Iraq

WASHINGTON — Late September in the Oval Office, President Trump declared, “Iran will never have a nuclear weapon. We’re gonna win that war very soon.”

It wasn’t the first time he’s described the hostilities as “war.”

On Feb. 28, the day U.S. and Israeli began bombarding Iran, he warned that “the lives of courageous American heroes may be lost, and we may have casualties. That often happens in war, but we’re doing this not for now. We’re doing this for the future, and it is a noble mission.”

But throughout seven months of back-and-forth strikes with Iran, Trump administration officials, and sometimes Trump himself, have performed verbal acrobatics to avoid the “W” word.

President Trump, addressing the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 22, used the word “war” one time when referring to hostilities with Iran.

(Pool / Getty Images)

Senior administration officials loosely tossed around “war” during the first stages of conflict, but with polls showing the war in unpopular and congressional support waning, “war” and even “Operation Epic Fury” have become taboo among members of the Trump administration.

Trump has called attacks on Iran a “military operation,” “military decimation,” “excursion” and “skirmish.”

At a White House press briefing last month, Vice President JD Vance attempted to clear the air when a reporter asked about a potential end to what she called a “war in Iran.”

“I wouldn’t call it a war right now,” Vance said. “Major combat operations lasted for about six weeks.”

Vice President JD Vance, addressing reporters at the White House on Sept. 3, said, “I wouldn’t call it a war right now” when asked about the conflict with Iran.

(Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth tread carefully in front of the Senate Appropriations Committee in July, repeatedly referring to a “conflict” in Iran that needed additional funding to continue.

On May 5, during the first of two delicate ceasefires with Iran, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced an end to the objectives laid out in Operation Epic Fury and the beginning of “Project Freedom” — an effort to escort merchant ships through the Strait of Hormuz.

In April, Trump announced the blockade of Iranian ports. When asked about whether the blockade constituted an act of war, Rubio replied, “That’s not an act of war, that’s a defensive measure. It’s a counter to what they have decided to do.”

Senior Trump officials have maintained that the conflict can no longer be viewed as war because the intensity of strikes between the two countries has been reduced.

The “end” of Operation Epic Fury, the name Trump used when he announced hostilities on Feb. 28, was declared on May 5 — 60 days after the fighting began.

The timing was no coincidence. Under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, a president must cease all hostilities abroad after 60 days if there is no congressional declaration of war.

Legal and political considerations

Under the Constitution, only Congress declares war, but past presidents have routinely circumvented this rule by exercising their authority to direct the military and initiate strikes on targeted nations.

Nearly every modern president, from Dwight D. Eisenhower to Trump, has used this justification to undertake military action without the declaratory approval of Congress.

Congress can also choose to approve an Authorization for Use of Military Force, which grants the president legal authority to conduct military operations overseas.

Unless Congress sets a time limit on the authorization, authority to use the legal justification to launch military strikes can theoretically span multiple administrations.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), a former constitutional law professor at American University, said that presidents of both parties have avoided the term “war” when attempting to evade congressional approval of hostile action abroad.

“Trump has followed some of his predecessors in playing word games with the war power,” Raskin said. “What makes his case so extreme is that he proudly described it as a war and depicted it in glorified military terms.”

In March, seven days into the fighting, Trump said, “The war itself is going unbelievably. It’s as good as it can be.”

Congress has not officially declared war since World War II. The Vietnam War, the invasion of Afghanistan and both wars in Iraq were all approved by Congress under the umbrella of an Authorization for the Use of Military Force.

This year Congress has not approved such an authorization for the action with Iran. Fourteen Senate votes for a War Powers Resolution to curb Trump’s war efforts have failed in the chamber so far.

According to a CNN/SSRS poll last month, only 26% of Americans approve of the Trump administration’s handling of the Iran war.

Raskin said that he believes Trump’s terminology has shifted with the public mood, adding that he hasn’t heard any of his Republican colleagues “play along with the semantic games.”

“When things have turned south in the fortunes of this war, he has tried to pretend it’s something else,” Raskin said. “I think that has just further enraged the population.”

Past handling of congressional war power

The administration’s declaration that Operation Epic Fury had concluded echoed May 2003, when then-President George W. Bush stood in front of a banner reading “Mission Accomplished” aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, approximately six weeks after Operation Iraqi Freedom began.

“Major combat operations in Iraq have ended,” Bush said. “And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.”

President George W. Bush speaks aboard the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln off the California coast on May 1, 2003.

