Does Iran Run Iraq? Unpacking A Complex Geopolitical Relationship
The question of whether Iran truly "runs" Iraq is one that frequently surfaces in discussions about Middle Eastern geopolitics. It’s a complex query, devoid of a simple yes or no answer, instead revealing layers of historical animosity, strategic maneuvering, economic interdependence, and deeply intertwined cultural and religious ties. To truly understand the nature of the relationship between these two powerful nations, one must delve into their shared past, the pivotal events of the new millennium, and the myriad ways Tehran has sought to solidify its influence in Baghdad.
Historically, the two nations have transitioned from an intense rivalry to a surprising collaboration, often dictated by shifts in regional power dynamics and internal political landscapes. The harrowing experiences of the 1980s war are etched deeply in their collective memory, a conflict that defined a generation and shaped the geopolitical ambitions of both states. However, the dawn of the new millennium unveiled a new chapter, one where the lines between sovereignty and influence became increasingly blurred, leading many to ponder the extent to which Iran now directs Iraq's destiny.
Table of Contents
- Historical Roots of a Rivalry: The Saddam Era
- The Post-2003 Landscape: Iran's Growing Influence
- Mechanisms of Influence: Money, Militias, and Politics
- The Strategic Corridor: A Regional Power Play
- Economic Interdependence and Sanctions
- Iraqi Sovereignty: A Contested Narrative
- Regional Dynamics and External Players
- The Future Trajectory: What Lies Ahead?
Historical Roots of a Rivalry: The Saddam Era
The relationship between Iran and Iraq has been historically fraught with tension, largely shaped by territorial disputes, ideological differences, and regional power struggles. Before the dramatic shifts of the 21st century, the two nations were locked in a fierce rivalry, epitomized by the devastating Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s. This conflict, born from long-standing grievances, left millions dead and deeply scarred the collective psyche of both populations. The roots of this animosity stretch back even further, predating the rise of modern states.
A key point of contention was the region of Khuzestan, a resource-rich area in southwestern Iran, which Saddam Hussein, then Iraq's deputy prime minister, claimed as historically Iraqi territory. In 1969, Saddam Hussein explicitly stated, "Iraq's dispute with Iran is in connection with Khuzestan, which is part of Iraq's soil and was annexed to Iran during foreign rule." This declaration was not merely rhetoric; it was followed by concrete actions. Soon after, Iraqi radio stations began exclusively broadcasting into Arabistan (the Arabic name for Khuzestan), actively encouraging Arabs living in Iran and even Baloch people to revolt. This aggressive stance underscored Iraq's ambition to destabilize Iran and assert its regional dominance. Successive military coups in Iraq led to the takeover by the Ba’ath Party in 1968 and Hussein’s gradual ascent to power, culminating in a regime that viewed Iran as its primary adversary. The Iran-Iraq War, initiated by Iraq in 1980, was a brutal manifestation of this deep-seated rivalry, solidifying the animosity for decades to come.
The Post-2003 Landscape: Iran's Growing Influence
The fall of Saddam Hussein's regime in 2003 dramatically altered the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East, opening a vacuum that Iran was quick to fill. With the removal of its long-standing enemy, Tehran saw an unprecedented opportunity to expand its influence in Iraq. The Shiite majority in Iraq, long oppressed under Saddam's Sunni-led Ba'athist rule, found a natural ally in the Shiite-majority Iran. This religious affinity became a powerful conduit for influence, allowing Iran to cultivate deep ties with various Iraqi political factions and armed groups.
For decades, Iran has worked to control Iraq, employing a multi-faceted strategy that leverages money, militias, and political pressure. This approach has allowed Tehran to use Iraq as a source of cash and power, helping fund its activities across the region. The influx of Iranian financial aid, investment, and political guidance has been instrumental in shaping Iraq's post-Saddam political structure. Through these channels, Iran has gained significant leverage, influencing everything from government appointments to economic policies. The strategic importance of Iraq to Iran cannot be overstated; it serves not just as a buffer but as a vital component of Tehran's broader regional ambitions.
