عربي English Türkçe اردو فارسى
Logo
Latest News
Interviews

AstraZeneca’s CEO on Covid: ‘We Just Have to Adjust to it’

AstraZeneca’s Chief Executive Officer, Sir Pascal Soriot
AstraZeneca’s Chief Executive Officer, Sir Pascal Soriot
TT
20
TT

AstraZeneca’s CEO on Covid: ‘We Just Have to Adjust to it’

AstraZeneca’s Chief Executive Officer, Sir Pascal Soriot
AstraZeneca’s Chief Executive Officer, Sir Pascal Soriot

AstraZeneca’s Chief Executive Officer, Sir Pascal Soriot, told Asharq Al-Awsat in an interview that Covid-19 is not over “and we just have to adjust to it like we live with the flu.”

“Most people who get it basically get sick for a few days and do not need to be hospitalized because vaccines are providing a baseline immunity,” he said.

He stressed the importance of tackling long Covid and protecting the immune compromised people.

Asked about how he felt once he heard the good news from his company’s laboratories that he got the vaccine, he said: “I was very involved in the discussions with Oxford and the development of the vaccine. When we learned that we had a vaccine that works and our team said that we can manufacture it, I was incredibly happy because we thought we can make a difference.”

He also advised people to listen to science and not to social media.

On China’s zero-Covid policy, he said: “I understand the policy in the initial phase … I must say today they will have to transition at some point, China cannot be closed to the rest of the world for ever. They need to reopen to facilitate communication and trade with the rest of the world, people meeting each other.”

Here is the full text of the interview:

- We appreciate that AstraZeneca’s investments and interests go far beyond Covid-19, but is Covid-19 over?

I don’t think Covid-19 is over unfortunately, I think Covid will stay with us for a little while and we just have to adjust to it like we live with the flu. I think this year the biggest problem actually is flu and Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infection (RSV). Covid-19 is still there but most people who get it basically get sick for a few days and do not need to be hospitalized because vaccines are providing a baseline immunity.

With Covid, I think the two key things we now have to tackle are:
1- Long Covid, there are quite a substantial proportion of patients who get Covid and do not recover easily, long Covid can be mild or can be serious and goes all the way up to not being able to work for months.
2- Protecting the immune compromised people, for example people who underwent transplants or have blood cancer have zero immunity and do not respond to vaccine. Those who have multiple sclerosis and solid tumor cancers have some immunity and some limited response to the vaccine. Some people need a different level of different protection and we have developed a long acting antibodies combination called Evusheld to protect them for 6 months. Covid will still be there with us and we need to tackle it but it is mostly long Covid and the immune compromised that should attract our attention.

- As you mentioned, we now have to learn to live with Covid. Thanks to some pioneers, some leaders, CEOs and companies, who helped us to get some immunity and to live with Covid, and definitely AstraZeneca is one of them, as well as yourself. How did you feel when you first heard about Covid and once you heard the good news from Oxford and your laboratories that you got the vaccine? How did you feel personally and as CEO of AstraZeneca?

It was an evolution at the time because we basically heard about Covid-19 just like everybody around January 2020. We have a large presence in China, we are based in Shanghai and we have about 20,000 employees in China. So, as you can imagine, we heard about Covid and the impact on people in China very early on. We were tracking what was happening and we thought: how can we help?

Initially we helped with simply buying masks, where we could and deliver them to hospitals that did not have any. Then we thought: what else can we do? We started looking at some of our medicines and repurposing them to see whether they could be used to treat Covid. After that we started the development of our long acting antibody combination Evusheld and then sometime around April 2020 as we were looking at what more we could do, we came across the vaccine at Oxford and we agreed with Oxford that we could collaborate with them. It was a very successful collaboration and we are very happy we were able to jump in and help.

It has not been a very simple journey because as you can image we took a vaccine that had been created by a great team of scientists but in an academic lab and they had started to develop it but they were developing it doing trials the way an academic center would do it, not the way industry would do it. It was challenging at times, for instance the US asked all sorts of questions because the way the initial trials run by Oxford were not run the way industry does them so we had to catch up and do all sorts of work to bring the program to an industry standard and FDA (Food and Drug Administration) standard.

There were weeks and months of intense work, it was very challenging of course but very rewarding because we made a huge difference. As you know we delivered more than 3 billion doses of vaccine and it has been independently estimated that the vaccine saved 6.3 million lives globally.

- On a personal level, how did you feel when you heard the news from your team that AstraZeneca developed the vaccine and it was approved?

I was very involved in the discussions with Oxford and the development of the vaccine. When we learned that we had a vaccine that works and our team said that we can manufacture it, I was incredibly happy because we thought we can make a difference.

We had set up supply chains around the world to supply different geographies through different supply chains so we can supply everybody. One problem we faced was that we had agreed to partner with the Serum Institute of India (SII) who have a large capacity to manufacture extensively and we had agreed with SII and the Indian government that half of the production of SII would be kept in India and the other half would be exported to a number of countries around the world. But when Covid cases exploded in India, the government had to prioritize their population and decided to keep everything for India. This created a supply issue in many countries.

We faced many challenges no doubt, but everybody at AZ was very happy to deliver this vaccine.

