive authority over contracts.

From that point, the sources said, al-Jumaili found a financial mine in Baiji.

He was one of five officials who formed what a former official described as a board of directors for the refineries’ economic network. One of the five provided security protection for the others.

Led by al-Jumaili, the office became a distributor of services to multiple political parties.

Contracts were awarded to different factions. Money was disbursed without projects being completed. Much of the activity involved the Baiji refinery complex.

Al-Jumaili became useful to everyone — Shi’ite and Sunni political forces alike.

Then, a former oil official said, “unbelievable atrocities” occurred.

Baiji produces about 150,000 barrels of petroleum products a day, roughly half its capacity, because of damage sustained during ISIS’s occupation.

After the facility was recovered in 2017, it became a battleground among Shi’ite factions that said they had helped liberate it.

Local groups also emerged around the complex, taking part in fuel smuggling and competing for production contracts.

In one contract managed by al-Jumaili’s network, according to security personnel and former officials, the facility bought pumps and compressors from Romania for about $450 million.

The equipment was incompatible with the refinery’s infrastructure.

“It arrived in Baiji already out of service because of its age,” a former oil official said. “It was supposed to help produce white gasoline, which was later found not to meet specifications.”

Employees said the equipment was taken into a workshop, painted and presented as new.

“It was left on the side because it did not work,” one employee said.

As suspicions increased, drones struck the Baiji facility and destroyed the site containing the equipment.

Local authorities said the attack, believed to have occurred in July 2025, caused no casualties.

The Oil Ministry and refinery management did not confirm the Romanian contract or whether the drone strike destroyed the pumps.

Energy-sector officials who requested anonymity confirmed that the contract had been awarded.

One said the equipment had been purchased to replace production units that were smuggled out under unclear circumstances after the battles against ISIS and later taken to an unknown location.

Al-Jumaili’s blue notebook

A former oil official said al-Jumaili approved about $4 billion in contracts for the northern refineries from 2023 onward, including equipment that did not meet the specifications of Iraqi oil facilities.

The scale of the operation reflected a wider change in Iraq’s political balance.

The political adviser said al-Jumaili became an alternative economic office for a political alliance that was rising rapidly during the most recent elections.

The alliance had little previous experience managing economic offices before the formation of Mohammed Shia al-Sudani’s government.

Politicians said al-Jumaili received handwritten requests from the alliance’s leader to finance election campaigns for its candidates.

One political source said some requests reached 150 million Iraqi dinars. Other accounts placed individual requests at 200 million or 500 million dinars.

A source with direct knowledge said al-Jumaili recorded the requests in a blue notebook.

A judicial source said the notebook is now evidence that investigators are using to track money, names and networks.

Iraq’s whales in an oil pond

Iraq has only one sea: oil.

Its political groups learned to swim in it. As armed factions multiplied and state budgets rose into billions of dollars, the swimmers became crocodiles in a black pond.

“Iraq sells its oil twice officially,” a former minister said. “And once through smuggling networks.”

The smuggling of heavy fuel oil — known locally as black oil — is the shadow trade connecting overlapping networks of economic offices.

The fuel is used directly in power plants and industrial furnaces. It can also be refined or treated to produce petroleum products, particularly diesel.

The government allocates quantities of heavy fuel oil for sale in the domestic market, especially to asphalt plants.

Depending on the pricing policy adopted by successive administrations, the fuel has been sold for between $100 and $250 a metric ton.

Documented testimony indicates that a smuggling network overseen by an alliance of economic offices linked to factions and parties in the Coordination Framework, together with forces in the Sunni Political Council, diverts some of the fuel to regional ports through intermediaries.

Another portion is mixed with Iranian fuel oil and exported using Iraqi documents.

Two sources and a former Oil Ministry official estimated that this “double smuggling” generated about $2.6 billion a year for the economic offices between 2023 and 2025.

During that period, the number of licenses issued to asphalt plants increased as authorities reduced the price of a ton of fuel oil from $250 to $100.

Officials who held office during that period declined to comment before publication.

The offices carry out two operations simultaneously.

They exaggerate the fuel requirements of genuine asphalt plants to secure excess supplies.

They also buy state-subsidized fuel on behalf of fictitious plants that exist only on paper.

Three sources said the fuel that does not reach local plants is moved through intermediaries and companies to Iraqi ports for loading.

One source said a regional port had designated a refinery to receive smuggled Iraqi heavy fuel oil.

Successive governments have failed to stop the trade.

A handful of former ministers attempted to curb it by raising the state price.

The battle for the Oil Ministry

A politician in the Coordination Framework said the competing interests of the economic offices shape political negotiations after elections.

The parties engineer appointments connected to the oil sector, place intermediaries in strategic positions and rotate them through the ministry.

That, another Coordination Framework leader said, explains the “ferocious battle” for control of the institution.

The networks do not limit themselves to petroleum products such as fuel oil.

They also operate in the crude oil trade.

Sources familiar with the sector described business relationships between Iraqi officials and companies linked to Khatam al-Anbiya, the engineering arm of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards.

The relationships, the sources said, were used to facilitate the export of Iranian oil under official Iraqi documents.

In May 2026, the United States imposed sanctions on Deputy Oil Minister Ali Maarij, along with leaders of the Iran-aligned Asaib Ahl al-Haq movement.

US authorities accused Maarij of exploiting his position to redirect Iraqi oil and sell it for Iran’s benefit, enabling Iranian and Iraqi oil to be blended and providing documents that helped market the mixture.

Maarij was among the officials detained by Iraqi forces under an arrest warrant in June 2026.

Investigators believe he is one of the officials Iran relied upon to evade US sanctions.

How Iran ultimately receives the money generated by the sale of oil through Iraqi channels remains one of the investigation’s black holes.