(J. Scott Applewhite/AP)

Despite the victory lap, combat operations in Iraq and across the Middle East continued through the aughts. The Iraq war wouldn’t officially end until 2011, with President Obama’s signature.

Obama himself relied heavily on the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force — passed by Congress under Bush — in his military campaign against Islamic State during his presidency.

According to Council on Foreign Relations data, Obama launched 542 drone strikes and killed 3,797 people in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia without renewed approval from Congress.

A case more analogous to Trump’s comes in former President Truman’s unilateral decision to deploy U.S. troops to Korea in 1950. The Truman administration forwent congressional approval altogether and used United Nations Security Council resolutions to justify the intervention against Communist forces in the north, according to a White House news release from the time.

There were many critics of this exercise of executive war powers, most notably, Ohio Republican Sen. Robert A. Taft, who argued that Truman had usurped congressional war powers.

However, that Congress still provided monetary support, granting Truman military funds and extensions to the draft to raise additional troops for the Korean War effort. According to historical Gallup polls, 78% of Americans in 1950 approved of U.S. intervention in Korea.

Trump sticking with ‘war’

While Vance and other administration officials continue to avoid “war,” it does slip out now and then. Trump has been, perhaps, the most discordant messenger of the administration when discussing Iran.

After referring to the “war” on social media and public interviews more than a dozen times, Trump backed Vance’s comments about the Iran war no longer being active as he spoke to reporters in the Oval Office in September. He refuses to call the conflict a “war,” Trump said, because “you are supposed to get approval.”

“I call it a military conflict, because it’s small potatoes for us,” Trump said.

Mahan Air is excluded from the agreement as Baghdad says Washington granted its request for a waiver.

Iraq has agreed to let Iranian airlines, except Mahan Air, operate up to 40 flights a day to and from Najaf International Airport, saying the United States granted an exemption from its sanctions.

Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi’s office announced the agreement on Friday, a day after Tehran urged Baghdad to lift restrictions that it said hurt pilgrims, patients, students and business.

The deal eases the links between the two Shia-majority neighbours since Washington sanctioned Iran’s aviation sector last month.

Al-Zaidi welcomed the “positive response shown by the US government to Iraq’s efforts and its cooperation in granting the necessary exemption”, the statement from his office said.

“Air travel does not merely represent transportation between two airports, but rather a bridge of communication between peoples,” it added.

Separately, Iraq’s Foreign Minister Fuad Hussein said the return of flights supports an Iraqi-US partnership premised on mutual respect.

Hussein also welcomed what he described as US understanding of the importance of respecting religious freedom and facilitating access for visitors to holy sites.

Flights suspended

The US Treasury announced sanctions on September 8 against 36 entities linked to Iran’s aviation sector.

Foreign ground-handling companies then refused to service Iranian aircraft for fear of falling foul of US sanctions, and flights stopped at four Iraqi airports.

Soon after, Iraq’s government held direct talks with Washington, seeking an exemption.

Iraq’s ambassador to Tehran, Yasser al-Hajjaj, told Iran’s IRNA news agency that Baghdad had not ordered the halt in flights. The suspension also led to demonstrations outside Najaf airport and in Nasiriya, Karbala and Amarah, according to Iran’s Press TV.

Najaf is the main destination for Iranian flights in Iraq. Flights to and from the city carry Iraqi Shia Muslim pilgrims to Iran’s holy cities or Iranians visiting sacred sites in Iraq.

Iran’s ambassador to Baghdad, Mohammad Kazem al-Sadegh, told the Iranian news agency ISNA that there were “roughly 25 daily flights from Iran to Najaf and about 15 flights to Baghdad” before the ban.

“Around 12,000 to 13,000 people travel between Iran and Iraq and vice versa on Iranian airlines, which is not a small number,” he added.

In a statement shared on Thursday, Iran’s Foreign Ministry said that Washington’s “illegal and inhumane” extraterritorial enforcement of sanctions was disrupting Iran’s trade and air transport.

Restrictions remain

Flights between Najaf and Iran restarted late on Monday, according to the Iraqi News Agency.

However, flights with Iran are still suspended at Baghdad, Erbil and Sulaimaniyah airports, forcing passengers into land journeys of at least 12 hours and disrupting pilgrim traffic.

Al Jazeera has not verified the exemption with representatives in Washington.

The last remaining US troops have left Iraq. The US military was first deployed to Iraq back in 2003 to depose its leader, Saddam Hussein.

It later faced a series of crises that ensued after the ousting of Hussein. Iraq became embroiled in a cycle of violence that considerably weakened the country.