- You succeeded in this while working with scientists and different people. What lessons were learned through that process? Are we more ready now to face any potential pandemic in the future?

As a society, probably we are more ready, it is not perfect but we are more ready mainly because people have the challenge created by pandemics in mind. But the question is: What about in 10 years time if there are no other pandemics, which I hope there would not be, then people might focus on other priorities and reduce their attention to pandemic preparedness.

Today two things exist:
1- There are centers around the world monitoring the emergence of new viruses and working together
2- With Covid, initially people thought it was only a Chinese issue. I can tell you I was in Europe at the time and it came to Italy and many people and many countries around Europe thought it was only an Italian issue, as if there was a border between Italy and the rest of Europe that can stop Covid. There was denial at the time in many places. I don’t think there will be a denial again.

Now there are centers monitoring the emergence of new viruses. Governments are more likely to potentially even overreact to some new viruses instead of ignoring them. We will have new technologies that can bring new vaccines to patients much faster. The world has learned that for vaccines on that scale you need collaborations between the private and public sectors, we have to have governments working with private industry and with academics to bring vaccines to the world much faster.

It is worth mentioning that without the US government investment, I do not think we would have had those vaccines at that scale so fast. The US government funded the development of several vaccines because it is a risky proposition. You have a new virus, a new vaccine and you do not know if it is going to work. It cost hundreds of millions of dollars to develop, you have to set up a manufacturing network which cost a lot of money and you need to have all this money spent in advance of knowing if the vaccine works. The US government placed advanced orders and put money at risk in those developments. Without the U.S. I do not think the world would have reacted as well as we did.

- Different people have different views on how they deal with vaccine, how they deal with Covid and how they deal with the pandemic. As CEO of one of the largest companies what is your advice to the public?

I am leading a scientific organization so of course I believe in science and believe in looking at data. My advice is for people to look at data. Society reacted incredibly fast to this virus and there was a lot we did not know about the virus and a lot that we did not know about the vaccines. Some people said that the vaccines were not made available fast enough, that poor countries did not get the vaccines fast enough. If we look back, the response was incredibly fast, not fast enough for some countries of course but overall very fast. There were a lot of unknowns, we did not know how to use the vaccines, we did not know the consequences of vaccinations, we were not so sure who to vaccinate. When you have this, different people come up with their own ‘realities’ and own ‘truths’.

Today a lot more data is available and people can look at the data, it is clear now from the data that the vaccination for Covid is really very useful for people over 50-55 years old and those who suffer from severe chronic diseases. For younger people, vaccination is probably less critical and two doses might be sufficient and we might not need so many boosters because they have baseline immunity provided by the vaccine and which probably lasts a long time.

There is a lot more data that has emerged and everybody has to make their own decision for themselves. It is a personal healthcare issue and you have to decide how to treat yourself and everybody has to make their own choice. Fundamentally people should look at the data and not look at social media. They should ask scientists and not look at the media.

A problem is that, because there were many unknowns and we were moving so fast, some experts said things that proved to be wrong and this created an environment where some people could say: look at that expert, he said a,b,c and it was totally wrong so why should we listen to experts? But today we have a large amount of data and the scientific view is becoming more coherent.

My advice is for people to listen to science and to not listen to social media.

- One reason that people like you helped us to face this pandemic was working together: the private sectors, governments, scientists and companies as it was cross border crisis which is very similar to the climate change. What lessons to bring from tackling the pandemic to tackle the climate? You with other companies made this great initiative on the eve of COP27 in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt? How to copy the success in facing climate change?

I think the recipe is very similar in many ways:
1- We have to look at science and technology to help us find solutions because there are many solutions to climate change.
2- Partnerships between public and private sectors are critical.

During Covid vaccine, we had great partnerships with the Saudi government and talked with Saudi officials many times via video, we also worked with the Moroccan government, and I was very impressed by how very organized they were early on. We also partnered with Egypt. Those collaborations were very successful and we even shipped the vaccine to Palestine. There were so many countries that we did not necessarily think about but during the course of various discussions we were asked if we can ship vaccines to Palestine because they did not have vaccines, so we did that.

Collaboration across public and private was very successful and the same can apply to the COP27.

While attending COP27 I met with the Egyptian prime minister and the health minister and we have a program in Egypt called ‘Green Hospitals’. This initiative is a partnership between the private and public sectors as well as with academic organizations like hospitals. Collaboration is really a key solution.

- Do you sense that the same urgency in dealing with climate change?

It is human nature to react to a big threat very fast with great intensity but with climate change some people realize it is urgent and some other people do not realize it is urgent. The reality is right now people across geographies and countries are still arguing with one another about various other issues. If tomorrow we are threatened as a human species by a massive natural catastrophe then everybody will quickly realize we are all in the same boat. We are all sharing the same planet and we all have to work together. But today the urgency is not as high as it should be unfortunately. However, the realization that something has to be done is growing. When you see what happened in Pakistan and the floods that affected more than 10 million children. I am French and also Australian and I lived through the great fires in Australia and then the floods, you see the impact of climate change. More and more people are realizing that something needs to be done.