A former investigator and a retired accountant who worked in the Planning and Finance ministries said they had spent years questioning apparently valid disbursement orders drawn from the state budget.

The documents appeared legal.

The money disappeared.

They suspect some of it was transferred secretly to Iran.

No evidence has emerged to prove that claim, and Iraqi officials said finding such evidence would be extremely difficult.

“Some resistance leaders behave like Americans”

The Revolutionary Guards are unlikely to exercise total control over the formation of Iraq’s economic offices.

But Iraqi politicians and former officials say Iran has exploited its influence and invested alongside them.

Two Shi’ite politicians said Iran operates economic offices of its own.

In recent years, businesspeople and companies affiliated with the Revolutionary Guards have entered the Iraqi market and secured contracts with significant privileges.

Lebanese businesspeople also operated in the hotel and healthcare sectors on behalf of Hezbollah, according to political sources.

A former member of the Shi’ite alliance said the Lebanese group determined which merchants were permitted to operate in Iraq based on loyalty and commissions.

Iran, he said, could trust that Hezbollah’s investments in Iraq would ultimately benefit the Axis of Resistance.

It could not, however, keep pace with the greed of some of its Iraqi allies.

Revolutionary Guards commanders, he said, compared Iraqi faction leaders who had accumulated sudden and enormous wealth to Americans in their habits.

Some Guards figures were nevertheless impressed by the Iraqi model.

They created financial networks and developed relationships with party offices, blurring the boundary between the work of the “resistance” and the commerce that flourished in its shadow.

Official Iran also benefits from its close economic relationship with Iraq.

Iranian exports to the country rose from about $4.5 billion in 2018 to $11.2 billion in 2025, according to customs data. The figure includes electricity and gas exports.

The shadow offices provide additional benefits.

A former lawmaker said Iranian officials collected money from Iraqi party leaders as though imposing a levy to finance members of the Axis of Resistance.

Revolutionary Guards officials would call Iraqi political leaders and ask them to prepare millions of dollars for representatives of Hamas or Yemen’s Houthis, the former lawmaker said.

“The call would come: ‘Hajji, prepare $5 million. Someone will come to your office to collect it.’”

The Revolutionary Guards also used its influence to improve the election prospects of allied Iraqi candidates.

By cross-checking sources and testimony, the investigation found that Iranian officers withdrew about $15 million from the economic offices between August and November 2025 to finance selected candidates.

Party leaders rarely rejected the requests, the former lawmaker said.

During the latest war between the United States and Iran, Iraqis began asking what would happen to their economy as the country entered a severe financial crisis.

The closure of the Strait of Hormuz was not the only cause.

Iranian influence and the economic offices had also played intertwined roles.

“It was like small whales eating from the belly of a larger whale,” said a former oversight official who left Iraq in 2018 after receiving threats.

“The large whale is now sick.”

“Operation Dawn Strike” to reassemble Iraq

Iraqi media have been filled with images of cash discovered in homes, farms, underground hiding places and even drainage channels.

The former investigator said much of the money had little value to the suspects while it remained outside the formal economy.

It had failed to enter the market and had not been converted into assets.

“The money recovered its value when the state recovered it,” he said.

Al-Hashimi said the suspects likely kept large quantities of cash because the money was difficult to declare or move through official channels under increasing surveillance.

Without legitimate documents, it could not be laundered easily.

The most plausible explanation, he said, was that the economic offices needed liquidity to pay bribes, commissions and possibly protection money, while coordinating with local and regional actors and competing offices.

“Cash makes it far easier to complete tasks that require rapid, direct payments,” he said.

Despite the large sums authorities say they have recovered, former lawmaker Sajad, who spent years opposing the influence of armed factions, doubts that Operation Dawn Strike will reach the highest levels.

Many observers question whether detaining intermediaries will produce a lasting result given the size and complexity of the networks.

A former investigative judge said the economic offices had accumulated so many layers of adaptation and deception that some defendants did not understand their own position in the wider structure.

“They are individuals operating in a complex chain that ends with a party leader or a group of leaders,” he said.

Salem, another source familiar with the investigations, said the authorities were pursuing the tools of the economic offices, not dismantling the offices’ infrastructure.

A source who requested anonymity offered a more optimistic assessment.

The case is complex, he said, but it can be solved because the intermediaries — although not the final link — hold the keys to the upper layers of the network.

So far, the announced arrests have remained concentrated in the second tier.

They have not reached the most senior operators.

That has led some officials to believe the campaign is intended partly to reassemble a pool of cash to address the financial crisis and meet state obligations, including public-sector salaries.

There are signs, however, that the operation could move higher.

On July 12, 2026, local media reported that a security force raided the Baghdad home of former Labor and Social Affairs Minister Ahmed al-Asadi.

He was not present during the raid.

The Supreme Judicial Council made no public statement about al-Asadi.

Any attempt to detain him would bring the campaign closer to a higher tier of political influence.

Al-Asadi leads the Jund al-Imam faction within the Popular Mobilization Forces and is a member of the governing Coordination Framework.

Al-Rikabi said the focus should not remain confined to individual suspects.

Authorities must instead reform the financial and administrative system through which money flows and redesign the path of state revenue.

Even maximum pressure from the United States or another foreign power cannot directly destroy the economic offices, he said.

Prime Minister al-Zaidi made major commitments to Washington during his visit in mid-July.

The US administration’s objective, according to the Iraqi adviser, is to separate the economic offices from the state far enough to deprive Iran of Iraqi resources.

That helps answer a central question: Which corruption is the government targeting?

Al-Zaidi’s challenge is not simply how to begin the campaign, but how to end it.

The operation requires international support, which al-Rikabi said the prime minister has obtained.

It also requires judicial momentum, which he said is now present.

Destroying the structure, however, will require political courage and careful management to avoid confronting every powerful faction at once.

