IRAQ IS QUIETLY DISTANCING ITSELF FROM IRAN. HOW IS BAGHDAD BUILDING A BALANCED FOREIGN POLICY?
For more than two decades, Iraq has been trapped between foreign occupation and Iranian hegemony, navigating foreign policy without a clear identity and exploited as a tool rather than a state.
However, recent years, particularly since the events in Syria and the transformations taking place there, have opened a rare strategic window for Baghdad to quietly redraw its regional positioning with measured steps. Baghdad today is not turning against anyone, but it also no longer accepts its decisions being dictated by those outside its borders.
In this context, a valuable opportunity is emerging for the West: Iraq, as it has not been for years, is establishing an independent position among the conflicting powers. If the West wants sustainable stability in the Middle East, it must heed the voice of the new Baghdad.
From blind dependence to balance
For many years, Iraq’s foreign policy was characterized by submission to axes of coercion. Its foreign policy decisions were either reactive or conditional, governed by a fragile internal balance imposed by the reality of illicit weapons and regional pressure.
However, the current Baghdad government, taking advantage of the moment of Iranian instability in Syria and Lebanon, has begun a clear repositioning; a repositioning that does not sever bridges, but one that rejects the possibility of these bridges being built unilaterally without its input and interests.
Baghdad is operating today with a different logic: “a state with constitutional institutions, seeking partnerships, not dependencies.” This balance doesn’t mean passive neutrality, but rather independence of decision-making and openness to all from a position of sovereignty, which the country is trying to regain, even if it means disrupting its previous internal and external foundations.
Actual transformation indicators
This transformation is no longer just rhetoric or intentions, but has taken on concrete manifestations on the ground:
In Syria
When fires broke out in Latakia this summer, Baghdad acted with rare speed, dispatching full firefighting teams through the Iraqi Ministry of Interior. This move attracted attention not only for its humanity, but also because it was independent of traditional Iranian coordination and reflected a direct approach to its relationship with Damascus, without intermediaries or parallel military wings. This is especially true given that Baghdad’s move toward Damascus and the Doha meeting that preceded it surprised everyone.
Internationally
Baghdad has reactivated its cooperation with Interpol and handed over internationally wanted individuals after years of procrastination. It also did something more symbolic: it removed the obstacles that had been hampering the BICES information-sharing system with NATO, which had been used politically for internal balances. This demonstrates a genuine commitment to the international system, far removed from the game of axes.
In addition to security issues, Baghdad has begun to chart the contours of a new regional discourse. It no longer acts as an arm of any axis, but rather as a state that thinks in terms of interests and speaks the language of institutions.
In Syria, wheat shipments were sent despite local shortages, as a message of political and humanitarian solidarity that transcended dictates. In Lebanon, it supported the government and state institutions after the recent war, instead of glorifying the logic of illegitimate weapons. At the Arab Summit, the Iraqi delegation played a pivotal role in bringing viewpoints closer together and refusing to politicize contentious issues.
In Yemen, Baghdad hosted the internationally recognized legitimate government and allowed its discourse to resound from the heart of the capital, a clear shift from the balance of power that had previously tended toward ambiguity or passive neutrality.
Why should the West listen?
Because Iraq is not just a “security problem” or an “area of influence” as it has traditionally been viewed, but rather has a real opportunity to become a balancing state in a turbulent environment.
Continuing to ignore this transformation, or treating it with suspicion or patronage, will reproduce the same failures that have characterized Western relations with Iraq for decades. Conversely, however, building a realistic partnership—based on supporting institutions, not individuals—may give Iraq the strength to fully liberate itself from the grip of transnational groups and projects.
If the West wants a stable partner in the region, it will find no more opportune moment for Iraq to become its highest democratic experiment in shaping the new Middle East.
Baghdad is quietly distancing itself from Tehran, without provocation, but it is doing so with determination. It is rebuilding its external legitimacy with rational, non-confrontational rhetoric, but at the same time, it refuses to accept a return to the squares of subordination.
This is a truly Iraqi moment, and the West must listen carefully. Iraq is no longer a forsaken arena or a no-man’s land, but a country learning the lessons of its past and confidently advancing toward a balanced role that reshapes the regional landscape, far removed from blind alignments and vengeful rhetoric.
If Baghdad is given a real chance, it may regain its status as a central state that leads rather than is led, that balances rather than is dragged. But it needs to be treated as a head, not a tail, a partner, not an appendage, and viewed as a potential anchor in the new global economic system, not as a marginal state subject to the blackmail that has exhausted it for half a century.