- There is another element I think may link the Covid 19 and climate change which is justice. AstraZeneca actually played a big role in establishing justice by providing the vaccine to poor people almost free of charge without any profit. But there is this feeling that poor countries and poor people are paying a higher price for the pandemic and for climate change.

Absolutely, and that is true. I met with the Secretary General of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is made of 56 countries with the biggest one is India which has 1.4 billion people and the smallest is an island with a population of 11,000. Within the Commonwealth you see countries that are starting to suffer. Some islands are saying soon enough there will be no country for us, we will be submerged. When you realize that a big part of the Antarctic is starting to break off and if it melts, that may lead to an increase of 63cm in the water level everywhere round the world. Some parts of the world will disappear under water. Typically, the poorest parts of the world will suffer first, as always unfortunately.

If you look at climate change, people are talking about an average of 1.5 degrees or 2 degrees in the increase of temperature, but some parts of the world will suffer a lot more than this. In the northern part of Africa the increase in temperature will be much more, and they will suffer draughts and it will be terrible for people there and we will witness mass migration.

At COP27 it was agreed to create a fund to help poor countries and I think this is a good thing but it is not sufficient. The answer is to really stop carbon emissions. Otherwise, we are on a road to massive catastrophe for everybody.

- Are you more optimistic now than you were few years ago in terms of tackling the climate change?

I am, because the realization is growing, private industries and private organizations are jumping in and the US government now is also taking the lead. Many governments have that in their agendas. I realize that some companies and some governments are talking green but don’t take much action but there are more and more countries and companies that are taking real measures.

There is a growing trend for industries to disclose what they are doing about climate change and people can monitor, track and criticize what the companies are doing. I believe we are moving in the right direction but the problem is are we going to be moving fast enough? Actually the scientists tell you that their predictions of 10-15 years ago are happening much faster than they thought and we are in this vicious circle where things are getting worse than expected and accelerating even more.

- Living in Europe, we noticed the past few months did not bring good news because once again because of the war in Ukraine, we heard that some European countries and some European entities are talking about using the old sources of energy, like coal and oil. There was this perception that there is a bit of retraction from the policies of giving more priority for green energy?

Absolutely. The reality is that we have to be pragmatic and practical about it. The reality of life is that governments are elected, at least in democracies, and they are going to focus on their own countries and are going to think about what they need to do for their own electorate, for their own people. Covid 19 is a good example again of what happens in these situations. Some countries were producing lots of vaccines and the world was saying you need to share. They did not share. They started sharing when they had enough for themselves. As soon as they had enough to cover their own population, they started sharing but before that they never shared much. You may criticize this but at the end of the day that is a reality of life. Elected people will look after their own people, it is a bit unfortunate and you would hope they would share more and faster but they really cannot. It is indeed the same in this energy situation, countries say they have to make sure that people have electricity and heating for the winter, otherwise as politicians they will be removed at the next elections. We have to consider this in how we plan for the climate change.

On the other hand, the silver lining in this war and the sanctions is that people realize that we need to move to renewable sources of energy to become independent. Scotland aims to become totally self-sufficient with renewable energy. I met the prime minister of Ireland recently and they have the same goal. You see countries really progressively setting up an agenda that will give them energy independence through green sources.

- On November 10 AstraZeneca announced its third quarter financial results with revenues higher than forecasted, noting that those profits were not a result of the Covid vaccine, but rather from other sources. How were these revenues achieved?

Our focus as a company is on medications for cancer, cardiovascular diseases, kidney diseases, diabetes, diseases related to metabolism, as well as respiratory diseases, asthma and rare diseases. We have a very strong portfolio of new products which we are launching everywhere. Our growth is driven by all those new products. During the 3rd quarter we obtained 19 approvals for new products and new indications. We are growing because our core business is growing. Covid vaccines did not make any profit. Still this year we are still delivering but the vaccine sales do not generate much profit as we sell more or less at cost.

- There was an 11-12% growth?

Actually a bit more than 11% for the quarter, coming from all sorts of products, we have an expensive product for kidney disease, heart disease, diabetes, several products for cancer are also growing a lot, we invest in R&D, year-to-date for end of September revenue grew by 36% driven by R&D and delivering new products.

The 3rd quarter saw an increase of 19% with the 11% you referred to was for core business, excluding all the additions. If we include the additions like rare diseases business that we acquired and all the new products launches, the year-to-date is 37% and 19% in the quarter.

- You are not producing much of the Covid vaccine. Is that right?

We are producing Covid vaccine through our network. Some was manufactured by our partner in India. We have manufactured vaccine in Thailand for South Asia, in Brazil for Brazil and in Mexico for Latin America. We have a whole network of manufacturers in many geographies around the world. Also we manufactured in Europe, UK, in Japan and in China. We have a partnership in China but the Chinese government decided to focus on their locally developed vaccines which they supplied to some countries and I know the United Arab Emirates also sourced a lot of Chinese vaccines.

- What do you think of Chinese policy of zero-Covid from science point of view?

From a science point of view, I understand the policy in the initial phase because in the initial period they really protected their population very well. I must say today they will have to transition at some point, China cannot be closed to the rest of the world for ever. They need to reopen to facilitate communication and trade with the rest of the world, people meeting each other.