The economic offices have repeatedly adapted to Iraq’s changing conditions and needs.

For now, Operation Dawn Strike is moving through the network’s outer limbs without reaching the algorithm at its center.

Eliminating the entire system in a single assault would shock the foundations of Iraq’s political order.

The campaign instead appears to be pushing the country toward a new internal balance of power, driven by forces emerging from outside the Coordination Framework.

For Washington, the likely result would be greater room to redraw the limits of Iranian influence and clear a safer space for future investment.



Can One Security Force Implement Resolution 1701 and the Framework Agreement in Southern Lebanon?

A UNIFIL military vehicle patrols the southern Lebanese town of Ibl al-Saqi (AFP)
A UNIFIL military vehicle patrols the southern Lebanese town of Ibl al-Saqi (AFP)
TT

Can One Security Force Implement Resolution 1701 and the Framework Agreement in Southern Lebanon?

A UNIFIL military vehicle patrols the southern Lebanese town of Ibl al-Saqi (AFP)
A UNIFIL military vehicle patrols the southern Lebanese town of Ibl al-Saqi (AFP)

Countries involved in Lebanon are considering a security force to replace the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) when its mandate expires at year-end.

The force would support the Lebanese army in implementing agreements and international resolutions in southern Lebanon. But can a new force enforce both UN Security Council Resolution 1701 and the US-brokered framework agreement between Lebanon and Israel?

Talks have produced broad agreement on the need for such a force, but its composition, mandate, operating procedures and participating countries remain undecided.

The uncertainty was reflected in a statement by Group of Seven foreign ministers after their Nov. 9-10 meeting in Paris. They called for a robust, credible, and long-lasting security architecture in Lebanon to support the Lebanese Armed Forces, in line with Resolution 1701 and to advance implementation of the Trilateral Framework.

No further agreements were announced.

US envoy to visit Beirut

Attention now turns to a visit to Beirut on Monday by US Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz, who is due to meet with President Joseph Aoun.

Recent media reports suggest Washington is moving to replace UNIFIL in southern Lebanon with a verification committee and substitute the framework agreement for Resolution 1701.

The resolution ended a 33-day war between Israel and Hezbollah in 2006. Its main provisions included an Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon and the deployment of additional UN troops to monitor the cessation of hostilities alongside the Lebanese army.

Lebanon, Israel and the United States signed the Trilateral Framework Agreement in Washington on June 26, setting out a phased process to end the conflict and restore Lebanese sovereignty over the country's entire territory.

Under the agreement, the Lebanese army would gradually assume security control of designated "pilot zones" as non-state armed groups are disarmed and their military infrastructure dismantled, paving the way for a phased Israeli withdrawal.

The agreement also calls for a US-backed military coordination group to oversee and verify implementation.

It remains unclear whether separate international forces would replace UNIFIL and oversee the framework agreement, whether the two mandates could be merged, or whether Resolution 1701 would be dropped in favor of the agreement, with a single force assigned to implement it.

'Complicated' transition

A diplomatic source described the situation as "complicated," saying the current transition differs from the circumstances surrounding Resolution 1701.

At the time, a new military and political reality had emerged that the parties sought to preserve, the source told Asharq Al-Awsat.

Today, the source said, the mandate, powers, composition and operating procedures of any force replacing UNIFIL remain unclear.

The framework agreement also presents a legal obstacle.

"It is an understanding between three parties and cannot be imposed on the international community or assumed to have its automatic endorsement," the source said.

Turning it into a Security Council resolution would be difficult, the source added, because some member states could object.

Israel's position

Israel appears reluctant to accept a new international force to replace UNIFIL, which it accuses of having allowed Hezbollah to expand toward its border.

According to details emerging from recent negotiations over the framework agreement's implementation, Israel wants direct oversight of efforts to verify that the pilot zones are free of Hezbollah weapons and military infrastructure.

It favors a mechanism giving it a continuing monitoring and operational role rather than relying on reports from an independent international body.

Fundamental differences

Military and strategic expert Brigadier General Khalil Helou said UNIFIL's departure would render Resolution 1701 meaningless, effectively allowing the framework agreement to take its place.

"Resolution 1701 contains clear provisions and has a legal dimension, unlike the US-sponsored framework agreement, which requires negotiations to implement each of its provisions," Helou told Asharq Al-Awsat.

Merging the two would therefore be difficult, he said.

The framework agreement also makes no provision for foreign forces to implement it. Instead, it outlines understandings between Lebanon and Israel, with a military annex setting out reciprocal steps, he added.

Legal obstacles

Legally, a single force could implement both Resolution 1701 and the framework agreement. But constitutional and legal expert Adel Yamin said the nature of its mandate would pose further obstacles.

"Verifying disarmament is more intrusive than providing conventional support to the army," Yamin told Asharq Al-Awsat.

Such a mission could require clearer rules of engagement, raising questions about the host state's consent, he said.

Yamin also cited reports that Israel opposed an international force including French troops and that Washington considered Resolution 1701 obsolete, favoring the framework agreement as a basis for direct communication between the Lebanese and Israeli militaries.

One option, he said, would be a UN force or mission to implement Resolution 1701 alongside a multinational mechanism to oversee the framework agreement.

But that would risk overlapping powers and conflicting reports.

UN umbrella for framework agreement

International efforts are also being discussed to bring the framework agreement under UN auspices, potentially superseding Resolution 1701.

Yamin outlined several legal routes.

One would be to register the agreement with the UN Secretariat under Article 102 of the UN Charter, provided it qualifies as a treaty.

Registration would not give the agreement effective UN backing but would allow it to be invoked before UN bodies, he said.

Another option would be for the parties to send identical letters seeking Security Council endorsement, followed by a presidential statement or resolution welcoming the agreement.

The council could also endorse the agreement and annex it to a resolution, or establish a new force or expand an existing mandate to implement it, following the model of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF).

