๐ TELEGRAM: https://t.me/DINAREVALUATION
๐ X (TWITTER): https://x.com/DinarWatchTeam
๐ BLUESKY: https://bsky.app/profile/dinaresgurus.bsky.social
๐ TELEGRAM: https://t.me/DINAREVALUATION
๐ X (TWITTER): https://x.com/DinarWatchTeam
๐ BLUESKY: https://bsky.app/profile/dinaresgurus.bsky.social
CHANNEL8
Tasnim News Agency reported that Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, heading a high-level parliamentary delegation, will discuss regional developments and strengthen cooperation between Tehran and Baghdad with senior Iraqi officials and leaders.
----
Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Speaker of Iran’s Parliament, is heading a high-level parliamentary delegation to Baghdad to meet with senior Iraqi officials and leaders.
The stated objective is to discuss regional developments and strengthen cooperation between Tehran and Baghdad.
๐ But the timing of this visit is what immediately catches my attention.
Iraq is approaching September 30, the date by which armed militias operating outside state control are expected to move toward disarmament and dissolution.
And now, precisely during this critical period, Tehran is increasing its political engagement with Baghdad. ๐ฎ๐ท๐๐ฎ๐ถ
This is where the analysis begins.
We cannot state as a proven fact that Ghalibaf’s visit is intended to prevent the disarmament of the militias. Additional evidence would be required to establish that.
But the timing is impossible to ignore.
A genuine reduction of the armed structures of pro-Iranian factions inside Iraq would also mean a reduction of one of Tehran’s major mechanisms of political influence inside Iraq.
So the question becomes:
๐ Is Iran trying to preserve its political influence in Baghdad while Iraq prepares to reduce the influence of the militias?
If we look at the situation from this perspective, the political role of figures historically aligned with Iran becomes even more important.
The issue is not simply WHO holds a political position.
The bigger question is:
Because there is a massive difference between:
๐ด REAL DISARMAMENT:
Weapons are placed under the exclusive control of the Iraqi state and autonomous armed structures disappear.
๐ก A “COSMETIC” DISARMAMENT:
The same structures retain influence, resources and political leverage, but operate under a different name or institutional formula.
That distinction could be critical for Iraq’s political future.
I want everyone to remember something we discussed previously.
According to the information from the CBI Contact, Iranian influence inside Iraq would be a determining factor in whether the “Delete the Zeros” project can move forward.
The message was clear:
๐ฎ๐ถ IRAQ MUST ELIMINATE IRANIAN INFLUENCE BEFORE THE DELETE THE ZEROS PROJECT CAN BE ACTIVATED.
⚠️ This is NOT a public statement from the CBI. It should be understood as information attributed to the CBI Contact and something we continue to watch and compare against public developments.
But now...
LOOK AT THE BIGGER PICTURE.
If we temporarily accept that information as one piece of the puzzle, the sequence becomes extremely interesting:
๐ฎ๐ท REDUCTION OF IRANIAN INFLUENCE
⬇️
๐ช DISARMAMENT / DISSOLUTION OF MILITIAS
⬇️
๐ฎ๐ถ GREATER SOVEREIGNTY OF THE IRAQI STATE
⬇️
๐ LESS EXTERNAL INTERFERENCE
⬇️
๐ฆ POLITICAL CONDITIONS FOR STRATEGIC REFORMS
⬇️
๐ต DELETE THE ZEROS
Does this guarantee that this exact sequence will happen?
NO.
But if what the CBI Contact said is accurate, then the events we are watching could be far more important than they appear on the surface.
For me, this is THE REAL POINT OF OBSERVATION.
What will Al-Zaidi do?
If he keeps the September 30 timeline firm, insists that weapons truly come under state control, and rejects formulas that simply change the name of the militias...
๐ฅ THAT WOULD BE A VERY IMPORTANT SIGNAL.
But if we begin to see:
❌ Delays
❌ Exceptions
❌ New “integration” formulas
❌ Parallel structures
❌ Agreements allowing factions to retain autonomy
❌ Political concessions preserving Iranian influence
then we have to ask whether we are witnessing precisely the “cosmetic disarmament” we have been talking about.
Is Iran simply strengthening normal cooperation with Iraq?
Or is Tehran attempting to preserve its political influence in Baghdad before Iraq reaches the breaking point?
