The withdrawal of the remaining US troops from Iraq is a victory for the Iraqi nation and the resistance force in the region, Iran claimed on Thursday, October 1, also calling for greater cooperation between both the countries to achieve complete sovereignty for Iraq.

“The US, despite possessing vast resources and equipment, has been expelled from Iraq, and the Iraqi people are celebrating this victory,” head of Iran’s Quds’ forces Esmail Qaani said during a program held in Tehran to mark the second anniversary of the Israeli assassination of Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah.

He thanked the “resistance of the Iraqi nation and the heroes of the Resistance Front” for making the end of the US occupation a reality.

The US withdrew all its remaining forces from Iraq on September 30, as per the 2024 understanding between both the countries marking the conclusion of over a decade-long military presence in the country.

The news of the withdrawal led to widespread celebrations in Baghdad and other parts of the country on Wednesday.

The US occupied Iraq during the 2003 war which lasted until 2011 when it publicly stated that it withdrew all its forces. They were then re-deployed in 2014 as part of the international coalition fighting against the Islamic State or ISIS.

Iraqi people, as well as the resistance groups in the country, have been demanding the withdrawal of all foreign troops from the country for years now. Their presence is seen as undermining the country’s sovereignty.

Due to popular resistance, most of the foreign troops left the country by 2019 after a victory was declared over ISIS. Remaining US troops were redeployed to some bases in Baghdad and Erbil.

In 2020, the Iraqi parliament adopted a resolution demanding the withdrawal of all remaining foreign troops from the country following popular protests over the US assassination of Qassem Solemani during a visit to Baghdad. Soleimani was the head of Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corp (IRGC) and key military strategist.

Also an Iranian victory

Qaani claimed that the US withdrawal from Iraq is also a victory for Iran which has been in support of the call on the ground that the presence of foreign troops in the region undermines regional security and stability.

Qaani also linked the withdrawal to the setbacks the US faced in its war with Iran in the last seven months. Contrary to its expressed wish to force Iranians to surrender within days of the war launched on February 28, “they encountered a reality vastly different from their calculations,” he said.

The US had used its military presence and the bases in Iraq to launch attacks across the border in Iran in the past and also during the ongoing war. This has prompted Iranian retaliations causing destruction and death of some of its servicemen.

Iran has also accused that the US military’s presence in Iraq has been used by Israel for its clandestine operations inside the country.

Reacting to US withdrawal from Iraq, IRGC said on Thursday that it is the beginning of its withdrawal from the entire region.

Qaani expressed hope that in the aftermath of US troop withdrawal there will be increased coordination between the governments in Iraq and Iran for purging the remaining US influences on the country and creating a secure and sovereign Iraq.

Though the US has withdrawn militarily, the legacy of its occupation still remains in Iraq. It continues to control Iraq’s economy by controlling the payments to its oil exports which are routed through the American Central Bank.

Oil revenues made up 90% of the Iraqi government’s total budget and over 40% of its national GDP.

Qaani accused that banning the Iranian airlines to Iraq and other countries in the region is a distraction used by the US to undermine the significance of its military defeat.

Iraq and several other countries in the region complied with the US sanctions on Iranian airlines last month following Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s threats of secondary sanctions.

💾

Gulf oil exporters topped pre-war levels for about half of September, shipping data showed on Monday, though attacks on tankers and logistical constraints cloud the outlook for sustained higher flows.

A butcher was sentenced to 10 years in prison in one of Islam’s holiest cities in Iraq for selling pork to customers while passing it off as beef, AFP reported on 14th of September. Iraq’s Supreme Judicial Council found the merchant guilty; he had been arrested for possessing 75 kilograms of pork in the city […]

By Salma El Wardany Oct 4, 2026 (Bloomberg) –Iraq’s state tanker company arranged a very large crude carrier to transport 2 million barrels beyond the Strait of Hormuz, marking a move...

By Kamran Yeganegi | The Cradle | October 3, 2026

Saudi oil tankers are loading again at Yanbu, less than three weeks after drone strikes shut down the East–West Pipeline that supplies the Red Sea port. On 24 September, crude was reported to be flowing west again, although no ship had yet loaded a cargo.

By 29 September, trade sources and shipping data showed that loadings had resumed. The interruption and recovery have offered a costly demonstration of what an oil route around the Strait of Hormuz can, and cannot, do.

Yanbu, Ceyhan and Baniyas sit at three very different points on that spectrum.