But Yamin warned that UN backing would be a double-edged sword.

It would internationalize Israel's withdrawal obligations rather than leave them dependent solely on US guarantees. At the same time, it would place Lebanon's commitments to bring weapons under exclusive state control under tighter international scrutiny.

Yamin also cautioned against incorporating into a UN resolution any provisions that could cast doubt on Israel's obligation to withdraw immediately from Lebanon.

Such provisions should not gain international legal cover, he said, arguing that any clause undermining Lebanon's sovereignty or territorial integrity would violate both the UN Charter and the Lebanese Constitution and would be automatically void.


Saudi Arabia in Times of Crisis: Three Centuries of Sovereignty and Independent Decision-Making

Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Salman bin Abdulaziz and Saudi Crown Prince and Prime Minister Mohammed bin Salman (SPA)
Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Salman bin Abdulaziz and Saudi Crown Prince and Prime Minister Mohammed bin Salman (SPA)
TT

Saudi Arabia in Times of Crisis: Three Centuries of Sovereignty and Independent Decision-Making

Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Salman bin Abdulaziz and Saudi Crown Prince and Prime Minister Mohammed bin Salman (SPA)
Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Salman bin Abdulaziz and Saudi Crown Prince and Prime Minister Mohammed bin Salman (SPA)

Anyone who traces the history of the modern Saudi state will recognize that the threats and challenges it faces today are not fundamentally new, even if their methods and circumstances have changed. For three centuries, Saudi Arabia has upheld its sovereignty and independence in decision-making.

From the earliest stages of unification, King Abdulaziz bin Abdulrahman faced internal and external challenges as he built the state. Among the most dangerous were those that arose between 1927 and 1934, when domestic rebellions became intertwined with foreign threats, nearly plunging the country into crises on several fronts.

These included the rebellion of certain Ikhwan leaders who had previously been among the most prominent participants in the country's unification. Their disagreements with King Abdulaziz, rooted in their misguided interpretations of religious matters, the authority of the state, control over military raids and relations with neighboring countries, eventually escalated into armed confrontation. The conflict culminated in the Battle of Sabilla in 1929, before the rebellion was finally suppressed in 1930.

In the northern Hejaz, Hamid bin Rafadah led a rebellion in 1932 that was linked to opposition activities and backed by outside parties.

The south witnessed an Idrisi rebellion that same year, aimed at restoring the family's former influence. The rebels exploited border disputes with Yemen and received support from Imam Yahya, developments that later contributed to the Saudi-Yemeni War of 1934.

King Abdulaziz bin Abdulrahman (Asharq Al-Awsat)

Early Threats

The danger posed by these crises lay not only in their succession and occasional overlap, but also in their geographical reach, extending from the country's central and eastern regions to its northern and southern borders.

Tribal, political and religious motivations became entangled with the calculations of neighboring powers.

These events unfolded as Italy competed with Britain for influence in the Red Sea. Rome supported Imam Yahya's activities, opposed Saudi sovereignty over territories formerly controlled by the Idrisis and backed their rebellion, despite the signing of the Saudi-Italian Treaty of Friendship in February 1932.

King Abdulaziz, however, did not consider these developments sufficient grounds for severing relations.

While responding decisively with military force to the rebellion and Imam Yahya's actions once peaceful options had been exhausted, he also pursued diplomacy to neutralize external parties and subsequently settled disputes through treaties designed to preserve the state's stability.

He thus succeeded in overcoming one of the most complex periods in the Kingdom's formative history.

At the time, the emerging state faced the simultaneous challenges of consolidating its authority at home and securing recognition of its borders, sovereignty and independent decision-making abroad, while colonial powers competed for influence across the region.

King Abdulaziz confronted other challenges and crises in an exceptionally complicated regional and international environment.

What distinguished his political approach, however, was his ability to understand the balance of power and benefit from international relations without allowing those relationships to compromise his freedom of decision or undermine the state's fundamental interests.

These events illustrate a policy that distinguishes between managing disagreements and protecting national interests.

Differences with an international power need not result in severing relations, just as maintaining relations with that power does not require surrendering rights or sovereignty.

That approach continued under successive kings as state institutions developed and foreign relations expanded.

Over time, successive experiences helped build a body of expertise in crisis management that extended beyond wars and security threats to encompass economic disruptions, political transformations, waves of terrorism and other crises.

Each brought challenges that required the development of national institutions, systems and capabilities.

It is therefore nothing new for Saudi Arabia to face political and security threats involving overlapping regional and international interests, or challenges whose objectives and consequences extend beyond the immediate incidents through which they emerge.

Throughout the nearly three-century history of the Saudi state, it has experienced various forms of conflict and attempts to influence its decisions and positions.

The sources and methods of these threats have changed, but protecting national security and preserving independent decision-making have remained fundamental principles of Saudi policy.

The Current Attacks

The developments unfolding in the region today, including attacks against Saudi Arabia by the terrorist Houthi militia and other groups, together with the accompanying international positions and media commentary, require a broader understanding of the situation.

These incidents cannot be assessed solely through their immediate military consequences.

An attack on a civilian facility or critical infrastructure, however serious, may be one manifestation of a wider crisis involving several parties whose interests and objectives differ, even if their positions sometimes produce similar outcomes.

The attacks targeting Saudi cities in recent weeks offer an example of the nature of these challenges.

Threats have extended to airports and civilian and economic facilities, with consequences reaching beyond physical damage and defense costs.

They have also involved attempts to disrupt transportation, economic activity and the public's sense of security and stability.

Understanding these attacks therefore requires examining more than the weapons used. It also calls for assessing their political objectives and the potential pressure they seek to exert beyond the battlefield.

The broader political environment surrounding such incidents deserves close scrutiny, particularly when security threats form part of a wider situation involving economic interests, international alliances and political choices.