While the US may have prevented the collapse of the state, it’s also accused of contributing to the subsequent chaos that engulfed it.

The Iraqi government will now be dealing with a new reality.

Is it up to the job? And who stands to gain from the US finally leaving Iraq?

Presenter: Dareen Abughaida

Guests:

Ahmed Rushdi – President of the House of Iraqi Expertise Foundation.

Kenneth Katzman – Senior fellow at The Soufan Center specialising in Middle East geopolitics and US foreign policy.

Abdullah Alshayji – Professor of political science at Kuwait University specialising in US politics and Gulf security.

Baghdad, Najaf, Erbil, and Sulaimaniyah airports suspend flights as US ramps up pressure on Iran’s aviation sector.

Four Iraqi airports have suspended all flights to and from Iran days after the United States announced new aviation sanctions on any global companies doing business with Iranian airlines.

It is the latest ramping up of sanctions since the US launched Operation Economic Outcast in August in an effort to isolate Iran from the global economy.

Iraqi state media said flights will no longer be operating from Baghdad, Najaf, Erbil and Sulaimaniyah airports.

Iraq was one of the top destinations for Iranian airlines, especially after Iraqi airlines stopped flying to Iran at the start of the US-Israel war on Iran in February.

Passengers travelling between Iran and Iraq will now be forced to make a land journey of at least 12 hours, depending on the destination.

Najaf airport

Iraq’s state news agency reported the suspension at Najaf international airport earlier on Friday.

Airport director Hussein Muhanna told the AFP news agency that “all flights were halted between Iran and Najaf airport following a directive from the prime minister’s office to the governor” of Najaf.

Iraq and neighbouring Iran are both Shia-majority countries, and flights to and from Najaf carry Iraqi Shia Muslim pilgrims to Iran’s holy cities or Iranians visiting sacred sites in Iraq.

In a post on X, the Iranian Consulate in Najaf responded to the suspension of flights to and from Iran, saying “Najaf international airport, the shrine of the first Imam of the Shia, and the capital of their last Imam, is closed to the largest Shia country in the world?!”

An Iraqi employee of an Iranian airline at Najaf airport told AFP Iranian carriers usually operate at least 20 daily flights, but after the suspension, only four flights to other destinations remained scheduled on Friday.

Several other regional countries, including the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, have either cancelled or restricted flights to Iran to enforce US aviation sanctions.

That is despite the secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council warning neighbouring nations against imposing a US flight ban.

Iranian airlines are now relying on a few reduced routes, including Turkiye, Russia, China and Armenia, to remain operational.

“We cannot say that Iran is totally cut off from air traffic, but shrunk considerably,” said Al Jazeera’s Sinem Koseoglu, reporting from Tehran.

Reporting from Baghdad, Al Jazeera’s Jack Hewson said Iraq’s central government has made no statement about the flight suspensions, likely because it “doesn’t want to antagonise” pro-Iranian factions in Iraq’s parliament.

Explaining the country’s decision to comply with the US move, Hewson said: “Companies providing ground services, like refuelling, baggage, it appears, are not willing to risk secondary sanctions and being frozen out of the international US dollar system.”

“Iraq’s in a very difficult position,” Hewson added. “It’s tied to the US, but it’s also tied to Iran. And at times like these, it’s squeezed between the two.”

Iraqi Prime Minister al-Zaidi and Turkish President Erdogan pledged deeper security cooperation at UNGA.

Turkiye and Iraq have agreed to a gradual transfer of Ankara’s military base in Bashiqa to Baghdad, according to a statement released by the Iraqi prime minister’s office.

The announcement followed a meeting on Wednesday between Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi and Turkiye’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

“Within this framework, they reached an agreement on fully establishing state authority in Sinjar and ending the presence of outlawed foreign armed elements,” Iraq’s prime minister’s office announced, in an apparent reference to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which has maintained a presence in the mountainous Sinjar region of northern Iraq.

“The two sides also agreed to expand the volume of bilateral trade and investment, to implement signed agreements immediately, and to accelerate joint strategic projects, particularly the Development Road project,” the office added.

The decision to transfer the facility addresses a longstanding flashpoint between the two neighbours.

Turkiye first established the base in Bashiqa, northeast of Mosul, in December 2015 through an agreement with the autonomous Kurdistan Regional Government to train local forces fighting the ISIL (ISIS) group.

The deployment of up to 600 Turkish soldiers drew criticism from Baghdad, which viewed the presence as a violation of Iraqi sovereignty.

The Sinjar region has long been a focal point for Turkish military operations targeting fighters from the PKK.