Yanbu has a 1,200-kilometer pipeline in operation and an established export terminal. Ceyhan is already loading Iraqi crude, though current Iraqi flows are measured in hundreds of thousands–not millions–of barrels a day. Baniyas could eventually give Iraq a major Mediterranean outlet, but for now it remains a project that depends on new infrastructure and financing, political agreements, and protection across two fragile states.

The comparison begins with the oil that reaches ships during a crisis. Pipeline capacity matters only as much as the pumps, terminals, and security along the route allow.

Yanbu’s exposed lifeline

Saudi Arabia’s 1,200-kilometer East–West Pipeline has a nominal capacity of 7 million barrels per day (bpd). Before the September strikes, reported flows through the system were already below that capacity. Three pumping stations were damaged, and the shutdown halted crude loadings at Yanbu. Riyadh blamed Iraqi resistance factions; the Islamic Resistance in Iraq denied responsibility for the strike. Baghdad condemned the strike and opened an investigation.

Restarting the line on 22 September did not immediately restore exports. Crude had to reach Yanbu and replenish stocks before tankers could load. Two vessels scheduled for 23 September left without cargo, according to shipping data cited by Reuters. Loadings resumed days later, after a strike on pumping stations hundreds of kilometers inland had kept the port idle.

Yanbu was moving between 2 million and 2.65 million bpd when tankers returned. Traders expected flows to rise to 3 million to 4 million bpd, but a return to the pre-attack level of roughly 5.5 million bpd could take another month.

The voyage has become more expensive, too. Quoted war-risk premiums for Saudi-linked tankers calling at Yanbu have risen to around 3 percent of vessel value, up from below 1 percent in early July. For a $100 million tanker carrying two million barrels, a 3 percent premium adds roughly $1.50 to the cost of each barrel, before fuel or freight. Yanbu may bypass Hormuz, but insurers are charging heavily for the detour.

Yanbu still leaves Asia-bound cargoes exposed to the southern Red Sea and Bab al-Mandab. Attacks and warnings by Yemen’s Ansarallah-aligned army have made passage through those waters more costly and uncertain. Heidmar Maritime Holdings chief executive Pankaj Khanna has highlighted another problem for shipowners: the Red Sea lacks the US naval protection sometimes available around Hormuz.

Saudi Arabia has escaped one strait only to send its oil toward another. Cargoes bound for Europe can head north through the Red Sea, but Asian customers require the southern passage. That split limits how freely Riyadh can reroute shipments when risks around Bab al-Mandab rise.

Ceyhan’s southern supply problem

Ceyhan is already loading Iraqi crude, though its northern supply remains small compared with the volumes exported through the Gulf. Flows stood at roughly 200,000 bpd in mid-September, down from about 250,000 bpd before the war. Baghdad’s challenge is getting oil from its vast southern fields into that northern export system.

Iraq has begun moving southern oil north by road. A September trial sent 209 tanker trucks carrying about 38,000 barrels to Kirkuk over two days. Basra Oil Company later said around 250,000 bpd was being transported north for onward export through Ceyhan.

Truck convoys are useful during a crisis, but they cannot replace a high-capacity pipeline. The first trial averaged about 182 barrels per truck. Moving 250,000 barrels at that rate would require roughly 1,370 loaded truck trips, with vehicles returning south for the next run. Road conditions and loading points impose additional constraints. Expanding Ceyhan therefore depends less on the Turkish terminal than on a reliable south-to-north connection within Iraq.

Energy analyst Richard Bronze of Energy Aspects has warned against treating bypass infrastructure as a substitute for Hormuz altogether. “The idea that the strait will stop mattering or become worthless is pure rhetoric,” he told Arab News. For Iraq, the road to Ceyhan provides an outlet. It cannot yet carry southern crude at a scale that would loosen Baghdad’s reliance on the Gulf.

Baniyas across the war map

Baniyas is the most ambitious option because it could reshape Iraq’s export map. Iraq has approved preliminary studies comparing routes including Basra–Haditha–Kirkuk–Ceyhan and Basra–Haditha–Baniyas, with a consortium that includes Chevron, TI Capital, and Qatar’s UCC. Chatham House estimates the wider Iraq–Syria network at around $15 billion, with a proposed initial capacity of roughly 2 million bpd and construction potentially taking about four years.