Historically, the challenges facing Saudi Arabia have not been exclusively military or political.

At various times, some parties have sought to exploit the Kingdom's religious standing and its responsibilities toward the Two Holy Mosques for political purposes, despite the principle that religious rituals and sacred sites should remain outside political conflicts.

Certain actors have attempted to undermine Saudi Arabia's standing and its service to the Two Holy Mosques by turning these responsibilities into instruments of political pressure.

Terrorist attacks against Saudi security can also be understood from this perspective, particularly when they involve areas or facilities connected to services for Hajj and Umrah pilgrims and other visitors.

Examples include missile attacks targeting the Makkah and Madinah regions and attacks on King Khalid International Airport.

Allies' Calculations

Setting aside the religious and moral dimensions, and recognizing these attacks as forms of military and security threats, the political and international developments surrounding them reveal another layer of complexity in the crises states confront.

Strategic relationships, however strong and deeply rooted, do not guarantee permanent alignment of interests and positions.

Partners may differ in their assessments of the nature of a threat, the appropriate means of confronting it or the extent of the support they are prepared to provide.

This does not diminish the importance of the alliances Saudi Arabia has built over many decades.

Those relationships have contributed to political, economic and defense cooperation and remain an important component of the Kingdom's foreign policy.

But partnership, in political terms, does not mean surrendering freedom of decision. Nor do differing calculations during a particular crisis eliminate the shared interests on which relations between states are founded.

Here lies one of the most complicated challenges.

A country may face a security threat that requires cooperation with its partners while simultaneously confronting political choices or arrangements whose consequences and duration extend far beyond addressing that immediate threat.

This dilemma may emerge in two directions.

An adversary may seek, by attacking civilian facilities, to push Riyadh toward settlements that do not serve its interests or to use Saudi Arabia as a means of relieving pressure on other parties.

Conversely, others may seek to draw the Kingdom into a broader regional conflict whose scope and conclusion it cannot determine on its own.

Independent decision-making means rejecting both possibilities.

Under such circumstances, preserving the freedom to make sovereign decisions becomes an essential part of crisis management.

The need to confront an immediate danger must not become a reason to accept strategic commitments that are not justified by national interests.

The point is that managing crises in a world of intertwined interests involves more than confronting adversaries.

It also requires managing differences with partners, maintaining a range of options and avoiding dependence on the calculations of any single party, regardless of the importance of that relationship.

Media Pressure

Alongside these developments, various analyses and arguments have emerged concerning the attacks and threats facing Saudi Arabia.

Some link them to the future of the Kingdom's economic and development projects, its ability to maintain stability and attract investment and tourism, or the implications for its international relationships and political choices.

It is natural for these issues to attract attention from the media and research centers.

Saudi Arabia's religious, political and economic significance, its extensive economic and development transformation, and the secure and stable environment required by its major projects make attacks on airports and critical infrastructure particularly newsworthy.

Yet some interpretations, especially in the media, tend to focus on the immediate scale of the threats before drawing conclusions about the Saudi government's ability to preserve its political and strategic choices.

Such assessments often fail to give sufficient weight to the historical experience of the Saudi state and its institutions, or to the resources, capabilities and international relationships at its disposal.

This tendency is evident in analyses that treat security attacks as a direct indication that the state's options are narrowing.

Others assume that escalating threats will inevitably compel Saudi Arabia to adjust its political positions according to what other parties consider appropriate responses to the crisis.

The problem is not in examining these possibilities, which is a legitimate part of analysis, but in treating them as inevitable outcomes.

It is equally problematic to measure a state's capacity to manage a crisis solely by the damage it sustains during a particular period.

Political history offers no basis for assuming that states necessarily change their strategic choices whenever they encounter military or economic challenges.

Likewise, maintaining a particular political position does not mean ignoring changing circumstances or refusing to reconsider the methods used to achieve national objectives.

King Faisal bin Abdulaziz (Asharq Al-Awsat)

The Limits of Coercion

An important distinction must be drawn between the ability to inflict damage and the ability to dictate decisions.

An armed terrorist group may succeed in threatening critical infrastructure or disrupting certain activities, but that does not mean it has acquired the power to determine the political choices of the state it targets.

Nor does producing an economic or media impact necessarily amount to achieving strategic objectives.

One of the defining features of Saudi Arabia's experience is that crisis management is no longer confined to a limited set of options or temporary responses.

As state institutions have developed, crisis management has become a coordinated effort involving multiple agencies, each with its own responsibilities and areas of expertise.

This enables the state to address crises across their security, economic, social and political dimensions.

Elements of this accumulated expertise have been demonstrated throughout Saudi history.

The relevant question is not how many crises the Kingdom has faced, but how it has overcome them and continued its course while political systems elsewhere changed, balances of power shifted and the calculations of major powers proved mistaken.

Consider, for example, the 1960s, when Saudi Arabia confronted one of the most dangerous and perhaps most complicated crises in its modern history.

An internal struggle over the monarchy, which ended with King Faisal assuming power in 1964, coincided with the rise of Nasserism and the ideological conflict sweeping the Arab world.

The confrontation extended beyond media campaigns and political incitement.

The Kingdom experienced attacks along its borders, as well as a wave of bombings and sabotage targeting security, military and oil installations.

These included the Trans-Arabian Pipeline, known as Tapline, and sites in Riyadh, Dammam and Khamis Mushait.

There were also attempts to infiltrate the military establishment and plot coups.

Saudi leaders confronted these dangers while reorganizing the institutions of government and the state, building military and security capabilities, and continuing development projects.

They did so within international alliances that offered no absolute guarantees, and amid repeated political efforts to contain the war in Yemen that did not always succeed.

Throughout these challenges, independent Saudi decision-making remained a consistent policy.