When you go back to this carbon threat and climate change threat I really think collaboration around the world is key and also people realizing that we are all the same and share the same planet. At the end of the day, we all have the same hopes, same concerns and same fears. We are the same people wherever we are in the world. You only realize this if you meet people. If you live in a country and you never leave your country, and you never meet people from another country, it is very easy to think that these people are different. Then you meet them and you realize that they are like you, with the same hopes and concerns. I hope China will re-open fully very soon so people can meet and collaborate again.

I am really delighted because next week in Dubai we will meet our Chinese team who will be joining us, Middle East and the rest of the international region. Our team is coming together again and this is very exciting.

- What is AstraZeneca's future outlook globally and in the MENA region?

Our outlook is very strong. We told the market that we expect to grow by low double digit which is 10-12% year-on-year up to 2025. Post 2025 we typically do not give guidance but we told the market we expect to grow at industry leading growth, which many analysts have translated into high single digit figure and we expect to achieve this by launching new products.

In the Middle East and Africa region, in the whole international region, in Latin America and South Asia, China, we will grow because this is where the large number of people is and we have a portfolio of products that cover diseases that are common that may be treated with low cost products all the way to expensive products to treat cancer and rare diseases.

In Middle East and Africa, diabetes, kidney diseases and heart diseases are very common, asthma diseases are common and we have products that are not so expensive that address those diseases and we expect to grow a lot in all those regions.

Most Viewed

 
Interviews

Sudani to Asharq Al-Awsat: Iran Is Serious About a Deal with America

Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia Al-Sudani during the interview with Asharq Al-Awsat's editor-in-chief
Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia Al-Sudani during the interview with Asharq Al-Awsat's editor-in-chief
TT
20
TT

Sudani to Asharq Al-Awsat: Iran Is Serious About a Deal with America

Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia Al-Sudani during the interview with Asharq Al-Awsat's editor-in-chief
Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia Al-Sudani during the interview with Asharq Al-Awsat's editor-in-chief

In recent months, Iraq has navigated two difficult challenges. It avoided being drawn into the Israeli-Iranian conflict and managed to stay clear of the fallout from US strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites. Earlier, it had resisted the temptation to intervene in saving Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.

Having passed these two challenges, Iraq is now facing a third: the elections scheduled for November, which will determine the shape of parliament and the identity of the next prime minister. We posed these and other questions to Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia Al-Sudani:

Q: Do you have the impression that we are witnessing new regional power balances after what happened in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran?

Absolutely. After the October 7 events and the subsequent aggression on Lebanon, the changes in Syria, and then the aggression against Iran, there are growing speculations about the region’s future amid these still-unfolding developments. The aggression on Gaza and Lebanon is ongoing. Discussions about arrangements in Gaza, and also about Israeli incursions into Syria are also ongoing. We’re also talking about a ceasefire between Israel and Iran, so we’re not yet looking at a stable political trajectory for the region’s structure, balance, and relationships.

These developments raise important questions that demand a clear vision: What do we want for this sensitive region economically, politically, and in terms of security, especially as it almost witnessed a full-scale regional war, not just clashes between Iran and Israel?

Iraq is part of the region’s geopolitical landscape. While prioritizing its own interests and those of its people, Iraq is also an active regional player, not a bystander. We leverage our relations and interests with neighboring countries to formulate positions that enhance security and stability, particularly since we reject wars, which we have suffered from for decades.

Q: What did you do when the Israeli raids on Iran began?

Everybody expected escalation and reciprocal strikes. All regional countries, including Iraq, interpreted it this way. After the Israeli aggression on Iran, which violated Iraqi airspace, Iraq faced the risk of being dragged into the war and into aggression against a neighboring state, which goes against our constitution and political principles. We do not allow any party or country to use Iraqi airspace or territories to launch attacks on others.

We expressed our rejection diplomatically. So we filed a complaint with the UN Security Council, contacted others to support our position, and condemned the aggression against a neighboring sovereign state under the pretext of preventive war, when in reality it was a clear act of aggression on a sovereign state that is a member of the United Nations.

The most important part was maintaining internal security and a unified national position on this crisis, which we thankfully achieved. We presented a unified national stance rejecting aggression and violations of our sovereignty and airspace, supporting the government’s effort to protect Iraqi interests and keep Iraq out of war. This internal position was crucial.

Q: Did the US assist you?

Yes, the United States was keen to keep Iraq away from the conflict. We had ongoing communication, especially regarding the airspace violation and the importance for a US role because it is part of the international coalition against terrorism. For ten years, there should have been support for Iraq’s air defense system to protect our skies.

Q: What did Iran ask of Iraq during the war?

There was no request. Rather, Iraq took the initiative to clarify the risks and exchange messages between parties to stop this war and return to negotiations. We were in constant contact with the presidency and all relevant channels. Negotiations were expected to start on Sunday, but the aggression began early Friday.

Iraq’s position was to push for a return to talks and halt the war. Iran’s view was: how can we negotiate while the aggression continues? Our discussions with regional countries and the US focused on this issue. Iran was ready to negotiate if the aggression stopped. That was Iran’s initial positive position.