Cross-border operations in Sinjar had eased following a landmark peace process between Ankara and the PKK in 2025, paving the way for federal authorities to assert control over the border zone.

Wednesday’s accord caps months of efforts by Baghdad to consolidate state authority over northern flashpoints, while aligning with Ankara on trade corridors and security coordination along their shared frontier.

Iran’s aviation officials negotiate with Oman and Iraq as Secretary Bessent targets carriers seven months into the conflict.

Flights from Iran to Baghdad and Muscat will be cancelled starting at midnight ahead of new United States sanctions taking effect Wednesday, Tasnim News Agency reported.

A spokesman for Iran’s Civil Aviation Organization told the news agency on Tuesday that the agency is “negotiating so that flights whose destination is Baghdad can be redirected to [Iraq’s] Najaf Airport”.

Iran’s ISNA news agency reported that negotiations with Oman were likewise ongoing, adding that all remaining international flights, including those to Istanbul, will operate as scheduled.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on Monday that all Iranian airlines would be shut down on September 23 through the threat of secondary sanctions on aviation service providers, seven months into the war between the US and Iran.

Bessent told CNBC that when Iranian carriers land at an airport, “you cannot provide them with fuel, you cannot provide them with landing services, you cannot sell them tickets, or you will be knocked out of the dollar system”.

The move marks the latest step in Washington’s expanding sanctions campaign against Tehran. Aviation analysts told Al Jazeera that although the US lacks authority to close foreign airspace, targeting local refuelling and ground-handling providers achieves a similar outcome by cutting off essential operational support.

Earlier this month, the US issued stricter measures administered by the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), placing restrictions on trade, energy and financial institutions.

The administration of President Donald Trump also expanded secondary sanctions in late August, warning that foreign firms doing business with Iran across shipping, technology, gold and digital assets face penalties of their own.

Tehran, however, signalled on Saturday that it remains open to talks mediated by Qatar to reach a long-term resolution, while maintaining a combative stance towards Washington.

“It is in Washington’s interest to accept these conditions,” Mohsen Rezaei, Iran’s security chief, told Al Jazeera in an interview last week. “Trump’s threats will not achieve any results. We are prepared for a decisive war.”

The war in Yemen intensifies with mounting clashes and reciprocal attacks between Saudi forces and the Houthis.

Yemen’s Houthi rebels have said Saudi Arabia carried out 26 strikes against areas under the group’s control in the past 24 hours, as the two sides continue trading attacks amid an escalating war in Yemen, according to the AFP news agency.

On Friday, the group claimed Saudi strikes on Houthi-held territory had reached 300 over the past week alone, hitting positions across the areas it controls, AFP reported.

Yemen’s government, backed by Saudi Arabia, said on Friday its forces had killed 30 Houthi rebels and wounded more than 60 in clashes in the al-Wazi’iyah district of Taiz province, one of several fronts where combat has picked up this week.

The exchange has come on the heels of a widening escalation of fighting in Yemen between the government’s military and the Houthi fighters.

Tens of thousands marched through Sanaa on Friday in a show of support for the Iran-backed Houthis and against Saudi Arabia, as the rebels press gains that have brought large stretches of Yemen’s Red Sea coast, including the strategic Bab al-Mandeb Strait, under their control.

Earlier this week, the intensifying attacks between the Yemeni government and the Houthi rebels killed at least five people, including three children, according to reports from both sides.

Saudi Arabia said one person was killed in the Taif governorate after a Houthi drone was intercepted, while Houthi-linked media reported deaths from Saudi strikes in Taiz and the town of Abs.

The escalation has drawn in Washington, though reluctantly.

US officials met Houthi representatives at the US embassy in the Omani capital, Muscat, over the weekend after the group’s rapid territorial gains raised concern over shipping through Bab al-Mandeb, a vital corridor for global trade.

The Houthis reportedly assured Washington that vessels not linked to Saudi Arabia would not be targeted.

Despite appeals from Riyadh for US President Donald Trump to strike the Houthis directly, Washington has so far held back, wary of opening a new front while still fighting a costly war with Iran.

Meanwhile, European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said on Friday the bloc’s Red Sea naval mission, Operation Aspides, had raised its alert level as the situation in the region worsened, the Reuters news agency reported.

“Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia are unacceptable and sabotage the global economy,” Kallas said in a post on X.

She added that she had spoken with Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud about diplomatic efforts to end the fighting in Yemen and restore freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.