And most importantly:
Because if what the CBI Contact said is correct, the Iranian issue may be much more than geopolitics.
That is why we watch.
NO RUMORS.
NO EUPHORIA.
FACTS. ๐
๐ฎ๐ถ๐ช IRAQ FIRST.
๐ X (TWITTER): https://x.com/DinarWatchTeam
๐ BLUESKY: https://bsky.app/profile/dinaresgurus.bsky.social
#Iraq #Iran #AlZaidi #AlMaliki #Ghalibaf #CBI #CBIContact #CentralBankOfIraq #DeleteTheZeros #IraqiDinar #CurrencyReform #MonetaryReform #IraqNews #IraqPolitics #IranInfluence #Militias #Disarmament #Baghdad #Tehran #RV #IQD
CHANNEL8
Nouri al-Maliki and US Chargรฉ d'Affaires Joshua Harris have discussed efforts to place weapons under state control and strengthen Iraq’s constitutional institutions.
๐ฎ๐ถ MALIKI AND IRAQ’S WEAPONS: SOVEREIGNTY OR POLITICAL COVER?
NEWS SUMMARY
Nouri al-Maliki and U.S. Chargรฉ d’Affaires Joshua Harris discussed efforts to place weapons under state control and strengthen Iraq’s constitutional institutions.
Maliki is also involved in the Coordination Framework’s efforts to establish a mechanism to advance this process.
๐ฅ BUT HERE IS WHERE IT GETS INTERESTING...
Why Nouri al-Maliki?
We are talking about the same politician who was Prime Minister during a period marked by serious corruption allegations, growing Iranian influence, and, most importantly, who helped establish the institutional framework that gave legal status to the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) in 2014.
So the question should not simply be:
“Is Maliki now against the militias?”
The real question is:
๐ฎ๐ถ WHO WILL CONTROL THE MILITIAS IF THEIR WEAPONS COME UNDER STATE CONTROL?
Because there is a huge difference between:
๐ฎ๐ถ STATE CONTROL
➡️ The Prime Minister and constitutional institutions genuinely control the weapons.
And:
๐ฎ๐ถ STATE COVER
➡️ Militias are formally integrated into the state while maintaining political influence, networks, and external relationships.
Maliki is not necessarily calling for the dissolution of the PMF.
The argument is more about bringing them under a state structure.
And that creates a very interesting possibility:
MILITIAS
⬇️
PMF
⬇️
STATE INSTITUTION
⬇️
POLITICAL INFLUENCE REMAINS
If that becomes the outcome, this would be less about dismantling the system and more about reorganizing it inside the Iraqi state.
We cannot claim that Maliki is acting directly on orders from Iran.
But we also cannot ignore his long-standing political relationship with Tehran and his historical role in Iraq’s Iran-aligned political ecosystem.
That makes his involvement particularly interesting.
๐บ๐ธ Washington:
“We need weapons under state control.”
๐ฎ๐ถ Baghdad:
“We need Iraqi sovereignty.”
๐ฎ๐ท Iran-aligned political networks:
“We need to make sure this transition does not destroy the existing power structure.”
And Maliki could potentially occupy the space between all three.
Are we actually witnessing the creation of a genuine state monopoly on the use of force?
Or are we witnessing a process through which existing armed structures are legalized, institutionalized, and placed inside a new state framework while retaining much of their influence?
Because if the second scenario happens, the outcome could be:
❌ Not: Eliminating militia influence.
But rather:
✅ Integrating them.
✅ Institutionalizing them.
✅ Keeping them inside the political system.
✅ Preserving their networks.
✅ Presenting the process as a victory for Iraqi sovereignty.
The politician who helped create the architecture behind the PMF is now involved in the process that supposedly seeks to place weapons under state control.
That does not prove a conspiracy.
But it raises a very important question:
๐ฎ๐ถ Is Maliki helping Iraq establish genuine state control—or helping reshape the existing militia system so it can survive inside the Iraqi state?
๐ WATCH WHAT HAPPENS NEXT.
The real test will not be Maliki’s statements.
It will be whether this process actually removes:
๐ด Independent chains of command
๐ด Autonomous military decision-making
๐ด External influence
๐ด Independent financing
๐ด Political control by armed factions
If those things remain...
