Nournews: The claim by Masrour Barzani, Prime Minister of the Kurdistan Region of Iraq, that his personal office in Erbil was targeted by Iranian drones comes at a time when such an action appears inconsistent with the Islamic Republic of Iran’s established principles and record of regional conduct. Whenever Iran has targeted the bases of terrorist and separatist groups operating in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq, it has openly claimed responsibility and announced details of the operation. At the same time, Tehran has consistently regarded Iraq’s security as part of its own security and has paid a heavy human and financial price in the fight against terrorism and in efforts to preserve the country’s stability.
Accordingly, senior Iranian military and diplomatic officials have rejected Barzani’s claim and warned against attempts by Iran’s adversaries to create a rift between Tehran and Baghdad and undermine regional security. The fundamental question is this: If the attack was carried out by Iran, why has Tehran not officially claimed responsibility, and why was the allegation made amid a wave of political and media reports?
Kurdistan Region: Genuine Mediator or Player in a U.S. Scenario?
The sudden elevation of the Kurdistan Region’s role in regional affairs cannot be viewed separately from the media developments of recent days. Amid claims that Erbil was mediating between Iran and the United States, Axios, citing informed sources, claimed that Washington had established contact with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps through the mediation of Nechirvan Barzani, president of the Kurdistan Region. Senior Iranian political and military officials rejected the claim.
This media narrative does not fit Iran’s established approach to the battlefield, diplomacy and negotiations. On major foreign-policy issues, Iran announces its positions through official channels and through the relevant authorities, and it does not conceal negotiations or mediation efforts if they actually take place. The sudden appearance of Erbil in such narratives therefore raises the question of what calculation led the leaders of the Kurdistan Region to enter a media campaign apparently designed by the United States.
Tehran-Baghdad Security Agreement and Erbil’s Test of Responsibility
Barzani’s claim about a threat to Iraq’s security comes as the Tehran-Baghdad security agreement remains the cornerstone of Iran-Iraq security relations. The agreement was reached through the efforts of the late Admiral Ali Shamkhani during his tenure as secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, with counterterrorism, combating separatism and confronting threats to the security of both countries at its core.
Despite this, the Kurdistan Region has yet to demonstrate a satisfactory record in fully implementing its security commitments. The presence and activities of anti-Iranian armed and separatist groups in the region have remained a persistent concern for Tehran, while numerous reports and statements about the training and arming of certain anti-Iranian elements in the Kurdistan Region have further underscored the significance of the issue.
This is particularly notable given that when ISIS attacked Erbil, according to statements by Masoud Barzani, the United States did not come to the region’s aid as expected during the initial stages of the crisis. Instead, Iran and the late Lieutenant General Qassem Soleimani stepped in to defend Erbil and fight ISIS. This history makes questions about the extent to which the Kurdistan Region’s leaders can rely on Washington’s promises even more serious.
The U.S., a New Front and the Cost of a Miscalculation
The timing of these claims, alongside U.S. pressure to place a monopoly on arms in the hands of the Iraqi government and efforts to disarm the resistance, as well as the debate over the future of the U.S. military presence in Iraq, warrants scrutiny. Why, in this process, has there been no serious discussion of disarming armed groups operating in the Kurdistan Region?
Some of the recent developments appear to fit within a U.S. strategy aimed at creating secondary fronts, eroding Iran’s capabilities and increasing pressure on both the battlefield and the diplomatic front—from activating terrorist fault lines along the borders and developments in the Caspian Sea to the latest claims by officials in the Kurdistan Region.
However, the experience of recent years has shown that at critical moments, Washington puts its own interests ahead of the fate of its allies. The recent war once again demonstrated that, for the United States, even its closest partners matter only as long as they serve Washington’s strategic objectives.
From this perspective, Baghdad cannot remain indifferent to actions that could undermine Iraq’s security and the strategic relationship between Tehran and Baghdad.
NOURNEWS