At a highly sensitive juncture, and amid increasing talk regarding the possibility of a third round of regional escalation, Iraqis are confronted with a fateful question: Is there someone seeking to make Iraq a part of this conflict – not merely a venue from which messages are dispatched or through which pressure is managed, but rather one of its open arenas?

There can be no avoiding the question, as the answer is linked to Iraqi blood, state sovereignty, the future of the economy, and Iraq’s standing among its brethren, neighbors, and the world. The matter is no longer a limited security issue; rather, it is a question of statehood, destiny, and direction, as well as a question of Iraq’s ability to protect itself from being dragged into what it does not want.

Repeated attempts to use Iraqi territory to target fraternal and neighboring Arab countries – the latest of which was the announced targeting of Saudi Arabia, preceded by the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Jordan – reveal that we are facing a systematic trajectory rather than an isolated incident. If not decisively resolved, this trajectory could transform into a de facto policy.

Should the state succumb to the blackmail of forces acting outside its authority, it loses not only its security decision-making power but the very meaning of statehood itself. Iraq must not remain a conduit for messages, a proxy mailbox for others, a negotiating card in their conflicts, or an arena pushed forward during every regional escalation.

The problem is no longer about issuing a statement after each incident or settling for a reassuring narrative that does not prevent the recurrence of danger. The deeper problem is the existence of a repeating pattern that consumes Iraq’s political and moral capital, leaving the government to face the consequences of actions that do not reflect its own decisions. The longer a decisive resolution is delayed, the more a dangerous perception takes root abroad that the Iraqi state alone does not control its security decisions. This is an unfair image of Iraq and harmful to its interests, but it cannot be corrected by words alone.

Sovereignty is not safeguarded through slogans; rather, it is maintained by the state’s capacity to serve as the sole authority for force and decision-making. Consequently, restricting weapons to state control is neither a stance against any faction nor a detraction from anyone’s sacrifices. Instead, it is a prerequisite for the survival of the state and the protection of everyone. A state that does not hold exclusive authority over the decisions of war and peace can neither demand that others respect its borders, reassure its citizens, nor build stable relations with its neighborhood. It is in the interest of all forces, above all others, for the state to be strong, because a weak state protects no one; instead, it leaves everyone exposed.

Today, under highly sensitive circumstances, the Iraqi government is working to reconnect Iraq with its Arab, regional, and international surroundings, and to sincerely leverage available support and openness to serve the interests of Iraqis. These efforts deserve support – not because they are the efforts of a specific government, but because they represent the trajectory of a state. However, there are those, both internally and externally, who do not want Iraq to move past the logic of conflict and axes, and who seek to undermine any attempt to solidify its position as a balanced, secure partner state that is capable of speaking for itself, rather than for others.

The truth is that the Arabs, despite all the complexities that have affected the relationship, have not turned their backs on Iraq; rather, they have continued to view it as a pivotal country indispensable to regional stability. Throughout the difficult years, there remained an Arab readiness to embrace Iraq and restore it to its natural position, out of belief in its role, presence, and civilized and political depth. The problem has never been an Arab desire to break ties with Iraq; rather, it lay in Iraq’s ability to present itself as a state with a single decision-making authority – not a country where decisions are contested between the government and factions, the constitution and weapons, and national interest and wills that do not emanate from Iraqi state institutions. It is unfortunate that opportunities for openness and trust are squandered due to practices that reflect neither the will of Iraqis nor the interest of their state.

The risk of slipping today is greater than some believe. Every uncalculated action could drag Iraq into a confrontation it does not want, and every use of its territory outside state decisions could push it an additional step toward isolation. Isolation is neither heroism, an interest, nor a viable option in a world where countries thrive on economy, partnerships, investment, and trust. Every armed message launched outside the state is met with a message of concern from the investor, the partner, and the fraternal state, and every new disruption reflects on the market, labor, energy, banks, and Iraq’s image in the world. Iraq needs projects, energy, job opportunities, education, infrastructure, and openness – not more anxiety, armed messages, and alignments that deplete it.

We must be candid with our people: statements are no longer enough. Neither the domestic public is convinced by statements, nor is the outside world reassured by them. What preserves Iraq’s standing is action: a professional investigation, fair accountability, real control, and a clear decision that no entity, regardless of its title, can place the country in war, isolation, or economic loss. Backing the government along this path is a national duty, because it is a support for the state, its right to protect sovereignty, preserve relations, and build the future.

Iraq is subordinate to no one, an enemy to no one, and an arena for no one. It is a great homeland, and the decision of war and peace within it belongs to the Iraqis and their state alone. This is the hour of the state, the hour of reason, and the hour to say clearly: Iraq first.