Then “state control” may simply become a new legal framework for an old power structure.
๐ฎ๐ถ Iraq’s sovereignty will ultimately be measured not by who signs the agreements, but by who actually controls the weapons.
๐ TELEGRAM: https://t.me/DINAREVALUATION
๐ X (TWITTER): https://x.com/DinarWatchTeam
๐ BLUESKY: https://bsky.app/profile/dinaresgurus.bsky.social
#Iraq #Maliki #PMF #Iran #IraqPolitics #IraqiSovereignty #Baghdad #MiddleEast #StateControl #Geopolitics
๐ TELEGRAM: https://t.me/DINAREVALUATION
๐ X (TWITTER): https://x.com/DinarWatchTeam
๐ BLUESKY: https://bsky.app/profile/dinaresgurus.bsky.social
KURDISTAN24
Syrian Tomorrow Current Says Iran Aims to Destabilize Kurdistan
๐ฎ๐ท NEWS: A new drone attack targeting facilities linked to Kurdistan Region Prime Minister Masrour Barzani has once again raised concerns about Iranian influence in Iraq. Kurdish authorities identified Iranian territory as the launch point.
⚠️ But this goes beyond Kurdistan.
If Iran destabilizes both Erbil and Baghdad, it puts pressure on two critical centers of Iraqi power. A weak, divided, corrupt Iraq with multiple centers of power is much easier to influence than a sovereign Iraq with strong institutions and state control over weapons.
๐ฐ And this is where the economic dimension becomes critical:
An Iraq that reduces corruption, strengthens border and customs controls, modernizes its banking system, reduces the parallel economy, strengthens its institutions, attracts foreign investment, and diversifies beyond oil would have far greater independence from Tehran.
๐ฎ๐ถ A stronger Iraqi state means:
๐น Less power for militias
๐น Less parallel-market activity
๐น Less external dependence
๐น Greater control over dollar flows
๐น Greater economic sovereignty
๐น More foreign investment
๐น Stronger integration with the Gulf and the West
๐ฅ And here is the strategic question:
Iran has incentives to preserve mechanisms of influence within a weak and fragmented Iraq. But the more pressure Iraq faces, the greater the incentive for Baghdad to build a truly sovereign state.
๐ฎ๐ถ The real battle may not be purely military.
It may be over the economic, financial, and political future of Iraq.
If Baghdad succeeds in reducing militia influence, fighting corruption, modernizing its financial system, and strengthening economic relations with the U.S. and Gulf countries, Iraq could begin transforming from a battleground between regional powers into a sovereign state capable of negotiating with everyone.
๐ฅ A strong Iraq could fundamentally change the regional balance of power.
๐ TELEGRAM: https://t.me/DINAREVALUATION
๐ X (TWITTER): https://x.com/DinarWatchTeam
๐ BLUESKY: https://bsky.app/profile/dinaresgurus.bsky.social
#Iraq ๐ฎ๐ถ #Iran ๐ฎ๐ท #Kurdistan #Erbil #Baghdad #IraqSovereignty #IraqReforms #CBI #IraqiDinar #EconomicReform #DeDollarization #AntiCorruption #MiddleEast #Geopolitics #Iraq2026
CHANNEL8
Ali Faleh al-Zaidi, Prime Minister and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, directed that “the findings of the investigation be made public as quickly as possible, exposing all circumstances surrounding the attack and the entities behind it.”
----
๐ฎ๐ถ๐ฅ ERBIL UNDER ATTACK: WILL BAGHDAD STAND FIRM?
๐ข NEWS SUMMARY
Two drones targeted the office of Kurdistan Region Prime Minister Masrour Barzani and the residence of the region’s security chief in Erbil. Kurdish authorities said the drones originated from Iranian territory. No casualties were reported. (The New Region)
๐ฎ๐ถ Prime Minister Ali Faleh al-Zaidi ordered an investigation to identify the launch points, determine the circumstances, and reveal those responsible, directing that the findings be made public as quickly as possible. (Shafaq News)
๐ฅ BUT HERE IS WHERE THE STORY GETS MUCH MORE INTERESTING...
Why Erbil?
Why not Baghdad?
One possible strategic objective could be to create tension between Erbil and Baghdad.