Mechanisms of Influence: Money, Militias, and Politics
Iran's strategy to influence Iraq is sophisticated and multifaceted, extending beyond mere diplomatic ties. It encompasses a careful blend of financial incentives, military support, and political maneuvering designed to embed Tehran's interests deeply within the Iraqi state and society. This comprehensive approach is a primary reason why the question "does Iran run Iraq?" continues to resonate.
Financially, Iran has provided significant aid and investment, particularly in sectors vital to Iraq's recovery and development. This economic leverage creates dependency and fosters goodwill among certain segments of the Iraqi population and political elite. Furthermore, the extensive trade between the two countries, despite international sanctions on Iran, provides Tehran with a crucial economic lifeline and a means to exert pressure. This has allowed Tehran to use Iraq as a source of cash and power, helping fund its activities in the wider region, including support for proxies and allies.
The Role of Shia Militias
Perhaps the most visible and impactful mechanism of Iranian influence is its support for Shia militias within Iraq. Iran’s support for Shia militias in Iraq enabled it to solidify its influence in the country. These groups, some of which predated the 2003 invasion and others that emerged in its aftermath, have received extensive training, funding, and weaponry from Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). The Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), a state-sponsored umbrella organization of mostly Shiite militias, includes several factions with strong ideological and operational ties to Tehran, such as the Badr Organization and Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq.
These militias have played a crucial role in combating ISIS and maintaining security in various parts of Iraq, thereby gaining legitimacy and popular support. However, their allegiance often lies with Iran, and they frequently operate outside the direct control of the Iraqi central government. As the provided data indicates, groups like SCIRI (Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, now the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq) and Badr basically run certain towns, signifying that Iranians have real influence on the ground in these areas. This parallel security structure allows Iran to project power directly into Iraqi territory, shaping political outcomes and challenging Baghdad's sovereignty. The presence and power of these militias are a critical factor in understanding the extent to which Iran "runs" or at least significantly influences Iraq.
Politically, Iran maintains robust relationships with key Iraqi political parties and figures, especially those from the Shiite bloc. Through these alliances, Tehran can influence parliamentary decisions, government formation, and policy direction. This political pressure is often subtle but highly effective, ensuring that Iraqi foreign policy and internal affairs align with Iran's strategic objectives. Iran’s strategy in Iraq has become one of attrition, using security, religious, economic, and political activities to exhaust Iraq’s ethnic and sectarian communities until they accept its favored agenda, which is favored by the Shiites in Iran, and parts of Lebanon, South Asia, and Saudi Arabia.
The Strategic Corridor: A Regional Power Play
Beyond direct influence within Iraq, Iran's actions are part of a grander regional strategy. Iran’s support for Shia militias in Iraq allowed Tehran to create a strategic corridor starting from Iran, passing through Iraq and Syria, and reaching Lebanon. This "land bridge" or "Shiite Crescent" is a critical component of Iran's regional security architecture. It provides a logistical route for transferring weapons, personnel, and resources to its allies, particularly Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Assad regime in Syria.
This corridor is not merely theoretical; it is a tangible manifestation of Iran's expanding reach. By securing this route, Iran enhances its ability to project power across the Levant, challenge its adversaries (like Israel and Saudi Arabia), and respond to regional crises. The control or significant influence over this corridor means that Tehran can move assets and exert pressure from its western borders all the way to the Mediterranean. This strategic depth fundamentally alters the balance of power in the Middle East and underscores why the question "does Iran run Iraq?" is so pertinent from a regional security perspective. The more control Iran has over Iraqi territory, the more secure and functional this vital corridor becomes, solidifying its position as a major regional hegemon.
Economic Interdependence and Sanctions
The economic relationship between Iran and Iraq is a complex web of necessity, opportunity, and constraint, heavily influenced by international sanctions on Tehran. Iraq, still recovering from decades of conflict and mismanagement, relies significantly on Iranian imports, particularly for its energy needs. This reliance creates a unique dynamic where Iraq's stability is, to some extent, tied to its ability to maintain economic ties with Iran, even when those ties conflict with the interests of its Western allies.