An example of this approach to external pressure and security threats can be found in a US diplomatic document dated August 11, 1965.

According to the document, Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz, then Minister of Defense and Aviation, summoned Talcott W. Seelye, the US chargé d'affaires in Jeddah, to a meeting attended by Saudi Deputy Foreign Minister Mohammed Ibrahim Masoud.

Acting on King Faisal's instructions, Prince Sultan outlined the threats facing Saudi territory.

When the American side made the deployment of fighter aircraft to help deter attacks conditional on specific requirements, Prince Sultan responded decisively that Riyadh did not want American assistance if it came with such conditions.

This did not represent a rejection of cooperation with Washington.

Rather, it was a refusal to allow a request for military support to become a constraint on Saudi political decision-making, even in the face of direct threats to national security.

Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz (Asharq Al-Awsat)

The Arab defeat in June 1967 subsequently transformed the regional balance of power.

Yet King Faisal did not treat the weakened position of his former adversaries as an opportunity to settle scores.

Instead, he moved beyond the dispute with Egypt and contributed to supporting it in the aftermath of the war.

This is what makes that period significant.

Saudi Arabia confronted threats to its security, borders, political stability and economic interests, but managed those challenges without allowing them to undermine the state's unity or stability.

Indeed, it emerged with greater strength and standing.

The crises of the 1970s followed, including the Iranian Revolution, the seizure of the Grand Mosque in Makkah and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

These developments confronted the Kingdom with security and ideological challenges, as well as strategic transformations whose consequences would endure for decades.

They were followed by the Iran-Iraq War and the pressures of the 1980s, which tested the Saudi economy's ability to sustain development spending amid economic and security challenges.

Alliances Put to the Test

Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 posed an equally serious crisis.

Saudi Arabia faced a direct military threat to its borders and oil installations, ballistic missile attacks against cities and critical infrastructure, and an Iraqi incursion into the city of Khafji.

The Kingdom also encountered political pressure arising from divisions within the Arab world and the repercussions of bringing in international forces to liberate Kuwait.

Economically, the Saudi treasury bore the costs of the war, hosting military forces and supporting affected countries, with expenditures estimated at approximately $55 billion.

The budget deficit rose to 17% of gross domestic product in 1991.

The threats became severe enough to force the closure of several airports, including those in Riyadh and Dhahran, the suspension of civilian flights and the imposition of military restrictions on Saudi airspace.

These measures were not evidence that the state was incapable of protecting its skies.

They were responses to exceptional wartime circumstances, a distinction that must be remembered when assessing current threats.

This applies particularly to the suspension of operations at King Khalid International Airport, without confusing the existence of a threat with the ability to confront it.

The challenges did not end with Kuwait's liberation.

Security and financial commitments continued, while the consequences of the war placed pressure on government spending and development for years afterward.

Liberating Kuwait ended the occupation, but it did not eliminate the financial burdens borne by Riyadh or the political and security repercussions of the conflict.

The Kingdom was therefore confronting more than a war on its borders.

It faced a test of its ability to protect national security, manage alliances and shoulder the burdens of regional stability without losing its internal cohesion.

Confronting Terrorism

The September 11, 2001, attacks placed Riyadh in the midst of one of its most complicated political and media crises.

Its relationship with Washington faced an unprecedented test, accompanied by campaigns casting doubt on Saudi Arabia and pressure for reform and change.

These developments coincided with an international war on terrorism that soon reached Saudi territory through terrorist attacks targeting the state's security, facilities, citizens and residents.

The consequences of the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 were no less serious.

The regional balance of power was disrupted, creating greater opportunities for Iranian influence.

Amid these developments, concepts such as "creative chaos" and the "New Middle East" gained prominence, while maps emerged proposing the redrawing of regional borders, including the partition of Saudi Arabia itself.

Yet the state that confronted terrorism at home and political and media pressure abroad did not allow these crises to dictate its choices.

It preserved its stability and territorial integrity while the wider region continued for years to bear the costs of wars and attempts to reshape its political landscape.

Arab Transformations

The events of the so-called Arab Spring in 2011 brought a different set of challenges.

These were not merely protests that toppled Arab governments, but transformations that threatened regional balances, opened the door to internal conflicts and foreign interventions, and facilitated the rise of extremist organizations.

Saudi leaders faced unrest in Bahrain, a gradual political and security collapse in Yemen, political transformations in Egypt, and wars in Syria and Libya.

There were also attempts to exploit those events to foment unrest inside Saudi Arabia.

The Kingdom had to confront the consequences of these transformations, preserve its own security and stability, and support stability in other Arab countries while regional alliances and balances of power were being reshaped.

The striking aspect was not merely that Saudi Arabia weathered this wave of upheaval.

It also came to shoulder part of the political, security and economic burdens left by crises across its Arab neighborhood.

If Saudi Arabia, with fewer resources at its disposal, managed to overcome those challenges while preserving its stability and independent political decision-making, it is today better equipped to confront new threats under the leadership of Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Salman bin Abdulaziz and Crown Prince and Prime Minister Mohammed bin Salman.

The Kingdom now possesses greater capabilities, stronger institutions and extensive international alliances.

What some analyses overlook is that the existence of a threat does not necessarily indicate weakness on the part of the state.

Nor does the reluctance of some partners to become directly involved undermine this argument. On the contrary, it reinforces it.

Such reluctance offers practical evidence that a country's security cannot be left to the calculations of others, and that even the strongest partnerships remain subject to each partner's priorities and domestic considerations.

A state confident in its capabilities does not base its decisions on waiting for support that may arrive or be delayed.

It relies instead on its own resources and uses international relationships to expand its options, not as substitutes for them.

Recalling these historical experiences is not intended to equate different crises.

Each has its own characteristics and requires its own methods of response.