Q: Was it difficult to manage relations with Iraqi factions backed by Iran?

Definitely. The region has faced unprecedented events in the past two years, yet Iraq has remained stable unlike in the past when the region was stable and Iraq was turbulent. We’ve managed to contain reactions and channel them into balanced political positions through political and security efforts.

Q: Do you feel you've implemented the "Iraq First" slogan?

Yes. It wasn’t just a slogan. It’s a doctrine we truly believe in: Iraq and the dignity of its people come first in our domestic and foreign policies.

Q: Are you concerned about a new round (of fighting) between Israel and Iran?

Yes, because everyone knows (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu hasn’t respected any ceasefires in Gaza or Lebanon. It’s likely he’ll carry out further aggression against Iran. His policy and strategy seem to be intending to keep the region in a state of conflict to maintain his political position.

Q: Were you worried the Iranian regime might falter and that the war would drag on? Did you prepare for prolonged instability?

Iran is a key regional country. If anyone thought a 12-day war could topple the regime, the repercussions would affect the entire region. Naturally, we were concerned about regional stability and that of any neighboring country. You can’t watch a neighboring country burn and expect the fire not to reach you.

What we believe in at this stage is pushing toward stability, security, peace and understanding. Our source of concern was for these repercussions to affect the region’s stability. But internally, we were sure of our capabilities and the awareness of our political forces and the Iraqi people on the importance of preserving internal security and keeping the political system stable.

Q: What did the Iraqi army conclude from this war?

This is currently under study. I don't think it's just the Iraqi army, but all the militaries of the region are studying it. We are facing a new type of warfare that uses modern technology. Therefore, we must be on par with this development and these technologies so that we preserve the security and stability of our country.

Q: Who destroyed the Iraqi radars after the end of the Iranian-Israeli war? Was there an investigation and what were its results?

There is an investigation by a specialized technical committee, and I am closely following this probe. It was a clear attack using drones. As you know, it's not easy to detect these aircraft. Today, this technology is used in attacks and to create instability. But this matter will definitely not pass without consequences.

Bases in Nasiriyah were targeted and sustained minor damage. However, the radar system in Taji was damaged. At other sites, the air defenses intercepted and shot down the drones. We will reach a conclusion, and whoever is responsible will be held accountable.

Q: Were the drones launched from inside Iraqi territory?

The investigation is ongoing. We even sought assistance from the international coalition because there are highly technical matters to determine the launch area and the distance the drones traveled. All of these are details necessary to identify the culprit.

Q: Why do relations with Syria appear not yet completely normal?

On the contrary, I find them normal and on the right track. Since day one, Iraq's stance has been clear: to respect the choices of the Syrian people and the changes that occurred. We sent a delegation, initiated reciprocal visits and communication, including the Doha meeting, and communication is ongoing regarding different developments. We have also expressed our concerns.

Q: Concerns about what?

Our concerns come in the form of advice because Syria's experience is similar to Iraq's after 2003. The diversity that exists in Syria mirrors Iraq’s diversity... So first, there should be an inclusive political process that embraces everyone, guarantees their rights, and respects their beliefs and ideologies. There must also be a clear stance against extremism, terrorism, and violence and a clear position regarding ISIS, which poses a threat not just to Syria but to all countries in the region.

We also want to see a united Syria, without any foreign intervention or presence on Syrian territories because a strong and unified Syria is a strength for Iraq and the region. All of this falls in the interest of the Syrian people.

We are also ready for economic cooperation. Iraq and Syria share geography and history that can form a foundation for further cooperation and stronger bilateral relations. We have started studying the revival of the Iraq-Syria oil pipeline to reach the Mediterranean Sea through Baniyas.

We’ve also expressed our willingness to contribute to Syria’s reconstruction through a conference. Today, Iraq chairs both the Arab League summit and the Arab Development Summit, so it is concerned with all Arab issues, especially Syria. We proposed an initiative that was adopted in the “Baghdad Declaration” to hold a national dialogue conference for all components of Syrian society.

So the relationship is moving in that direction, along with continued security coordination. The Coordination Committee held a meeting last Wednesday between Iraqi and Syrian security leaders to secure the borders.

Q: Are you satisfied with Syria's cooperation on security coordination?

Yes. At this level, both sides are satisfied with the exchange of information and security coordination, which is sufficient to ensure the security of Iraq and Syria, especially given the noticeable activity of ISIS, which has recently become more active, seized a large number of Syrian army weapons, and is planning operations, the latest of which was the terrorist attack on a church in Damascus. So we have a mutual interest in increasing security coordination.

Q: Have you also discussed with Syria the issue of foreign fighters who took part in toppling Bashar al-Assad’s regime?

Among our comments was the issue of granting citizenship to foreigners, and I believe this matter needs to be reviewed because there are reservations about it within Syria itself. We explained these points frankly and transparently out of concern for Syria’s stability as we’ve been through experiences post-2003 and we were keen to help the new administration avoid the mistakes we made.

Q: Would you have preferred that Syria remained under Bashar al-Assad’s rule?

That’s not my opinion; it's up to the Syrian people. They are the ones who decide the system that suits the Syrian state.