Iran is a major supplier of natural gas and electricity to Iraq, crucial for powering Iraqi homes and industries, especially during the scorching summer months when demand peaks and Iraq's own infrastructure often fails to cope. This energy dependency gives Iran considerable leverage. If Iran were to cut off supplies, Iraq would face a worsening electricity crisis, leading to widespread discontent and potential instability. This practical reality often forces Iraq to navigate a delicate balance between appeasing its powerful neighbor and adhering to international pressures.
Oil-for-Gas Deals and US Sanctions
The most prominent example of this economic interdependence is the recurring oil-for-gas barter deals between the two countries. Iraqi officials are defending a deal inked to barter oil for gas with Iran, saying it does not violate U.S. sanctions on Tehran and that it will help alleviate a worsening electricity crisis in Iraq. These deals are a direct response to Iraq's inability to pay for Iranian gas imports in U.S. dollars due to American sanctions targeting Iran's financial sector. By bartering oil, Iraq can circumvent the sanctions while still securing vital energy supplies.
However, these deals are a constant source of tension with the United States, which seeks to isolate Iran economically. Washington views such transactions as undermining its sanctions regime and providing financial relief to the Iranian government. Iraqi officials, on the other hand, argue that these deals are essential for their national security and public welfare, emphasizing that they are not intended to defy U.S. policy but to address an urgent domestic need. This ongoing negotiation highlights the difficult position Iraq finds itself in, caught between its powerful neighbor and its international partners. The necessity of these economic arrangements further demonstrates the deep entanglement that leads many to ask, "does Iran run Iraq?" in terms of economic policy and dependency.
Iraqi Sovereignty: A Contested Narrative
The question "does Iran run Iraq?" fundamentally challenges the notion of Iraqi sovereignty. While Iraq maintains its own government, military, and diplomatic relations, the pervasive nature of Iranian influence raises legitimate concerns about the extent of its true autonomy. The presence of Iranian-backed militias, the economic leverage, and the political pressure all contribute to a perception that Baghdad's decisions are often, if not always, made with Tehran's interests in mind.
Many analysts and observers believe that Iran's influence is far more extensive than officially acknowledged. Some analysts believe the figure is far higher than publicly stated, indicating that the true depth of Iranian control is often underestimated. This perception is fueled by the visible power of Iranian-aligned political factions and armed groups that operate with significant freedom within Iraq, sometimes even clashing with Iraqi state forces. The complex landscape of middle eastern geopolitics, the relationship between Iran and Iraq presents a compelling study of shifts and turns, where sovereignty is constantly being negotiated.
Denials and Defenses
Unsurprisingly, Iran has repeatedly denied U.S. charges of interference in Iraqi affairs. Tehran consistently frames its involvement as support for a neighboring, fellow Shiite-majority nation, emphasizing shared religious and cultural ties and the need to combat terrorism. Iraqi officials, while acknowledging the strong ties with Iran, often defend their government's independence and sovereign decision-making. They argue that cooperation with Iran is a matter of national interest, particularly in areas like energy supply and regional security.
However, the reality on the ground often tells a different story. The visible power of groups like SCIRI and Badr, who basically run towns and have real influence on the ground, makes these denials difficult to fully accept. The constant push and pull between Iraqi national interests and Iranian regional ambitions creates a perpetual tension, leaving the question of true Iraqi sovereignty open to debate. The very fact that Iran's strategy is described as one of "attrition" – to exhaust Iraqi communities until they accept its favored agenda – suggests a deliberate effort to subordinate Iraqi will to Iranian objectives, further complicating the answer to "does Iran run Iraq?".
Regional Dynamics and External Players
The relationship between Iran and Iraq does not exist in a vacuum; it is heavily influenced by, and in turn influences, the broader regional dynamics and the actions of external players. The Middle East is a chessboard where multiple powers vie for influence, and the Iran-Iraq axis is a crucial piece in this intricate game. Nations like the United States, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey all have vested interests in the stability and alignment of Iraq, adding layers of complexity to the question of who truly holds sway in Baghdad.
