NOURNEWS: In foreign policy, no trip is ever just a trip. The destination, the timing, the counterpart, and the interval between a historic event and an official visit can all constitute part of a government's political message. From this perspective, Iraqi Prime Minister Ali Al-Zaidi’s visit to Washington cannot be analyzed solely within the framework of economic negotiations, attracting investment, or expanding bilateral relations. The trip comes at a moment that carries exceptional historical and symbolic significance for public opinion in both Iran and Iraq.
Iran and Iraq are not merely neighboring countries. Relations between the two nations are rooted in deep historical, civilizational, cultural, and religious ties, of which official state relations represent only one dimension. Over recent decades, particularly amid major regional developments, these bonds have deepened further, becoming one of the Middle East’s most significant social and political realities.
Within this context, the position of the martyred Leader, Grand Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Hosseini Khamenei, held a unique and unparalleled place in both Iranian and Iraqi society. He was not simply a military commander, but the political leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran and one of the most influential religious authorities in the Muslim world and within Shiite Islam. For decades, he played a central role in shaping Iran’s regional policies and articulating the Islamic Republic’s approach toward developments across the Islamic world.
For this reason, his martyrdom at the hands of what Iran describes as the terrorist regime of the United States was not merely a domestic political event. The Iraqi people's response and the historic funeral procession held in Iraq carried significance far beyond a mourning ceremony. The massive public turnout demonstrated the extraordinary depth of the ties between the two nations and underscored that Iran-Iraq relations extend well beyond official government-to-government interactions. The funeral also conveyed an important social and political message: a significant segment of Iraqi society feels a profound sense of solidarity with developments in Iran and with the fate of a leader who played a defining role in regional affairs for many years.
Against this backdrop, the timing of the Iraqi Prime Minister’s visit to Washington becomes particularly significant. The purpose of this article is not to question Iraq’s relationship with the United States. Baghdad has every right to negotiate with Washington, attract foreign investment to support its economic development, and shape its foreign policy in accordance with its national interests. Maintaining relations with both Tehran and Washington is neither inherently contradictory nor necessarily a sign of dependency.
However, foreign policy is not only about where a country goes; it is also about when it goes. Could the Iraqi Prime Minister’s visit not have taken place at another time? At a moment when Iraqi society was still deeply affected by an unprecedented historic funeral, could a trip to Washington have conveyed a different political message? For a country that consistently emphasizes its independent decision-making and balanced relations with regional and global powers, the timing of this visit at least warrants careful reflection.
This sensitivity is further heightened by Al-Zaidi’s meeting with the President of the United States—a president who has accepted political responsibility for, and publicly expressed pride in, the assassination of General Qassem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, two key figures in the fight against ISIS. In Iraq, these men were not viewed merely as military commanders; their role in combating ISIS and defending Iraqi cities and civilians forms an important part of the country's political and security memory.
Within this framework, the Iraqi Prime Minister’s response to President Trump’s question regarding those assassinations is also worthy of consideration. Saying, "I was not involved in politics at that time," may be understandable from the perspective of personal responsibility. Yet the Prime Minister of Iraq was speaking about an event that occurred on Iraqi soil and targeted figures who had played significant roles in defending the country. The issue is not what position Al-Zaidi held at the time of the assassinations; the issue is how, today, as Iraq’s Prime Minister, he chooses to engage with his country’s historical memory.
Baghdad is undoubtedly compelled to engage with multiple powers in order to safeguard its national interests. However, engagement with one power should not come at the cost of erasing historical memory or overlooking the deep civilizational and religious ties that bind Iraq to another.
A balanced foreign policy means that Iraq should be able to negotiate with Washington without abandoning its history; attract foreign investment without compromising its independent decision-making; and maintain relations with the United States without disregarding Iran’s role in Iraq’s history, culture, and security.
This is where the central concern begins: Is Baghdad truly pursuing a balanced foreign policy, or is it gradually redefining its strategic orientation within the region’s evolving geopolitical landscape? A single visit cannot answer that question, but every visit can represent one step within a broader trajectory.
The Iraqi Prime Minister has every right to travel to Washington. But he cannot leave Iraq’s history behind in Washington. Nor can he ignore the collective memory of a nation that has paid an immense price during the region’s defining moments.
From the historic funeral procession of Iran’s martyred Leader in Iraq to the Iraqi Prime Minister’s subsequent visit to Washington, an important question emerges: Was this trip merely a diplomatic and economic engagement, or does it signal a shift in how Iraq defines its place within the emerging regional order?
The answer will not be found in official statements but in Baghdad’s future actions. In foreign policy, a single visit does not always carry a decisive message. Yet its timing, the counterpart involved, and its proximity to historic events can create meanings that ultimately extend far beyond the intentions of those who planned it.
Nournews