The potential scenario would look like this:
ATTACK ERBIL ๐ฎ๐ถ
⬇️
ERBIL DEMANDS ACTION FROM BAGHDAD
⬇️
BAGHDAD RESPONDS TOO SLOWLY
⬇️
KURDISH FRUSTRATION GROWS
⬇️
TRUST BETWEEN ERBIL & BAGHDAD WEAKENS
And that could benefit any actor that does not want to see a stronger, more unified Iraqi state.
Baghdad and Erbil are actually moving in the opposite direction.
๐ค Greater security coordination
๐ง Joint border-security efforts
๐ป ASYCUDA implementation
๐ฐ Unified customs procedures
๐ข️ Cooperation on oil and revenues
๐ Joint efforts against smuggling and unofficial crossings
Just days before the attack, Iraqi and Kurdish officials were strengthening coordination on border security and combating smuggling. (ุงูุดุฑู ุงูุฃูุณุท)
And the ASYCUDA agreement represents a major step toward unified customs procedures and greater federal oversight of revenues. (964media)
๐ฅ THAT CHANGES THE CONTEXT.
If someone wanted to weaken Baghdad–Erbil cooperation, creating insecurity in Erbil could be an effective way to put pressure on that relationship.
If Erbil begins thinking:
“Baghdad says we are part of Iraq, but can Baghdad actually protect us?”
then political tensions could grow.
That is why Al-Zaidi’s response matters so much.
By ordering the investigation and demanding that the findings be made public, Baghdad is potentially sending a very important message:
๐ฎ๐ถ “An attack on Erbil is an attack on Iraqi territory—and the Iraqi state will determine who is responsible.”
That is very different from treating this as merely a Kurdish regional problem.
The KRG says the drones originated from Iranian territory. That is significant, but we must distinguish between where the drones came from and who ultimately ordered the attack.
It would therefore be premature to say:
❌ “Iran ordered this attack specifically to divide Baghdad and Erbil.”
But we can analyze the potential strategic effect:
If an outside actor wants to prevent deeper Baghdad–Erbil integration, destabilizing Erbil could create exactly the kind of political friction that would undermine that cooperation.
The attack could potentially produce the opposite effect.
If Al-Zaidi responds firmly:
ATTACK ON ERBIL
๐ฎ๐ถ
⬇️
BAGHDAD RESPONDS
⬇️
GREATER SECURITY COORDINATION
⬇️
STRONGER FEDERAL BORDER CONTROL
⬇️
LESS ROOM FOR MILITIAS & EXTERNAL ACTORS
⬇️
STRONGER BAGHDAD–ERBIL INTEGRATION ๐ฎ๐ถ๐ฅ
And that connects directly to the ASYCUDA story.
The most important question is not only who launched the drones.
The bigger question is:
๐ฎ๐ถ HOW WILL THE IRAQI STATE RESPOND?
If Baghdad successfully identifies those responsible, protects Erbil, strengthens border control, and continues integrating security and economic systems with the Kurdistan Region, this attack could ultimately strengthen Iraqi sovereignty rather than weaken it.
And that would be a very different outcome from what a destabilizing actor might have intended.
๐ Watch Baghdad’s response.
Because right now, the real battle may be bigger than Erbil.
It may be about who controls Iraq’s borders, security, money—and ultimately, Iraq’s sovereignty. ๐ฎ๐ถ๐ฅ
๐ TELEGRAM: https://t.me/DINAREVALUATION
๐ X (TWITTER): https://x.com/DinarWatchTeam
๐ BLUESKY: https://bsky.app/profile/dinaresgurus.bsky.social
#Iraq #IraqiDinar #IQD #Erbil #Baghdad #Kurdistan #Iran #AliAlZaidi #MasrourBarzani #ASYCUDA #Iraq2026 #IraqiSovereignty #Geopolitics #MiddleEast #IraqEconomy
๐ TELEGRAM: https://t.me/DINAREVALUATION
๐ X (TWITTER): https://x.com/DinarWatchTeam
๐ BLUESKY: https://bsky.app/profile/dinaresgurus.bsky.social
๐๐ข FOLLOW & JOIN OUR COMMUNITY ๐ TELEGRAM: https://t.me/DINAREVALUATION ๐ X (TWITTER): https://x.com/DinarWatchTeam ๐ BLU...