The United States, having led the invasion that toppled Saddam, has invested heavily in building a democratic and stable Iraq. However, its efforts have often been undermined by Iran's deep-seated influence. Washington views Iran's presence in Iraq as a threat to regional stability and a challenge to its own strategic interests, leading to a continuous struggle for influence. This often manifests in diplomatic pressure, sanctions, and military actions aimed at curbing Iranian power.
Israeli Strikes and Turkish Cancellations
Israel, a staunch adversary of Iran, views the strategic corridor through Iraq and Syria as an existential threat. Consequently, the Israeli military has been striking Iran’s stocks of ballistic missiles and missile launchers, reducing the number it has left to launch at Israel. These strikes, often conducted in Syria and sometimes reportedly in Iraq, are aimed at disrupting Iran's ability to arm its proxies and project power towards Israel. The frequency and intensity of these strikes underscore the direct link between Iran's influence in Iraq and the broader regional conflict.
Other regional players also react to the perceived Iranian dominance. Turkish Airlines, Turkey’s flag carrier, and other Turkish operators have cancelled flights to Iran, Iraq, Syria and Jordan until June 16, Turkiye’s transport minister Abdulkadir Uraloglu said, indicating how regional tensions, potentially fueled by Iran's actions, can disrupt normal life and commerce. The mention of "war breaks out with Israel, Iran has run out of good options" published June 14, 2025, further highlights the volatile nature of the region and how Iran's posture, including its influence in Iraq, is directly tied to potential conflicts. President Donald Trump's past statements about allowing two weeks for diplomacy before deciding whether to launch a strike in Iran also illustrate the high stakes involved and the international community's concern over Iran's regional assertiveness.
The Future Trajectory: What Lies Ahead?
The question "does Iran run Iraq?" will likely remain a subject of intense debate for the foreseeable future. The relationship is dynamic, constantly evolving amidst internal Iraqi political shifts, regional power plays, and international pressures. While Iran has undoubtedly solidified a significant degree of influence through various channels—financial aid, political alliances, and especially its support for powerful militias—it is perhaps an oversimplification to state that Iran "runs" Iraq outright.
Iraq is not a mere puppet state. It has its own national interests, its own political factions, and a populace that, while often divided, increasingly desires stability and true sovereignty. The Iraqi government, despite its challenges, often attempts to balance its relationships with both Iran and the West. The oil-for-gas deals, for instance, are a pragmatic necessity for Iraq, not necessarily an act of subservience. However, the deep structural influence that Iran has cultivated means that Baghdad's room for independent maneuver is often constrained.
Moving forward, the trajectory of this relationship will depend on several factors: the stability of the Iraqi government, the ability of Iraq to diversify its economic and security partnerships, the ongoing impact of U.S. sanctions on Iran, and the broader geopolitical shifts in the Middle East. As long as Iran views Iraq as a vital component of its regional security and power projection, Tehran will continue to exert pressure and leverage its influence. The harrowing experiences of the 1980s war are etched deeply in their collective memory, yet the dawn of the new millennium unveiled a different form of engagement, one characterized by strategic penetration rather than overt conflict.
Ultimately, Iraq remains a battleground for influence, a complex nation striving for autonomy while navigating powerful external forces. While Iran does not possess absolute control, its pervasive presence and strategic leverage mean that Baghdad's path forward will invariably be shaped by Tehran's interests. The intricate dance between these two nations will continue to be a defining feature of Middle Eastern politics, a testament to how historical grievances can transform into complex, interdependent realities.
What are your thoughts on the intricate relationship between Iran and Iraq? Do you believe Iraq can truly assert its full sovereignty amidst such deep-seated influence? Share your perspectives in the comments below, and don't forget to explore our other articles on Middle Eastern geopolitics for more in-depth analysis!
One Dose In, And Your Life Will Never Be The Same!
What Does Crack Look Like? | How Crack Looks, Smells, & Feels
do and does worksheets with answers for grade 1, 2, 3 | Made By Teachers