Syrian officials have given a somewhat shorter timeframe. Syrian Petroleum Company chief Youssef Qablawi said in August that the Haditha–Baniyas project could take around 30 months to three years after final agreements and engineering work. Even the shorter timetable places Baniyas beyond the present shipping crisis, assuming agreements and funding are secured.

The route’s security problem is also more complex than a line drawn on a map. A pipeline from Haditha toward Syria would traverse western Iraq, including areas where ISIS cells remain a concern, before entering eastern Syria, where state authority remains uneven and armed groups continue to operate.

Chatham House noted in September that armed actors, including ISIS, have attacked oil wells and tanker trucks in eastern Syria, while Iraq’s fragmented security system leaves multiple actors capable of obstructing or extracting rents from infrastructure.

Israel’s strikes and military presence in Syria would loom over any pipeline to Baniyas. There is no evidence that Israel plans to attack the project, but a route through Syrian territory would depend on security guarantees Damascus cannot yet provide.

Baniyas itself is more functional than the word “reconstruction” sometimes suggests. Iraqi-origin fuel oil has already been trucked through Syria and handled at the terminal, demonstrating that a commercial logistics chain can operate.

The existing trade gives the project a foothold, but handling trucked fuel oil is far removed from loading 1–2 million bpd of pipeline crude. Storage, pumping systems, berths and terminal reliability would have to be scaled accordingly.

The old Kirkuk–Baniyas line was badly damaged, and the planned network may take a different route. Existing truck traffic therefore offers little indication of the cost or the construction work required to handle sustained crude flows.

Sanctions are another constraint, though less severe than under Bashar al-Assad. The EU lifted its broad economic sanctions on Syria in 2025 while retaining security-based and targeted measures, and the US rescinded Syria’s designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism in August 2026. That lowers, but does not eliminate, banking, insurance, due-diligence and counterparty risk for a multi-billion-dollar project.

Iran’s leverage runs through Iraq

The geopolitical logic behind Iraq’s western routes is often framed as a means to reduce Iranian leverage over Hormuz. Iran’s influence in Iraq also extends through energy trade, political networks, and armed factions embedded in Iraq’s fragmented security order.

At the same time, Tehran does not treat Iraq exactly as it treats other Gulf states. Mostafa Khoshcheshm, a political commentator on Iranian television, told Al Jazeera in August that Iran viewed Iraq as a “friendly state” and had allowed some Iraqi oil tankers to pass Hormuz.

He said Baghdad had “always stood up to the United States.” His view is one Iranian reading of Baghdad’s position. An Iraqi move toward Gulf- and US-backed western export corridors would also alter the economic leverage surrounding it.

An expansion through Baniyas or Ceyhan would give Baghdad more room to negotiate export terms without severing its ties to Iran. Gulf investment would bring new transit partners and sources of capital, though it would not automatically shift Iraq’s political alignment.

The security question cuts both ways. Iran-aligned resistance factions could be a source of vulnerability if they viewed a corridor as threatening their strategic interests. ISIS remnants and local power brokers could also obstruct it, while transit-state disputes might halt flows without an attack. Yanbu’s damaged pumps are a warning about the vulnerability of a land corridor.

Iraq’s other proposed exits face obstacles of their own. Reviving the dormant Iraq Pipeline through Saudi Arabia (IPSA) would require Riyadh’s agreement and extensive repairs. The Basra–Aqaba route would have to be built across western Iraq and Jordan.

Egypt’s SUMED pipeline is already operating, but Baghdad has no direct way to feed Iraqi crude into it. For now, the southern Gulf terminals remain Iraq’s only outlet capable of handling exports at scale.

What reaches the tanker?

As of early October, Yanbu can move the largest potential volume because the pipeline and port already exist, but its 7 million bpd nameplate figure overstates the immediately exportable capacity, while Red Sea shipping costs and the Bab al-Mandab remain concerns.

Ceyhan can now load Iraqi crude, but expansion depends on resolving Iraq’s internal north–south logistics. Baniyas offers the largest geopolitical transformation, but it remains years, billions of dollars, and security agreements away from moving crude at scale.

Hormuz remains central to the region’s oil trade even as states invest in alternatives. Yanbu, Ceyhan and Baniyas each shift some exposure from the strait to pumping stations, desert corridors, insurers or transit governments. Their value will be measured by the barrels reaching ships when the Gulf route is under threat, not by the capacity listed in a project plan.

