����ֱ��

I once asked a man who had worked in Saddam Hussein’s palace whether he had ever heard him swear. “No, he did not have a habit of swearing. He would fall silent when he became angry, but sparks would flash in his eyes; whenever he accused someone of treason, betrayal or embezzlement of public funds, his visible rage was terrifying,” the man replied. He then nuanced his view. “To be precise, I do recall him once saying: ‘To hell with Iran, to hell with Turkiye.’ It seemed that Saddam had been bemoaning Iraq’s geographical location.”
Let us set aside Saddam’s complaints about fate and geography. The reality is that destiny has associated Iraq with flames — in its region, along its borders and in its neighborhood. Iraq has always had a fraught relationship with neighboring Syria and these tensions have left the two neighbors on the brink of open conflict on several occasions. Saddam and Hafez Assad’s decades-long mutual animosity never abated. Today, the long and complicated relationship between the two countries is being tested once again.
Saddam’s complaints about geographical fate came to mind when I was in Baghdad, where I heard that, during the recent Israeli-Iranian war, Iraq narrowly averted “an existential threat even greater than Daesh had posed when it rolled through a third of Iraq’s territory.” Iraq managed to keep this threat at bay by staying out of the firestorm raging near its borders, even as warplanes and missiles flew through its airspace.
My interlocutor attributed Iraq’s narrow escape to several factors: the Iraqi authorities and the factions operating in Iraqi territory had taken Israel’s threats seriously, the US went from offering advice to raising the alarm and, crucially, Iran had not asked the factions to join the war. On the contrary, it urged them to do nothing.
He added that the factions — having seen how Israel had breached Hezbollah in Lebanon, as well as the first Israeli strike on Iran, which exposed the latter’s vulnerability — realized that they were far too weak to enter this fight. And he noted that the Iraqi authorities had thwarted three attempts by “rogue factions” to attack Israel.
The last time Iraq faced such a difficult test was when Aleppo fell into the hands of Hayat Tahrir Al-Sham. At the time, Iran encouraged its allies to come to the aid of Bashar Assad. Iraq’s State Administration Coalition, the parliamentary bloc that formed the current government, held a closed-door meeting attended by all its members.
Some factions were eager to intervene, arguing that “the implications of terrorists gaining ground in Syria would inevitably spill over into Iraq.” However, the factions needed to transport heavy weaponry if they were to intervene effectively and this was not possible amid Israel’s control of the skies.
At this point of the debate, it was suggested that the Iraqi army could undertake this operation. However, several attendees warned of the risks: such a step could reignite sectarian conflict on Iraqi soil, fracture Iraq’s state institutions and create a serious rift between Baghdad and Irbil. After a tense meeting, the coalition settled on limiting its response to diplomatic channels and media campaigns.
Baghdad made one last effort to persuade Assad to publicly agree to meet Recep Tayyip Erdogan, but he remained intransigent. Only on the eve of his departure did he agree to a low-level meeting between the two countries’ foreign ministers in Baghdad. By then, however, the window had closed and the moment had passed.
One Iraqi observer summed up this episode pertinently. “Iraq’s political forces did not shed many tears for the Assad regime. He is a Baathist and Iraq’s political system had been built on the wreckage of Baathist horrors. Moreover, the man, fearing that his regime would be the next target after Saddam fell, had been responsible for the deaths of thousands of Iraqis. The Assad regime funneled thousands of extremists into Iraq, where they carried out suicide bombings, massacres and devastating attacks.”

The winds of Iraq’s upcoming parliamentary elections, scheduled for November, have begun blowing.

Ghassan Charbel

Nonetheless, the observer noted, “the image of Ahmad Al-Sharaa sitting in Assad’s chair was deeply unsettling to the factions in Baghdad.
“The Iraqi government has responded to these apprehensions pragmatically.
“The two countries are coordinating on security matters and their foreign ministers have met. Prime Minister Mohammed Shia Al-Sudani even met Al-Sharaa in Doha, despite being criticized for doing so. One could say Baghdad is keeping a close eye on Al-Sharaa and monitoring his policies. However, we probably will not see him in Baghdad anytime soon, even as he heads to other regional and international capitals.”
In recent months, Iraq has managed to narrowly escape two daunting threats: the collapse of the Assad regime and the Israeli-Iranian war. Now, in the sweltering heat of summer, the winds of Iraq’s upcoming parliamentary elections, scheduled for November, have begun blowing. If experience offers any guidance, “electoral wars” are never simple in Iraq, nor are the power struggles within the circle of elites. Indeed, Al-Sudani has confirmed to Asharq Al-Awsat that he intends to run for reelection, making it clear that he intends to finish what he has started during his current term.
The electoral stakes are high. Iraqis can only hope that flames will not once again erupt in Iran, threatening to propel Iraq into an even more dangerous and destabilizing debacle than that of a contested parliamentary election.

• Ghassan Charbel is editor-in-chief of Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper. X: @GhasanCharbel — This article first appeared in Asharq Al-Awsat.