BERLIN: Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi said on Tuesday that he discussed selling oil to Europe during visits to France and Germany, as Baghdad seeks to diversify its export routes and reduce its reliance on the Strait of Hormuz.

During a press conference with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in Berlin, Zaidi said “we want to expand and diversify our export routes”.

He added that “Iraq cannot remain hostage to a single corridor” as recent events have demonstrated, referring to the Strait of Hormuz, which has been blockaded by Iran during the Middle East war.

Zaidi said that he had discussed oil exports to Europe with Merz and French President Emmanuel Macron, whom he met in Paris on Monday.

Crude oil sales account for nearly 90 percent of Iraq’s revenue but its exports have been hurt by the outbreak of the Middle East war between Iran and the United States.

Before the war began in February, Iraq produced around four million barrels per day, and exported an average of 3.4 million bpd, mostly via Hormuz.

Most of its oil exports go to East Asia, with China and India its largest buyers.

Due to the disruption, Iraq began exporting crude using tanker trucks through Syria, as well as through a pipeline to the Turkish port of Ceyhan, although these routes can handle only a fraction of its usual sea-bound trade.

Zaidi said that Baghdad could “double its oil exports through the Mediterranean” to supply markets in Europe and the United States.

Zaidi, who hopes to increase Iraq’s oil production to 10 million barrels per day, said that “a large share, or nearly half, can go to European countries and the West”.

He said that Iraq and Germany were expected to reach “an understanding on the export of crude oil” while Baghdad would purchase German technology and equipment.

Merz said that the main focus for Iraqi-German cooperation is the economy.

“Many German companies are now active in Iraq. They are developing new solutions, for example for energy supply,” he said, adding that “the best example is an agreement on Iraq’s electricity supply, which we will sign today”.

Merz also expressed his concerns after Yemen’s Houthis cemented their control over the Bab al-Mandab waterway at the entrance to the Red Sea, a vital route for Saudi oil exports.

“This further exacerbates the situation on the energy markets, and also affects Germany,” he said.

PARIS: France and Iraq on Monday called for a “diversification of export routes” for oil and gas in the Middle East in response to the instability generated by the conflict between the United States and Iran, following talks in Paris.

French President Emmanuel Macron and Iraq’s Prime Minister Ali Al-Zaidi stressed the importance of “regional interconnections” and export route diversification to “ensure regional energy security”, in a joint statement.

Zaidi visited the Elysee Paris on his first trip to Europe since taking office in May and is also expected in Berlin on Tuesday.

The visit comes as the situation in the Middle East continues to deteriorate, with the Iran-backed Houthi rebels cementing their hold on the Bab Al-Mandab strait on Friday, adding to the crisis of Iran’s effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, and driving oil prices up.

On Monday, French energy giant TotalEnergies signed a memorandum of understanding with Iraq on liquefied natural gas supplies and agreed to discuss further energy projects.

TotalEnergies chief Patrick Pouyanne “affirmed the company’s readiness to cooperate with Iraq in the oil and energy sectors”, noting the company planned to increase its investments in Iraq to $16 billion from $12 billion, during a meeting with Zaidi.

The two countries, which in recent years have been involved in the fight against the Islamic State (IS) jihadist group, also agreed to deepen defence cooperation.

They signed a strategic roadmap on the acquisition of French military equipment as Iraq seeks to modernise its armed forces and strengthen its sovereignty capabilities.

French drone company Harmattan AI separately signed a letter of intent with Iraq’s defence ministry concerning autonomous air-defence systems.

Several other agreements were signed in areas including development assistance, education, civil aviation and electricity infrastructure.

Tehran, Iran – Another attempt to clinch a deal between Iran and Oman to restore some traffic to the Strait of Hormuz has been set back by a lack of regional consensus on the future of the waterway.

Officials from Iran, Iraq and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) nations – minus objecting Bahrain – were scheduled to meet in Oman’s port city of Salalah on Monday to confer on new temporary routes in the Strait of Hormuz amid Tehran’s ongoing hot-and-cold war with the United States.

On Sunday night, the region’s officials announced the postponement of the meeting, without giving a new date. None of the stakeholders gave any indication that the postponement was directly linked to recent Houthi and Iraqi militia attacks on Saudi Arabia.

However, Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said Saudi objection was the reason for the postponement, without providing further details.

US media outlets Axios and CNN reported that Saudi Arabia had submitted amendments to the Iran-Oman proposal for Hormuz because it had concerns that the wording would establish a new status quo which would be unacceptable to Riyadh.