Q: Could we see President Ahmad al-Sharaa soon in Baghdad, or you in Damascus?

That depends on the circumstances.

Q: When did you realize that Bashar al-Assad's regime had collapsed?

Syria was exposed to years of suffering, turmoil, and instability. After the October 7 events and the subsequent aggression against Lebanon, our reading was that the region would witness a state of chaos, confusion, and security imbalance. The vulnerable side was Syria, given that large areas were not under the control of the regime at the time. So, within our regional communication efforts, we focused on how to maintain Syria’s stability to prevent a security collapse that could be exploited by ISIS terrorist mobs - this was the real threat.

This was one of the concerns of countries in the region, especially Iraq and Türkiye. Therefore, we launched an initiative to bring Türkiye and Syria closer together in order to resolve certain files that contribute to and support stability. This began early on, and these efforts continued. There was a clear and serious desire from Türkiye, and also cautious acceptance from Syria. There were several attempts, but unfortunately, they did not yield any positive steps.

Q: Was it a mistake for Assad not to meet with (Turkish President Recep Tayyip) Erdogan?

In my estimation, yes. And this was not just Iraq’s attempt. From what I heard from leaders of other regional countries, all of them tried to achieve a meeting and some sort of de-escalation at the level of the border areas, which were experiencing unrest. We considered the refusal to meet a mistake. The meeting could have contributed to de-escalation and created an atmosphere of reconciliation with all parties within Syria, instead of the ongoing instability and confrontation that served no party.

Q: Has it become clear that the keys to solving crises in the region are with the United States, which allegedly wanted to disengage from the Middle East to focus on the China threat?

The US remains an important country in its relations with the countries of the region. But certainly, the greater role lies with the countries of the region themselves, which define their interests and the course of their ties. There is no ready-made formula for the countries of the region to achieve stability and sustainable peace. The people of the region are the most entitled to engage in dialogue based on mutual interests and mutual respect. Dialogue and understanding must be the approach, rather than seeking conflict or exclusion that threatens others. The language of war cannot be the path to achieving stability.

Q: President (Donald) Trump favors the “deal” approach. Is an American-Iranian deal in the coming phase possible?

It’s possible. The US president took the initiative to contain the recent war, and Iraq supported this move. This initiative was the reason a truce was achieved and this destructive war was halted. We hope this role continues, especially through bilateral negotiations on (Iran’s) nuclear program, to achieve a deal or agreement that lays the foundation for the stability of a vital region like the Middle East.

Q: Is there a planned visit to the United States?

Not at the present time.

Q: I’d like to ask about Iraq’s relations with regional countries. How would you describe your relationship with Türkiye?

It’s a relationship based on an understanding and awareness of its importance geographically, historically, in terms of shared interests, and the opportunities that lie ahead of us as two neighboring Muslim countries in a vital region. We've laid the foundation for a genuine new phase in this relationship through several files: security, economy, and issues of mutual concern, particularly water.

During this government’s term, we’ve established a significant strategic partnership with Türkiye, especially after launching the “Development Road” project, which is one of the most important economic corridors in the region. It will benefit both countries and lay the groundwork for a major economic axis in the region.

On the water issue, we’ve taken a strategic approach for the first time in the history of the Iraqi state through a bilateral framework agreement for cooperation on water management, signed in Baghdad during President Erdogan’s visit. These are all positive indicators of a strong relationship between the two countries.

Q: You spoke of a strong relationship with Türkiye. Can you describe your ties with Iran in two lines?

There’s a strategic partnership with the Islamic Republic of Iran based on shared religious, cultural, and social values and mutual interests. Iran has also stood with Iraq and the Iraqi people during various phases under the dictatorship, during the fight against terrorism, and in the political process. But we are certainly keen for this relationship to remain within a proper framework that serves mutual interests and prevents meddling in internal affairs. Iraq has its own independence and national decision-making, driven by the interests and priorities of its people.

Q: So there is no Iranian management of Iraqi affairs?

Absolutely not.

Q: Not even over any part of it?

Not over any part of it. Even the term itself is unacceptable and doesn’t exist in our vocabulary. A positive relationship today does not mean interference. Iraqis are highly sensitive about their independence and their love for their country and their national sovereignty. Iraq is not, and will not be, subordinate to anyone. That’s Iraq’s history.

Q: Is Iran helping you with the issue of "exclusive control of weapons"?

This issue is an Iraqi matter, and it is part of our program as a government. The Parliament voted on it, and we set a plan for it. The weapons we are talking about... we fought a war against terrorism for two decades. It was a war in every sense of the word. The war against terrorism and terrorist mobs like al-Qaeda and ISIS was not a war against a regular army but rather targeted citizens in every town, village, and city. These unstable conditions led to the presence of weapons to protect citizens in this or that region, reaching a stage of confrontation with ISIS.

After the victory, it is necessary to reorganize security and institutional reform, which we adopted through a committee chaired by the premiership. We set solutions for all these sensitive points related to the presence of arms outside the framework of state institutions. There is a clear plan, and everyone knows it; it is being implemented according to a decree.