By Iqbal Jassat | Press TV | October 3, 2026

The departure of the final US military forces from Iraq marks a profound turning point in the modern history of West Asia.

For over two decades, the narrative of foreign intervention dictated that regional stability was impossible without Washington’s oversight. Today, that narrative lies broken.

The end of the US-led military mission is not the result of a benevolent diplomatic concession or a calculated policy shift by the Pentagon. It is, undeniably, a hard-fought victory achieved through the unyielding resolve of Iraq’s Islamic Resistance and the enduring steadfastness of its people.

Crucially, the withdrawal of American forces delivers a severe blow to the strategic calculations of the Zionist entity. For decades, Israel’s expansionist ambitions and its destabilising campaign of aggression across the region – from Palestine and Lebanon to Syria – have relied entirely on the foundational guarantee of US military backing.

Washington’s illegal military presence in Iraq served as a vital buffer and logistics corridor designed to fracture the Axis of Resistance and project power on Israel’s behalf. With the American shield removed from Iraq, the regional depth that Tel Aviv exploited to enforce its hegemony is rapidly collapsing.

The end of the US occupation severely limits the capability to isolate regional resistance factions, exposing the fundamental limits of Zionist expansionism when stripped of direct imperial protection.

The balance of power has fundamentally shifted, proving that the era of unpunished aggression across West Asia is coming to an end.

For 23 years, Iraq served as the central stage for a flawed experiment in imposed security. The 2003 invasion promised democracy and stability but instead delivered a legacy of institutional fragmentation, economic exploitation, and a vacuum that fueled regional terrorism.

In charting this path towards absolute liberation, none can deny the blueprint for true sovereignty remains Iran’s historic achievement of complete independence.

By expelling foreign military mandates and dismantling external control over its domestic wealth, Iran proved that a nation can cultivate formidable defensive and scientific capabilities entirely from within.

This self-reliant model stands as a direct contrast to the Arab Persian Gulf sheikdoms, which have long tethered their survival to American protection, effectively trading their strategic autonomy for a fragile security umbrella.

While these neighboring monarchies remain dependent on foreign bases and external guarantees, Iraq’s triumph demonstrates that genuine security cannot be imported or bought.

The reality of the past two decades, stretching from the sudden collapse in Kabul to the gradual eviction from Baghdad, proves that dependence on foreign superpowers is an inherently fragile strategy.

When foreign forces occupy bases under the guise of “protection,” they serve primary external geopolitical interests rather than the security of the host nation. The presence of these military installations frequently exacerbates regional polarization, turning host countries into potential flashpoints for broader wars they cannot control.

Iraq’s transition into a new era demonstrates a vital alternative: security is most durable when it is organically derived from national unity, localized defense capability, and regional cooperation. The resistance infrastructure that stood firm against occupation has demonstrated that an organized, highly motivated regional population can outlast the political will of an external superpower.

This moment serves as a stern warning to those Arab regimes tempted by the illusion of the Abraham Accords. Normalising ties with the Zionist entity under the pretext of economic benefit or strategic deterrence is a fatal miscalculation.

Entangling a nation’s destiny with a decaying occupation framework will neither guarantee security nor provide immunity from regional realities.

For the capitals still hosting US military bases or pursuing compromise with Tel Aviv, the message from Baghdad is clear: true stability is forged through regional integration, resistance to imperialism, and self-reliance—not through the permanent invitation of foreign militaries or treacherous pacts that betray the core causes of the Islamic world.

Most profoundly, this historic milestone radiates a powerful ray of hope to the people of Palestine, who have endured decades of devastating cruelty and brutal subjugation since the creation of Israel.

For a population resisting land theft, apartheid, and relentless military assault, the liberation of Iraq offers undeniable proof that even the most heavily funded occupation is not permanent. It demonstrates that when a people refuse to break, the architecture of oppression can be dismantled piece by piece.

The steadfastness of the Iraqi resistance serves as a direct message to the Palestinian struggle: the path of compromise is a dead end, but unyielding resistance eventually breaks the chains of tyranny.

---

Iqbal Jassat is an executive member of the Media Review Network, Johannesburg, South Africa.

Alla luce del recente rituro delle forze statunitensi dal Paese (esito anche della sciagurata aggressione all’Iran) si rende necessario ripercorrere storia e geopolitica dell’Iraq per meglio comprendere quelle che saranno le future direttrici di quello che per demografia, posizione e ricchezza (in termini di risorse naturali) si presenta come un sicuro protagonista nel futuro della regione.

