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.