We will not accept the presence of weapons outside the framework of state institutions. This is one of the important and fundamental pillars for building the Iraqi state. It is an opinion and principle supported by all religious forces. The religious authority’s statements are clear - not only the latest statement but throughout the past years, they have emphasized this principle. This goal is supported by religious leaders, political leaders, and also by our people. This is not a slogan but a goal for which we set a plan and are implementing in line with a government decree.

Q: Can we say that exclusive control of arms is a necessary condition to ensure stability and attract investment?

Investment is at its best. For the first time in two years, investments have exceeded $100 billion. A month ago, I spoke of $88 billion. A few days ago, the head of the National Investment Commission updated the figure and informed me that we have surpassed $100 billion over two years. Arab and foreign investments are now active in Iraq. So, the process of attracting investments is progressing within the existing safe and stable environment despite the region’s instability. Iraq is stable and cohesive, and it offers investment opportunities and welcomes Arab and foreign companies.

Q: Talking about investment compels me to ask about corruption. Can you say with certainty that corruption today is less, or significantly less, since you have taken office?

With full confidence, yes. As a government, we stopped the collapse that occurred in the abuse of public funds. You remember the “theft of the century” - more than 3.7 trillion dinars. That happened during the previous government’s term. This amount of cash was stolen as the Iraqi state and its security apparatus watched, and unfortunately, the theft took place under official cover.

Q: But wasn’t it the previous government that uncovered it?

For eight months, the funds were being stolen. But when the thieves disagreed among themselves over how to divide the shares, one of them stirred up the crisis, and that’s when things spiraled out of control. This is what happened in the investigation that was initiated at the time by the acting Minister of Finance. That investigation is ongoing and involves figures from the previous government, along with employees and wanted businessmen.

This is one of the most blaring examples of the corruption that occurred. Today, we’ve put a stop to that collapse. We’ve stopped the abuse of public funds in this way. But of course, we still have a long road ahead before we can fully eliminate corruption. What we have achieved as a government is, first, reforming the oversight institutions responsible for combating corruption because we found that an important part of those institutions themselves needed reform. That was our first step. Through the changes and accountability measures we took against officials in the Integrity Commission and the Board of Supreme Audit, we were able to reform these institutions.

We also introduced a new concept: the repatriation of wanted individuals involved in corruption cases, including those accused in the “theft of the century” and others. Most of them hold other nationalities. So, our relationships with countries around the world have been based on how much they cooperate with us in extraditing the wanted individuals

Q: Have you arrested any of the wanted individuals?

Yes, a significant number. And a large percentage of the wanted individuals themselves have started to come forward, because they realized they were being pursued, and they returned the stolen funds. We’ve recovered approximately more than $500 million. We’ve also begun legal procedures. Iraq is a member of the United Nations Convention against Corruption, which places an obligation and responsibility on all countries to cooperate with us in extraditing the wanted individuals and recovering stolen assets.

These measures are essential to fighting corruption. Corruption is a challenge faced by countries around the world. It’s recognized by the UN as one of the global challenges - not just for Iraq. But we have taken real steps and we are continuing until we eliminate this dangerous phenomenon that threatens all our development, investment, and reconstruction projects.

Q: Do the armed factions put pressure on the judiciary? Are judges scared?

No, certainly not. The judiciary enjoys independence, first and foremost, and it is respected. It is supported by state institutions in ensuring that it does not come under pressure or allow any party or entity to threaten it. The judiciary has proven, on multiple occasions, its independence and courage in making important decisions that ensure justice is upheld and the law is enforced.

Q: From your discussions with Iranian officials, did you deduce that there is a genuine Iranian desire to reach an agreement with the US?

Yes, our impression from a series of contacts and meetings is that there is a serious desire from the Iranian state to reach an agreement that secures Iran’s interests while also addressing the concerns of the international community. There is no decision in Iran, either religious or official, to acquire nuclear weapons, which is the main global concern. Therefore, the path is clear to reach an understanding that would close this file, which has been a key source of tension and escalation in the region.

Q: How would you describe relations with Lebanon?

It is a strong relationship, marked by keenness on Lebanon’s stability, especially during these challenging times. Our position is to support Lebanon’s sovereignty and its state institutions as they face ongoing aggression and repeated violations by the Israeli occupation authorities.

The Lebanese president recently visited Baghdad. Various political and economic issues were discussed, particularly the revival of the Iraq-Syria-Lebanon pipeline and the operation of the Iraqi refinery in Tripoli. We also reaffirmed our support for Lebanon and its reconstruction.

Q: There are common stances, such as both governments calling for the “exclusive control of weapons.”

Yes, this is certainly one of the most important issues. In Lebanon, the issue of arms in a state confronting the Israeli entity is, of course, subject to considerations that are assessed by the Lebanese people and the active forces within the country.

Q: How would you describe relations with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia?

They are at their best in terms of alignment of views on the various issues that have shaken the region. Throughout this period, there has been high-level and continuous coordination regarding various developments.

On bilateral relations and cooperation, there are electrical interconnection projects with Saudi and US companies. There are also upcoming projects on opening additional border crossings to facilitate the movement of pilgrims and Umrah performers from Central Asia through Iran and Iraq, and then on to Saudi Arabia. Additionally, there is clear cooperation between institutions and investment funds in both countries to facilitate Saudi investments in Iraq.