Segue nostro Telegram.

Per comprendere la storia dell’Iraq sul piano della teoria geopolitica si rende necessario valutarne sia la posizione assoluta (ovvero, la collocazione geografico-spaziale) sia la posizione relativa (la collocazione geopolitica). La seconda, a differenza della prima, può variare in relazione a precise circostanze; è determinata dal rapporto con i vicini; e può donare o far perdere importanza ad un luogo nel corso del tempo (ad esempio, l’Italia che durante la Guerra Fredda, era “favorita” dalla sua condizione di Paese confinante con il “blocco socialista”, mentre oggi non gode più di tale “status”). La posizione assoluta dell’Iraq è quella di Paese inevitabilmente legato alla presenza di due corsi d’acqua (il Tigri e l’Eufrate) che assumono valore non solo in termini di idrografia ma anche come “immaginario geografico” (termine con il quale la “geopolitica accademica” cerca di descrivere la cosiddetta geografia sacra). La posizione relativa, a sua volta, è quella di confine tra due mondi, due spazi e civiltà all’apparenza differenti: il mondo nomadico del deserto arabico (con la sua religiosità “cruda”) e quello parzialmente sedentarizzato dell’Altopiano iranico con la sua cultura millenaria ed una innata tendenza all’afflato mistico. Allo stesso tempo, la sua storia è segnata dal rapporto conflittuale con il vicino siriano che risale sin dai tempi dei primi califfi dell’Islam.

I fiumi Tigri ed Eufrate hanno storicamente rappresentato una forte base di unità sociale per il popolo iracheno. La sua ricchezza idrica e la sua particolare posizione (al centro del quadrante geopolitico del Vicino Oriente) hanno attirato nel corso dei secoli una ragguardevole serie di invasioni e/o migrazioni che ne hanno costantemente sovvertito l’equilibrio.

All’inizio del VII secolo d. C., prima che l’Islam modificasse in modo definitivo il panorama culturale e religioso della regione mesopotamica, i territori che oggi corrispondono all’Iraq erano abitati in larga parte da comunità cristiane nestoriane (parlanti diversi dialetti aramaici), ebraiche e da diversi insediamenti greci e indiani. Lo zoroastrismo, invece, era limitato ai soldati ed agli amministratori persiani, i dahaqin (classe aristocratica composta in primo luogo di proprietari terrieri). I territori a ovest dell’Eufrate, a loro volta, erano abitati da tribù nomadi arabe. Per secoli il regno degli arabi Lakhmidi – che aveva la sua capitale nella città di Hira, sui margini del deserto arabico – aveva prosperato come regno autonomo, sebbene vassallo della Persia sasanide.

L’arrivo dell’Islam, sancito dalla sconfitta sasanide nella battaglia di Qadisiyya (636 d. C.), modificò solo in parte la geografia religiosa della regione. I nuovi conquistatori, chiusi all’interno di villaggi fortificati (gli amsar), in un primo momento non solo non cercarono di imporre la nuova religione (l’islamizzazione totale della regione richiederà diversi decenni), ma assunsero rapidamente molti aspetti culturali dei vinti sasanidi.

La rapida ed enorme espansione dell’Impero arabo-islamico comportò inevitabilmente diverse problematiche di gestione degli affari pubblici e militari, arrivate al culmine con la ribellione delle guarnigioni stanziate in Egitto e l’assassinio del terzo califfo Uthman nel 656. In questo contributo non vi è spazio per analizzare nel dettaglio ciascuna di esse. Tuttavia, è importante sottolineare il fatto che, nel momento della fitna (termine arabo che letteralmente significa “sedizione” ma che viene utilizzato per descrivere uno stato di vera e propria guerra civile), le basi dei belligeranti  erano rispettivamente situate in Iraq (Kufa e Bassora per i seguaci di Ali, cugino e genero del Profeta, nonché quarto califfo dell’Islam) ed in Siria (precisamente a Damasco, dove risiedeva Mu’awiya, governatore regionale e cugino di Uthman, con più di un’aspirazione al soglio califfale).