It comes days after Saudi Arabia shut down its critical East-West oil pipeline – the kingdom’s key route for energy exports – after drone attacks in the area originating from Iraq. US President Donald Trump said these attacks were likely conducted at Tehran’s behest.

Saudi Arabia has also faced repeated attacks by the Houthis, who took control of Yemen’s Red Sea coast over the weekend.

Hours after the Salalah meeting was postponed, the Saudi civil defence issued alerts for Abha, Khamis Mushait, Jazan and Najran in southern and western parts of the kingdom. The Houthis claimed to have fired dozens of ballistic missiles and drones at military facilities in Khamis Mushait, in retaliation for air strikes across Yemen, which it blames on Saudi Arabia.

What comes next?

Iran has said it will engage with the US on the future of the Strait of Hormuz and ending the war only if there are tangible moves to lift Washington’s naval blockade on the country and return to the June memorandum of understanding.

With continued disruptions to the passage of vessels through the strait, Iran has signalled that it intends to continue pursuing the bilateral agreement with Oman over Hormuz, which it said was finalised last month.

“In consultation with Oman, in the next step, we will make a decision on how to announce or register the agreement,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei told reporters during a weekly news conference on Monday.

When the two countries initially advanced the bilateral deal, Trump threatened to bomb Oman if it “gets in the way” of US talks with Iran.

Ali Vaez, deputy director of the Middle East and North Africa programme at the Crisis Group, told Al Jazeera that Tehran wants to use its leverage over Hormuz for regional legitimacy – and ultimately to pressure the US.

“The broader the regional buy-in, the harder it becomes for the US to dismiss the arrangement as an Iranian diktat,” he told Al Jazeera.

GCC states, suffering from a sharp decrease in energy receipts, want ships moving and their economies insulated from a war they neither started nor can end. But Vaez said Washington is unlikely to lift the blockade on Iran even if the region blesses the arrangement between Muscat and Tehran.

“[The US] will find it much harder to sustain a policy that its own partners increasingly see as perpetuating the crisis,” Vaez said

Temporary entry and exit

The Omani-Iranian planned agreement envisions temporary entry and exit routes for commercial vessels in the strait, with Tehran repeatedly stating that this would not mean that the Strait of Hormuz has reopened.

Iran and Oman are the only two countries with territorial waters in the Strait of Hormuz. The proposed inbound corridor reportedly goes through Iranian waters, while the outbound corridor mostly passes through Omani waters, with small parts still in Iranian territory.

During Monday’s scheduled meeting, Iran and Oman were supposed to share precise maps and discuss the details of the routes with GCC members Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Kuwait, and Iraq, which is outside the bloc. The deal could reportedly include voluntary tolls to fund navigation, environmental protection and search-and-rescue operations.

Bahrain, which has borne the brunt of Iranian attacks since the US-Israel war on Iran started at the end of February, said it would not participate in the forum since it would amount to “appeasement”. The Tasnim news outlet, affiliated with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), claimed Israel pushed Bahrain to refuse participation.

How does Yemen fit in this picture?

The latest diplomatic movement comes after days of explosive developments in Yemen, when the Houthis, officially known as Ansar Allah, essentially took control of the Bab al-Mandeb strait and the Red Sea after a lightning offensive against government forces.

Thomas Juneau, assistant professor in the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa, said the Houthi advances represent a significant gain for Iran. Its Yemeni allies’ position in the Red Sea offers Iran an important new bargaining chip in future negotiations with the US.

“The Houthis are not a simple arm of Iranian foreign policy. They operate largely based on their own interests, and do not take and execute Iranian commands,” he told Al Jazeera. “But Houthi and Iranian interests are largely, if not always fully, aligned. They cooperate closely on the basis of those shared interests.”

Juneau sees the ability for Iran and the Houthis to potentially partially block traffic in the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab al-Mandeb – two of the world’s most crucial maritime bottlenecks – would give them tremendous influence over the global economy, and thus the US.

The Houthis are trying to seize the opportunity to “institutionalise the de facto reality of their veto on maritime traffic” in the southern Red Sea and replicate partial Iranian success in doing the same in the Strait of Hormuz, Juneau said.

Iran has stressed that their allies’ gains in the Red Sea cannot be separated from the Saudi-led blockade and attacks on Houthi areas in Yemen since 2015.

“We know very well that continued war between Islamic countries in the region only has one winner, and that winner is no one but the Zionist regime, which is after persisting tensions and conflict in our region and between Islamic countries,” Iranian spokesperson Baghaei said.