Q: Does that mean there is consultation with the Saudi leadership?

There is continuous communication, consultation, and coordination on various issues. We have had visits, in addition to ongoing contact.

Q: It is said that Baghdad is accused of trying to starve the Kurdistan Region...What is your response?

This is an accusation without any basis - neither legal nor constitutional. The people of Kurdistan are part of our people. And this government, in particular, has been keen to fulfill its moral and constitutional obligations, as well as the political agreement that included resolving the outstanding issues.

But we are talking about the Budget Law, and we are talking about the decision of the Federal Supreme Court, both of which are binding legal grounds that the Prime Minister cannot override.

Since the approval of the Budget Law and later its amendment, the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) has not complied with delivering all oil produced within the region, as stipulated by the law and affirmed by the Federal Supreme Court. The KRG also did not commit to handing over non-oil revenues to the public treasury. This constitutes a violation of the law and of the Court's ruling.

Therefore, the Ministry of Finance cannot fund any budget unless the KRG complies. As a result of our efforts to find solutions, we have ended up disbursing funds beyond the allocated share in the Budget Law, based on the Federal Court’s ruling.

These are clearly legal and technical matters and not political decisions as evidenced by the ongoing discussions now, which are centered around the quantity of oil being delivered.

Q: Could we say that the crisis has nothing to do with political parties in Baghdad wanting to undermine the Kurdistan Region?

Not at all. The Region is a constitutional entity respected by the Iraqi state, with all its components and authorities. We are committed to the stability of the Region. We supported, helped, and contributed to the holding of the Kurdistan Region parliamentary elections, which took place about eight to nine months ago. Unfortunately, the political forces in the Region have so far not been able to form a government.

The federal government was keen to support the electoral commission and allocate a budget. After the elections, I visited all the winning political forces in the Region, urging them to form a new regional government and for the parliament to exercise its powers in line with the framework of the constitution.

All political forces are committed to the Region’s stability because it is part of Iraq’s overall stability. There is no political interference in this issue.

Q: Is the salary issue going to be resolved soon?

The issue was discussed during last Tuesday’s Cabinet session. The document submitted by the federal ministries and the one submitted by the KRG were reviewed. We formed a committee headed by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Planning, along with five other ministers, to develop a consensual proposal that aligns with the constitution, the law, and the Federal Supreme Court's decision. The committee will make its recommendations to the Cabinet for approval, after receiving confirmations that the KRG is committed to it.

Q: Has your relationship with President Masoud Barzani deteriorated?

Definitely not ... President Masoud Barzani is a respected national figure. We have built a good relationship over the past period, and we believe in the partnership with him in managing political affairs. As I mentioned, the recent disagreement or divergence is legal and technical, not political. He knows well that we are fully committed to the interests of our people whether in the Kurdistan Region or in other provinces. But we certainly do not have absolute authority to override the constitution and the law. We are entrusted with the public funds of all Iraqis, and it is our duty to achieve justice and equality without any discrimination.

Q: Why hasn’t the Oil and Gas Law been passed?

It was part of the government’s program. We began forming a technical committee made up of the Federal Ministry of Oil and the Ministry of Natural Resources in the Kurdistan Regional Government, along with a political committee. We held two or three meetings, then the Region stopped sending its delegation, despite our requests to finalize a draft. We believe that this law is a fundamental and essential part of solving the issue of oil, its contracts, and the powers of the Region and the provinces.

Q: Will you personally run in the elections scheduled for November?

Yes, definitely. We have a national plan and a broad electoral and political alliance. We will run in the elections in most provinces with a national - not sectarian - approach.

Q: Do you expect to win a large parliamentary bloc? What are your estimates?

Putting numbers and estimates aside, there is certainly a positive impression about the chances of this alliance in the upcoming parliamentary elections. We are counting on the awareness of the citizens and the precision of their choices in selecting a path that ensures the continuation of this approach in managing the state in a way that secures the interests of Iraq and Iraqis.

Q: Is power tempting? Does the holder of power grow attached to it?

Yes. This is one of the afflictions of governance and authority. It requires a strong degree of faith and principled integrity to prevent the one in the seat of power from being swept away by its temptations. One of God’s blessings upon us is that we have enough moral immunity to resist the allure of this transient authority. We view power as an honor bestowed upon us to serve our people, and so we treat it as a responsibility to keep working for a nation that has sacrificed greatly through the past phase.

Q: We are now sitting in a place where Saddam Hussein once sat... Do you ever feel like you wish you had his absolute powers?

Absolutely not. The political system since 2003 is based on the philosophy of people ruling themselves through a parliamentary system we believe in. Sometimes, administrative and executive hurdles complicate the delegation of powers, but overall this is a political path built on partnership and peaceful power rotation. Iraq has proven its commitment to this approach.

We’re now talking about parliamentary elections for the sixth term, spanning two decades, despite all internal and external challenges. We support this direction. We continue to adhere to this principle and this democratic path. A one-man rule or dictatorship does not bring justice, nor security, nor stability, nor development. We’ve seen where all the dictatorships have ended.