After the meeting with the American envoy.. Will Al-Zaidi’s dismissal explode the situation in Iraq? | policy

The dismissals and broad changes made by Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi in sensitive security and economic institutions, after his meeting with US envoy Tom Barrack and prior to his expected visit to Washington, sparked controversy over whether it was a step to re-establish state authority or a response to pressure targeting the influence of factions close to Iran.

The controversy is not related to the size of the changes alone, but rather to the nature of the personalities that affected them, as they included officials whose names were linked to sensitive security and financial files, as well as growing talk about an additional wave that may extend to more influential positions within the state, which transformed the decisions from a mere administrative procedure into a broad political test of the balances after the formation of the government.

During his participation in the “Beyond the News” program, Mustafa Al-Saray, director of research at the Al-Bayan Center for Studies and Planning, presented a reading that sees what is happening as inseparable from a reform path previously proposed within the ruling forces, which is based on restructuring the security, political, and economic institutions, foremost among which is the issue of restricting weapons to the state, and reorganizing the relationship with the armed factions outside official frameworks.

In this sense, the dismissals appear to be part of a broader project that seeks to rearrange the centers of power within the Iraqi state, and not just a circumstantial response to a passing political development. The changes came at an accelerated and unprecedented pace, suggesting that the government is trying to exploit the currently available political margin before regional or internal circumstances change.

But this reading does not enjoy consensus within the Iraqi scene. Writer and political researcher Kazem Al-Hajj links the timing of the measures to accelerating regional transformations, especially with regard to the American-Iranian relationship and the future of the American presence in Iraq, considering that the central question is not related to the reform itself, but rather to the party from whom this reform will benefit and the results to which it will lead.

From this perspective, there are fears that the restructuring process will turn into a gradual dismantling of centers of influence that used to play a balancing role in the face of external pressures, which makes judging the measures more dependent on what subsequent steps will reveal than on the current decisions themselves.

Political surgery

Issam Al-Faili, professor of political science at Al-Mustansiriya University, during his participation in the program, goes on to describe what is happening as similar to “political surgery” within the state structure, explaining that Al-Zaidi did not limit himself to making formal amendments, but rather targeted well-established sites that have been linked for years to complex political and security networks of influence.

This reading gains additional importance because some of the figures included in the changes were the subject of repeated American reservations, according to observers of Iraqi affairs, because of their closeness to Iranian circles of influence, which makes the coincidence between the dismissals and recent American communications a factor that is difficult to ignore in interpreting the scene.

However, linking decisions exclusively to American desires may not be enough to explain them, as Iraq has been facing accumulated financial and security pressures for years, and state institutions have been subjected to widespread criticism related to corruption, nepotism, and poor efficiency, which are issues that give any government internal justifications to launch a broad process of change.

In justifying these measures, the government relies on a broader vision that goes beyond changing names. In his speech to Al Jazeera, its spokesman, Haider Al-Aboudi, links the changes to a reform path that includes restricting weapons to the state, combating corruption, and revitalizing institutions to keep pace with the security and economic transformations imposed by the changes in the region.

Baghdad also denies the presence of political pressures behind the recent decisions, and presents them as part of a mandate given to the government to implement broader institutional reforms, while linking the success of the economic partnership with Washington to creating a stable environment in which the state’s monopoly on security and military decisions is complete.

Al-Fili believes that the Prime Minister relied on a number of factors that gave him the ability to act with this level of boldness, including judicial support for the path to restoring state authority, and oversight reports that speak of administrative and financial imbalances, as well as the room for maneuver provided to him by the political consensus that led to his accession to the position.

But having the ability to make a decision does not necessarily mean guaranteeing its success. The real dilemma lies in how to translate these measures into a sustainable project that is accepted by the various Iraqi forces, rather than turning it into a new stage in the influence struggle between the state and the factions.

In this context, Al-Hajj points out that the issue of “disengagement” between the state and some structures linked to the armed factions exceeds the lifespan of any government, which makes it in need of a broad political understanding that includes the various Iraqi components, because individual decisions may produce temporary solutions but do not provide long-term stability.

This proposal reflects growing fears that the rapid redrawing of the balance of power will lead to the creation of new alignments within the political scene, especially if influential forces feel that the changes target their existence or reduce their role under the title of administrative and institutional reform.

Positive message

The approaching date of Al-Zaidi’s visit to Washington adds an additional dimension to the discussion, as part of the Iraqi political elite views the current steps as a positive message to the American administration regarding Baghdad’s readiness to proceed with issues that the United States has long demanded, most notably arms control and the reorganization of security institutions.

This impression is reinforced by the fact that Washington has for years linked security, economics, and governance issues, and believes that reforming the security environment represents a necessary input to address financial imbalances, attract investments, and alleviate the economic pressures facing Baghdad.

However, this same link raises sensitivity among Iraqi parties who fear that the reforms will turn into a political price required to obtain American support or to avoid possible sanctions and pressure, which explains the state of anticipation prevailing among the factions and forces close to Iran.

As the procedures move from the stage of dismissals to the stage of rearranging influence within institutions, the most important question becomes related to the possible reactions, as the affected factions and forces have political, popular and media tools that enable them to slow down the process or impose amendments to it through negotiation and mutual pressure.

The interventions of the episode’s guests indicate that the possibilities of direct confrontation are still unlikely, because the cost of the clash is high for all parties. The political forces are aware of the sensitivity of the regional situation, and the government is also aware that any attempt to impose radical changes by force may push the country into a state of instability that is difficult to contain.

This is why the next stage seems governed by the logic of bargaining more than the logic of resolution, as each party is trying to test the other’s limits without going to an open confrontation, while internal calculations interfere with external pressures in shaping the course of events.

Al-Fili warns that any slide towards a comprehensive clash between the state and the armed forces will carry heavy security and political repercussions, which makes Al-Zaidi’s success dependent on his ability to achieve a delicate balance between imposing state authority and maintaining a minimum level of national consensus.