The point is to demonstrate that accumulated expertise in crisis management depends on understanding the various consequences of a crisis rather than addressing only one of its manifestations, while preserving the ability of the state and its institutions to fulfill their responsibilities.

This explains why current attacks must be addressed within a comprehensive strategy that is not confined to military retaliation.

Military action should instead form part of a coordinated set of political, diplomatic, economic and security measures serving national interests.

The Saudi state understands that it is not immune to challenges and that past achievements do not eliminate the need to prepare for the future.

It also bears responsibility for protecting its security, citizens and residents, and for assessing the consequences of its decisions.

This is particularly important when the region faces the possibility of a widening conflict involving multiple parties, with repercussions that could extend well beyond the immediate confrontation.

Perhaps the most important lesson of the Saudi experience is that independent decision-making cannot be secured merely by declaring it.

It requires the ability to choose, a range of alternatives, coordination among state institutions and balanced foreign relations, so that confronting one crisis does not create other, more complicated crises.

Here I emphasize once again that, amid the transformations taking place in the world today, the pressures facing states are no longer limited to direct military threats.

Economic, political and media considerations may become intertwined with those threats.

Managing relations with partners, maintaining confidence in the economy and protecting critical infrastructure have therefore become integral elements of national security.

Enduring Principles, Multiple Options

With its long history of navigating regional and international transformations, and the religious, political and economic responsibilities it carries, Riyadh understands that confronting challenges does not mean simply reacting to the accelerating pace of events.

It means retaining the ability to assess interests and risks and to choose the means of achieving national objectives without compromising the state's fundamental principles.

Over the decades, the sources of threats and methods of pressure have changed.

The interests of countries and alliances have shifted, and challenges unknown to previous generations have emerged.

Yet one principle has remained constant throughout the Saudi state's experience: its security, stability and independence in decision-making are responsibilities that cannot be left to the judgment of others, however important its relationships and shared interests with them may be.

Circumstances may change, methods of pressure may multiply, and the positions of adversaries and partners may diverge.

But sovereignty, at its core, remains a state's ability to preserve its freedom of decision and choose what it considers consistent with its interests and responsibilities, rather than what others seek to impose on it under the pressure of crises.


Where Does Eisenkot Stand Among Israel's Generals-Turned-Politicians?

A tank mounted on a military truck passes an election campaign poster featuring Gadi Eisenkot, leader of the centrist Yashar ("Straight") party, ahead of Israel's general election in Kiryat Shmona, near the border with Lebanon in northern Israel, Tuesday, Oct. 20, 2026. (AP Photo/Ariel Schalit)
A tank mounted on a military truck passes an election campaign poster featuring Gadi Eisenkot, leader of the centrist Yashar ("Straight") party, ahead of Israel's general election in Kiryat Shmona, near the border with Lebanon in northern Israel, Tuesday, Oct. 20, 2026. (AP Photo/Ariel Schalit)
TT

Where Does Eisenkot Stand Among Israel's Generals-Turned-Politicians?

A tank mounted on a military truck passes an election campaign poster featuring Gadi Eisenkot, leader of the centrist Yashar ("Straight") party, ahead of Israel's general election in Kiryat Shmona, near the border with Lebanon in northern Israel, Tuesday, Oct. 20, 2026. (AP Photo/Ariel Schalit)
A tank mounted on a military truck passes an election campaign poster featuring Gadi Eisenkot, leader of the centrist Yashar ("Straight") party, ahead of Israel's general election in Kiryat Shmona, near the border with Lebanon in northern Israel, Tuesday, Oct. 20, 2026. (AP Photo/Ariel Schalit)

Of the 14 people who have served as Israel's prime minister since the country's establishment in 1948, five have been generals. Two of them, Yitzhak Rabin and Ehud Barak, were former military chiefs of staff. If Gadi Eisenkot succeeds in forming a government, he will become the third former chief of staff to lead the Israeli government.

As he prepares for his potential new role, people close to Eisenkot, 66, say he has closely studied the history of Israel's generals who entered politics and decided that the figure whose legacy he most hopes to emulate is Yitzhak Rabin (1922-1995).

But can he truly follow in Rabin's footsteps while navigating the hornet's nest of Israeli politics? Or will he become a prisoner of the constraints that bind political leaders and prevent them from seizing the historic opportunities now presenting themselves?

Israel's history has produced leaders who rose to power through profoundly contradictory ideologies and doctrines. They sought to establish a Jewish state in the Middle East and persuaded the West that it would become an "oasis of democracy," a "beacon of science and progress," and a "model of economic prosperity and technological superiority," or, in the Jewish expression, "a light unto the nations."

The Crisis of the Israeli Model

Yet the Israeli model, despite its considerable technological, industrial and scientific achievements, embraced an uncompromising and arrogant security doctrine that kept the country in a perpetual state of crisis and war, exhausting its resources and threatening the lives of its people.

Israel's leaders have all benefited from generous Western military, political and economic support, aligning themselves with Western interests under the banner of "shared civilizational values."

They convinced themselves and their people that this was the only way to ensure the survival of the state as "the world's only national home for the Jewish people," making military force a fundamental pillar of its existence.

But Israelis have repeatedly confronted a different reality, one demonstrating that even overwhelming military power has its limits. This became evident during the 1973 war, the First Lebanon War in 1982 and the first Palestinian intifada in 1987.

With some notable exceptions, certain Israeli leaders began searching for what might be described as a path toward peace. They were quickly confronted by extremist leaders who spread fear, warned of an "existential war" and insisted that the Arabs sought Israel's destruction.

Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated in 1995 for his efforts to reach a settlement with representatives of the Palestinian people. Ehud Olmert was forced from office and later imprisoned on corruption charges.

