Is there an American and an Iranian “veto” on the second Sudanese term, or is it a fabricated political narrative?
Some claim there is an Iranian veto on the nomination of Mohammed Shia al-Sudani for the premiership of the new government, and that there is also an American veto on the same issue, but this is untrue. According to observers, the Iranians are too bold to conceal their position, and if they have an opinion or reservation, they do not reject it outright, but rather express their stance indirectly. This has not happened at all with al-Sudani; on the contrary, there are numerous positive signals coming from the Iranian side that are in Mohammed Shia al-Sudani's favor.
Similarly, the Americans are the most outspoken and direct in declaring their position, and no one is clearer in expressing their political stance on such an issue. Certainly, no negative statement or insinuation regarding al-Sudani's premiership came from the Washington government or its representatives. In contrast, we find a clear American statement against al-Maliki's nomination, issued personally by US President Donald Trump, in which he unequivocally expressed his rejection of Abu Israa assuming the premiership for a third time.
The Americans, especially President Trump, feel no hesitation in declaring their position against any official in the world.
For example, their stance on the government in Venezuela was clear, and Trump himself stated it publicly on numerous occasions.
The Americans undoubtedly have many ways of expressing their position, including through the American ambassador to Iraq, who speaks frankly, or the chargé d'affaires, or through Trump's envoys and representatives.
But this never happened in the matter of Al-Sudani’s nomination. Those who promote this lie are “promoting it for purely political and self-serving purposes that have no relation to reality and truth.” The head of the Reconstruction and Development Bloc, Bahaa Al-Araji, said it frankly: The American veto on Al-Sudani is a clear lie.
Yes, America has no veto, ban, or objection to al-Sudani. The rumors and propaganda spread by some forces within the Coordination Framework are a blatant lie and nothing more than a deliberate attempt to confuse the situation. When they claim there is a veto on al-Maliki and a veto on al-Sudani, they are pursuing a self-serving objective: to present a "third candidate"
—a candidate carefully tailored to their own interests and utilitarian needs.
Indeed, these rumors are being circulated by certain parties seeking to bring in a weak prime minister who can be controlled and manipulated as they please.
As for Iran, it has no reservations about al-Sudani.
Tehran certainly knows al-Sudani's nature better than anyone else, and is aware of his skill in keeping Iraq out of the conflict zone, and his ability to maintain a neutral stance, specifically on the safe path. This is a point the Iranians value and are very concerned with. Therefore, officials in Tehran have sent several positive and favorable signals to the Iraqi government and its president, al-Sudani.
Iran is also well aware of the al-Sudani government's supportive stance towards the Lebanese people, the resistance, and Hezbollah, and its prevention of any leniency or inclination by any party within the government towards any axis hostile to Iran or its allies.
Therefore, the American and Iranian veto card is a false card, and whoever promotes it as a rumor should look for another card.
Then how can this strange paradox be believed, which says that the Sudanese are facing a veto from both opposing sides together?
Logic means standing with America or standing with Iran, and this means that the veto will come from one of them and not from both of them together.. as they cannot possibly agree on one position.
Therefore, some parties within the coordination framework must look for excuses or justifications other than this narrative, which, according to many observers, has lost credibility in the eyes of a public that is now more open than ever! link