Eurasia Press & News
In a December 11 article in the London-based Saudi daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, former Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa Al-Kadhimi writes that, in light of the downfall of the Assad regime in Syria, many players in the Middle East must make a critical choice: between loyalty to their state and loyalty to wider agendas. This, he says, is especially true of the Shi’ites in the region (hinting at the PMU militias in Iraq), who must choose between loyalty to their states and loyalty to the Iran-led resistance axis. He adds that this challenge is a universal one: throughout the world, forces waver between a commitment to building their homeland and nurturing their people and a commitment to broader ideological or religious beliefs. Opting for the latter, he argues, results in prioritizing external agendas over national interests and becoming embroiled in wars that drain the country’s resources. This undermines any serious effort to build up the state and its institutions and leads to endless violence, bloodshed and fighting, often under the guise of defending religion.
Focusing on Iraq, he states that the country suffers from a severe lack of trust between the people and the authorities, largely owing to the domination of the state by armed non-state actors (hinting at the Iran-backed militias) that have hijacked the state institutions.
The solution, he argues, lies in reengaging with the state and focusing on its interests and priorities. This means addressing the citizens’ most pressing needs, such as electricity, water, employment and healthcare. It also requires disarming militias and placing all weapons under the exclusive control of the state, and agreeing that the state alone is authorized to take major national decisions. It requires eschewing regional conflicts that “reduce lands and lives to mere statistics in broader struggles.” Furthermore, it requires following the guidance of religious authorities who prioritize serving Iraq and its people, such as Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani, who (unlike the ayatollahs of the Iranian regime) emphasizes Iraqi statehood, national unity, and the Iraqi citizens.
The following are excerpts from his article:
Prioritizing External Agendas Over National Interests Leads To Violence, Fighting And Bloodshed
“What is happening today in the Middle East and its zones of intense conflict can only be described as seismic shifts, reshaping the contours of power and rewriting the rules of engagement. Systems and organizations have either fallen or been scaled back, while other nations find themselves facing a moment of reckoning, forced to confront the truth behind slogans they have upheld for decades.
“Amidst this chaos and the rapidly intensifying complexities, a vital question arises—one that must be asked calmly and thoughtfully. It carries both regional and local dimensions and is directed in particular to my Shiite brethren across the Middle East: What comes next? What is required of us?
“This question stems from an urgent need for critical self-reflection. It calls for an honest review of past events, an evaluation of their outcomes, and a frank assessment of our current reality. Observing the trajectory of various groups—especially in Iraq—it becomes evident that genuine self-examination and critique are rare. The talk [about] a ‘change in behavior’ among some groups often reflects nothing more than submission to expanding economic interests nurtured by their deepening entanglement in political and economic power structures. These groups insist on reconciling the idea of the state with that of the non-state—a contradiction that cannot hold. How can two opposing concepts coexist?
“A closer examination of the region’s developments reveals that this is a universal challenge. Today’s active forces are struggling to define their identity, torn between the concepts of homeland and broader nationhood. They waver between focusing on building their own states and expanding beyond borders to ‘support’ those who share their ideological or religious beliefs, ostensibly to safeguard themselves. This, however, leads only to more violence, fighting, and bloodshed.
“These forces are unable to set a clear course, oscillating between allegiance to national identity and loyalty to ideology. Too often, this results in prioritizing external agendas over internal national interests, undermining any serious effort to rebuild the state and its institutions. Instead, these forces perpetuate endless conflicts and confrontations. They are incapable of embracing a vision centered on building a future for humanity and addressing present challenges while disengaging from wars that drain resources and lack any clear purpose. These wars fail to protect citizens’ dignity or provide for their basic needs.
“Regrettably, some use religious edicts or directives as a cover for their actions. Ideological movements often ground their activities in such justifications. This necessitates revisiting the vision of the world’s foremost Shiite religious authority in Najaf, particularly the guidance of Grand [Ayatollah] Ali al-Sistani. His vision for Iraq emphasizes statehood, national unity, and a commitment to citizens. He firmly rejects turning Iraq into a battleground for regional and international conflicts. He calls for disarming militias and placing weapons under the control of the state, building a corruption-free government capable of meeting the aspirations of Iraqis, and empowering qualified individuals to lead these efforts…”
Iraq Suffers From The Unchecked Proliferation Of Weapons And Non-State Actors Who Have Hijacked The State; The Solution Lies In Returning To The State And Focusing On Its People’s Pressing Needs
“Today, Iraq finds itself in a near-complete state of disconnection between the government and its citizens. This gap has been exacerbated by the unchecked proliferation of weapons and the domination of the state by non-state actors. The latter has held the former hostage, making it nearly impossible to distinguish between the two or to identify who holds authority. This puts the state and its institutions in a precarious position—not only before the international community and regional allies but, most critically, before its own people. The Iraqi people have grown deeply disillusioned with the political process, losing all hope in the ability of the state and its institutions to recover. This loss of hope has severe consequences…
“The solution lies in returning to the state and reaffirming its principles. This means reengaging with the state, aligning actions with its interests and priorities, and reviving it beyond the hollow slogans that so often fail in moments of truth. It requires addressing citizens’ most pressing needs, such as electricity, water, genuine employment opportunities (not exploitative ones), healthcare, and more. It also requires confronting the issue of uncontrolled weapons, with all parties committing clearly and collectively to the principle that the state alone holds the authority over major national decisions.
“Returning to the state also means heeding the guidance of religious authorities who derive their legitimacy from their moral responsibility to outline priorities that serve Iraq and its people. It requires reaffirming loyalty to the homeland and its borders, steering clear of cross-border conflicts that reduce lands and lives to mere statistics in broader struggles. It demands a renewed understanding of Iraq’s geographical position, a respect for the unique characteristics of others, and the pursuit of shared interests through bilateral, trilateral, or multilateral cooperation—not through polarization, bias, or militarization in favor of one side over another.
“I am reminded of a statement by the late [Lebanese] Prime Minister Rafik Hariri: ‘No one is greater than their country.’ Indeed, no individual can surpass their homeland, no matter how powerful, capable, or supported they may be. We must return to our country, our Iraq, and our state, and work for its sake. Slogans do not build or protect a nation; only decisions, actions, and a clear vision can achieve that.
“This appeal, though repeated, remains critical in the current moment. The reality of Bashar al-Assad’s regime serves as a stark and cautionary lesson that cannot be ignored. Have we forgotten the ideological battles of the last century—between ‘reactionaries’ and ‘progressives’? What did those conflicts achieve for their people, and where do those states stand today?”