L’assassinio di Ali nel 661 e la definitiva affermazione della famiglia omayyade (della quale Mu’awiya era allora il principale esponente) diede inizio ad una nuova fase nella storia dell’Islam e sancì la momentanea vittoria della componente siriana su quella irachena. Di fatto, solo quarant’anni

dopo l’Egira (la migrazione del Profeta Muhammad dalla Mecca a Medina), il centro di potere dell’Impero arabo-islamico si era trasferito dalla città oasi al centro della Penisola Arabica all’Iraq prima ed all’assai ricca Damasco poi.

Sul piano prettamente geopolitico, dunque, la ribellione di Hussein (figlio di Ali) contro Yazid (il dispotico figlio di Mu’awiya), ed il martirio del primo insieme ai suoi uomini a Kerbala nel 680, può essere interpretata non solo come l’istante di manifestazione del più puro spirito dei partigiani di Ali (l’idea del sacrificio di sé in nome della giustizia), ma anche come un nuovo episodio dello scontro plurisecolare tra Siria e Iraq. Sempre i “siriani” omayyadi, per mano del califfo Abdul-Malik (685-705) inviarono in Iraq il “duro” governatore al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf al preciso scopo di soffocare la nascente minaccia sciita. Questi ha un posto del tutto particolare all’interno della storia dell’Iraq, tanto che ancora oggi i giovani iracheni imparano a memoria parti di un suo celebre discorso rilasciato nella moschea di Kufa nel 694: “Il comandante dei fedeli [il califfo omayyade] ha vuotato la sua faretra e morso le sue frecce e ha trovato in me la più dura e più amara di tutte. Perciò mi ha mandato a voi. A lungo siete stati pronti alla sedizione; siete giaciuti nei covili dell’errore e avete fatto della trasgressione la vostra regola. Per Dio, io vi scorteccerò come si fa con gli alberi, vi legherò come una fascina di stecchi, vi batterò come cammelli randagi […] Per Dio, quello che prometto, mantengo; quello che propongo, realizzo; quello che misuro, taglio”.

Le dure riforme di al-Hajjaj ed il processo di arabizzazione forzata da lui portato avanti, paradossalmente, favorirono lo sviluppo di Kufa e Bassora come centri di studio della teologia e della giurisprudenza islamica aperti (per il tramite siriano) all’influenza dello gnosticismo cristiano e più in generale del mondo ellenico da una parte e persiano, dall’altra.

Come riporta lo studioso Thabit A. J. Abdullah, “con l’aumento delle conversioni all’Islam, la contraddizione insita fra l’appello universalistico islamico ed il dominio di una casta militare araba divenne insostenibile”. I primi califfati musulmani (e quelli omayyadi in particolare), di fatto, posero particolare enfasi sull’identità etnica araba del potere. In altri termini, si trattava di uno “Stato” retto da un’aristocrazia militare composta da guerrieri tribali arabi, legati tra loro dalla comune fedeltà al dettato coranico. Va da sé che il termine “Stato” in questo caso viene utilizzato nel senso che ad esso venne attribuito dal geopolitico tedesco Friedrich Ratzel: ovvero di “qualsiasi organizzazione politica” (clanica o tribale comprese), visto che, alla pari dello “Stato moderno”, anche queste nascono per difendere la comunità dai pericoli esterni e per assicurarne il sostentamento attraverso l’accentramento del potere. Solo gli epigoni/successori di Ratzel hanno limitato la geografia politica alla geografia dello Stato nel senso moderno del termine.

Ora, la suddetta prospettiva universalistica dell’Islam metteva in conto la possibilità della conversione. Questa, inizialmente, veniva attivamente scoraggiata anche per ragioni economiche, essendo i sudditi non musulmani costretti a pagare una tassa assai più onerosa rispetto ai musulmani. Nonostante ciò, i primi convertiti erano tenuti ad associarsi ad una particolare tribù come “clienti” (mawali), entrando di fatto nel sistema di protezione tribale proprio della Penisola arabica. Il problema sorse nel momento in cui le conversioni (soprattutto in Iraq e Persia, regioni estremamente popolose per il periodo) divennero un fenomeno di massa e l’espansione, sia verso Oriente che Occidente, conobbe una brusca interruzione, lasciando migliaia di soldati privi di occupazione per un lungo periodo.