Even when all Arab states proposed a peace initiative in 2002 that took into account the Palestinian people's right to self-determination and the establishment of a peaceful, demilitarized state while guaranteeing Israel's security, Israeli leaders appeared alarmed by the proposal and sought to evade the obligations that accepting it would entail.

Nearly a quarter of a century later, Israel still refuses to engage with that initiative.

Egyptian soldiers raise the flag on the eastern bank of the Suez Canal during the October 1973 War (File photo, AP)

The Generals Who Entered Politics Before Eisenkot

At the forefront of Israel's generals-turned-politicians stands Yigal Allon, who commanded the Zionist paramilitary organization Palmach before Israel's establishment.

When the organization was dissolved, Allon and its fighters joined the Israeli army. He eventually left military service with the rank of major general.

Allon served as acting prime minister for just 19 days following the death of Prime Minister Levi Eshkol, until Golda Meir was chosen to succeed him.

Despite his brief tenure, Allon was an enormously influential figure in Israeli politics.

He devised the Allon Plan for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which sought to impose Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem, the Jordan Valley and the area extending from Hebron to Jerusalem. He also proposed establishing a small Druze state in the Syrian Golan Heights.

Yitzhak Rabin, who first became prime minister in 1974, can be credited with helping Israel regain its bearings after the setback it suffered in the October 1973 war.

He was nevertheless forced to resign after it emerged that his wife had failed to declare the full amount held in a US dollar bank account the couple maintained in the United States.

His resignation entered Israeli political history as an honorable act reflecting personal integrity and honesty.

Rabin sought to uphold that reputation during his second term as prime minister, from 1992 to 1995, and even his opponents acknowledged his integrity.

He did not shy away from pursuing peace with the Palestinians. Instead, he committed himself fully to the effort, even as Benjamin Netanyahu led the opposition with fierce rhetoric that went as far as accusing him of treason.

Rabin was a tough negotiator with the Palestinians and occasionally appeared to retreat from his positions. Nevertheless, Palestinian President Yasser Arafat praised him, saying that had Rabin not been assassinated, they could have reached a historic peace agreement.

Ehud Barak is regarded as one of Israel's most decorated military figures, having received more military honors than any other Israeli soldier.

It was Rabin who brought him into politics. Yet Barak was marked by an extraordinary degree of arrogance and became known for his impulsiveness.

When the Camp David negotiations between Barak and Arafat failed, Barak made his famous declaration that Israel had "no Palestinian partner for peace."

That assertion became a convenient argument for Israeli leaders seeking to undermine subsequent peace initiatives.

Although Barak has attempted to change course in recent years, he remains a discredited figure in the eyes of many Israelis.

Ariel Sharon, a general known for his thuggish approach, helped lead a campaign of pressure against Prime Minister Levi Eshkol to launch a war against Arab countries in 1967.

During the October 1973 war, Sharon defied orders when he crossed the Suez Canal. Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir later regarded him as a dangerous rebel.

Yet when Sharon became prime minister, he withdrew Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip and dismantled the settlements there.

In his final years in politics, he even began speaking about a two-state solution.

Whose Example Will Eisenkot Follow?

Eisenkot is weighing the experiences of these four figures because he understands that Israeli public opinion is divided over its military leaders.

In the past, generals were regarded with something approaching reverence. Today, however, Israelis have concrete examples of military commanders who entered politics, and they subject their records to scrutiny, categorizing them as right-wing or left-wing.

The divide was also reflected in Netanyahu's election slogan, "Right or Palestine," which he adopted in the final stages of his campaign and which is said to have attracted hundreds of thousands of voters.

The first quality Eisenkot hopes to emulate from Rabin is personal integrity, a trait that even his political opponents acknowledge he possesses.

The second is perseverance: the ability to pursue a goal with patience and determination.

The third is boldness and courage in making decisions.

The time has not yet come to assess whether Eisenkot possesses that quality, although his associates claim he surpasses even Rabin in this respect.

Eisenkot also emphasizes that he places the interests of the state above all other considerations.

Yet the challenges ahead present him with a fundamental task: bringing Israel back to its senses after what he sees as the reckless policies pursued by Benjamin Netanyahu, which have seriously endangered Israeli interests.

This places him on a collision course with the far right, which has become a formidable force in Israel.

The far right's ideas now dominate much of Israeli society, while armed, unruly militias exert control over the streets, openly displaying racism and thuggish behavior.

These forces seek perpetual war. They imagine they can establish Israel as the region's dominant power and impose peace through force.

They seek to punish the entire Arab world for Hamas's October 7, 2023, attack by occupying territory not only in Palestine but also in Lebanon, Syria and elsewhere whenever possible.

They show little concern for Israel's international standing or for humanitarian principles, international law and international conventions.

How Does Eisenkot Differ From the Right?

The reality is that Eisenkot himself is not far removed from some of the Israeli right's positions.

He simply expresses them differently, speaking of "ensuring superiority over the countries of the region" and maintaining that "force is an essential element in achieving peace."

Nor is he prepared to abandon the pursuit of decisive military victories on the various fronts, particularly against Iran and its armed proxies.

However, Eisenkot also wants everything to be pursued in a spirit of partnership with the United States and "national unity."

His approach to regional and international relations differs from that of the far right, and he seeks to end wars through political agreements, particularly with Syria and Lebanon.

Although he has reservations about President Donald Trump's 20-point plan, which was subsequently adopted in a UN Security Council resolution, Eisenkot says he will abide by it because the Netanyahu-led government approved it and because he respects international agreements and treaties.

The legacy Eisenkot hopes to establish is that of a leader who halted the deterioration of Israel's regional and international standing, restored hope for progress and prosperity, and revived the political prestige of the country's generals.

His associates say he has carefully studied the experiences of generals who became prime ministers and understands which examples he should follow and which mistakes he must avoid.

But will he succeed in charting a course that makes him a bold, historic leader, or will he end up repeating their mistakes?