The Prime Minister Speaks on Behalf of Iraq, Not on His Own Personal Behalf

By: Mohammad al-Shabout

In politics, an official may miscalculate a position or choose one phrasing over another, but there are moments when words do not express a personal opinion, but rather the state they represent. One of these moments occurred at the White House when US President Donald Trump brought up the assassination of Iranian Commander Qasem Soleimani and the assassination of the Deputy Chairman of the Popular Mobilization Forces, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, and questioned Iraqi Prime Minister Ali Al-Zaidi in a manner implying that this act was a service to Iraq.

The question was directed to the Prime Minister of Iraq, not to Ali Al-Zaidi as an individual. Therefore, the answer should have come from the position of the state, not the individual. However, the Prime Minister replied that he was not involved in political work at the time, as if the issue were linked to the date of his entry into political life, whereas the reality is that the Iraqi state did not begin with him, and its sovereignty is not tied to the date he assumed office.

This response was unfortunate because it shifted the discussion from the level of the state to the level of personal biography. Of what relevance is it whether the Prime Minister was in or out of politics at the time of the incident? Does Iraq's sovereignty become less significant because the current Prime Minister did not hold public office at that time? And does the state's responsibility to defend its sovereignty change with a change of individuals?

The core of the issue is not about Qasem Soleimani or Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis. Iraqis have the right to differ in their assessment of the two men, and political forces may differ in their positions toward them, but this is not the subject of discussion. The real issue is that a military operation was carried out by a foreign nation on Iraqi soil, without the approval of the Iraqi state, resulting in the death of an official Iraqi officer, as well as an Iranian military official who was present in Iraq.

This is a matter that infringes upon the sovereignty of the state before it touches individuals.

Had the Prime Minister answered from this standpoint, he would have expressed a position respected by all Iraqis, regardless of their differing views on the targeted individuals. He could have said, quite calmly: Iraq is keen on having the best relations with the United States, but it cannot consider the violation of its sovereignty as a service to it, because respect for state sovereignty is the foundation upon which international relations are built.

Such an answer does not carry hostility toward the United States, does not offend the US President, and does not open the door to a diplomatic crisis. At the same time, it preserves the dignity of the Iraqi state. Diplomacy is not the art of avoiding the truth, but the art of speaking the truth in the best possible way.

When the Prime Minister stands in the capital of a foreign nation, he does not represent his party, his political bloc, or his personal history; he represents the Republic of Iraq.

Consequently, every word he utters becomes part of the official position of the state, not merely an individual opinion that can be apologized for or explained later.

For this reason, I did not like the Prime Minister's response. Not because I wanted him to engage in an argument with the US President, or to turn the visit into a political confrontation, but because I wanted him to perform his constitutional duty in defending Iraq's sovereignty, and to point out, calmly and respectfully, that Iraq is a sovereign state. This sovereignty does not change with the change of governments, does not lapse with the change of individuals, and must not be a matter of courtesy, even with the closest of allies.

Nations are often measured by the way their leaders defend their dignity in difficult situations. That was one of those moments when Iraq needed a voice to speak on its behalf, not on behalf of its owner.