Saudi Arabia has closed a critical oil pipeline after it was attacked by drones launched from Iraq, as conflict in the Middle East widens.

Iraq said it had fired a military commander and launched an investigation after admitting the drone attack on its neighbour’s East-West pipeline had originated in one of its provinces bordering Iran.

The 1,200km (745 mile) pipeline has helped Saudi Arabia – the world’s largest crude oil exporter – bypass the Strait of Hormuz.

The incident comes amid a major advance by the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen, putting more pressure on global oil shipping routes as the US-Iran war stretches into its seventh month.

Riyadh on Friday said it had shut the pipeline as a precaution, as satellite images of scorched ground and smoke near the site emerged.

The foreign ministry said the attack resulted in some injuries and damage, which was still being assessed.

The pipeline has been moving 4% to 5% of global oil supply, news agency Reuters has reported, citing ship tracking companies and analysts.

Saudi Arabia has chosen not to retaliate at this stage, its foreign ministry says, following a call from Iraq’s prime minister.

It said the kingdom would “support the efforts of the Iraqi government” to “prevent attacks” launched from the country against neighbouring states.

“The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia affirms that it reserves its right to take all necessary measures to safeguard its sovereignty and security, protect its facilities, and ensure the safety of its citizens and residents,” the statement added.

The Iraqi prime minister’s office in its own statement said the operations commander in the Maysan governorate – a province which borders Iran – had been removed from his post following confirmation the drone attack had been launched from that region.

BAGHDAD: Iraq ordered the closure of ​the Shalamcheh border crossing between Iraq and Iran as a precautionary measure ‌after ‌the ​latest ‌drone ⁠attacks ​on Saudi Arabia, two ⁠security sources told Reuters on Saturday.

The sources said ⁠a wide-scale ‌operation ‌was ​underway ‌to pursue perpetrators ‌of the attack on Saudi Arabia.

Riyadh said ‌on Friday its vital East-West pipeline ⁠was attacked ⁠by drones that were launched from Iraq.

Iraq’s ruling coalition has been forced to abandon plans to create deputy prime minister posts amid disputes over bringing weapons under state control, while sources say political factions are moving to recalculate their shares of the remaining vacant ministries.

Since parliament has approved Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi’s government on May 15, 2026, giving the green light to 14 out of 23 ministers, political disputes have prevented appointments to nine portfolios, most notably the interior and defense ministries.

A more complicated dispute involved attempts by forces within the Coordination Framework to create four deputy prime minister posts. Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq was among the leading proponents, with its leader, Qais al-Khazali, putting forward his brother Laith al-Khazali for one of the positions.

Reliable sources told Asharq Al-Awsat that Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq had sought the post after formally agreeing to the plan to bring weapons under state control, but US objections blocked the appointment.

The sources described a “test of strength” between al-Zaidi and Coordination Framework forces because of the overlap between completing the Cabinet and the weapons issue. Scrapping the deputy prime minister posts, they said, opens the door to bargaining and forces all sides to recalculate the points assigned to ministries.

Observers believe efforts to complete the Cabinet began to falter as some political forces backed away from the weapons plan.

Al-Zaidi had made bringing arms under state control a key pillar of his government program. Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq and other factions later joined the proposed settlement in hopes of easing international pressure.

Sources said the Coordination Framework’s latest meeting exposed sharp divisions between leaders opposed to creating deputy PM posts and others insisting on them, preventing the coalition from issuing a statement afterward.

Al-Zaidi has held a series of meetings with Coordination Framework leaders in recent days in an effort to reach agreement on completing his Cabinet, particularly after his government marked its first 100 days.

Figures close to the prime minister’s office said he urged ruling coalition leaders to continue supporting the government in resolving outstanding issues, including bringing weapons under state control, combating corruption and filling Cabinet vacancies, regardless of disputes over deputy prime minister posts.

Under Iraq’s informal power-sharing system, ministries are distributed among election-winning political forces according to points based on each party’s number of parliamentary seats.

Legal and legislative affairs researcher Saif al-Saadi told Asharq Al-Awsat that scrapping the deputy PM posts would increase the value of the remaining portfolios, with sovereign ministries potentially worth 15 to 20 points and service ministries 10 to 12.

Al-Saadi expected two or three ministries to be filled, while the rest could remain under acting ministers because of domestic and external factors. He said the United States opposes militia-linked figures taking senior government posts, while competition among Shiite political forces is delaying agreement on candidates for the vacant portfolios.