Il malcontento nei confronti degli Omayyadi crebbe a dismisura fino ad arrivare all’aperta rivolta iniziata sotto la guida di alcuni membri della tribù dei Banu ‘l-Abbas che vantavano una diretta discendenza dalla famiglia del Profeta Muhammad per il tramite di un suo zio. Questi si appellarono sia al sentimento di giustizia dei partigiani di Ali (gli sciiti), sia alle rivendicazioni estremiste dei kharijiti (coloro che, a suo tempo, si opposero alla pace di compromesso tra Ali e Mu’awiyya) che a quelle di natura più propriamente economiche e di mera rappresentanza politica dei mawali.

La ribellione prese il via dalla regione del Khorasan, ma la battaglia decisiva ebbe luogo nell’Iraq settentrionale, nel 750, sulle sponde del Grande Zab, dove l’esercito lealista omayyade venne sbaragliato.

Non è errato affermare che l’ascesa della dinastia abbaside abbia rappresentato sia un evento rivoluzionario nella storia dell’Islam (con i mawali che vennero finalmente riconosciuti uguali agli arabi musulmani e, di conseguenza, divennero capaci di influenzare in modo determinante l’evoluzione di questa religione); sia una nuova vittoria dell’Iraq sulla Siria.

L’epoca abbaside viene tendenzialmente considerata come l’età dell’oro per l’Iraq, più ancora dell’Antica Babilonia. Nel 900, l’Iraq aveva già raggiunto una popolazione di oltre 20 milioni di abitanti (cifra indubbiamente ragguardevole per il periodo). La figura del califfo, allo stesso tempo, assunse una statura quasi divina, imperniato (com’era) dalla sontuosa tradizione imperiale persiana.

Una delle più grandi imprese degli Abbasidi fu sicuramente la costruzione di una nuova capitale imperiale: Baghdad (nome di probabile origine persiana che significa “dono di Dio”). Il sito della nuova città venne scelto personalmente dal califfo Ja’far al-Mansour, che vide nel confluire dei due fiumi (il Tigri e l’Eufrate) il luogo migliore per garantire alla capitale la necessaria centralità sia in termini di agevole accesso alle vie di comunicazione/commercio fluviali, sia in termini di fertile retroterra agricolo.

Sempre gli Abbasidi favorirono il mecenatismo, lo sviluppo delle arti e del sapere, ed almeno inizialmente il loro rapporto con la classe dei religiosi non fu conflittuale. In questo periodo, infatti, si formarono le quattro scuole giuridiche ortodosse dell’Islam sunnita e lo stesso potere imperiale assunse quella particolare caratteristica di commistione tra diritto e religione che ha portato molti a trovare delle similitudini evidenti tra la Roma dei cesari ed il califfato islamico.

I fondatori di tre di queste scuole, Abu Hanifa (699-767), Muhammad al-Shafi’i (767-820), Ahmad ibn Hanbal (780-855), vissero e insegnarono a Baghdad, nel frattempo trasformatasi in vero e proprio “centro del mondo”: “la più grande città, che non ha uguali né a Oriente né a Occidente”, secondo un’affermazione riportata nel celebre Tarikh al-Ya’qubi, opera storica del periodo che, ancora una volta, non tralascia aspetti propriamente collegati  alla geografia sacra.

Ibn Hanbal in particolare, fondatore della radicale scuola hanbalita, si scontrò apertamente con il potere centrale, quando i califfi abbasidi cercarono di imporre la corrente filosofico-teologica mutazilita (di ispirazione neoplatonica) come “religione di Stato” e, addirittura, crearono un sorta di vero e proprio tribunale dell’inquisizione (la minha) che avrebbe dovuto vigilare sulla corretta applicazione della dottrina. Le vicende che riguardano il processo di Ahmad ibn Hanbal vengono così raccontate dallo storico Tamim Ansary: “Hanbal fu trascinato alla corte imperiale e costretto a dibattere con un filosofo mutazilita di spicco sul tema del Corano creato o increato, un argomento che racchiudeva in sé tutta la questione del ruolo della ragione nella ricerca della morale. Il filosofo affrontò Hanbal con lo strumento della logica, ma quest’ultimo rispose con le parole delle Scritture. Il filosofo lo bloccò con i nodi dell’argomentazione, ma Ibn Hanbal si liberò invocando Allah […]. Quando Ibn Hanbal si rifiutò di rinnegare le proprie idee fu picchiato e gettato in prigione. Ma anche lì continuò a rimanere fedele ai propri principi: non avrebbe mai permesso alla ragione di scavalcare la Rivelazione. Allora le autorità aumentarono le pressioni nei suoi confronti, lo picchiarono nuovamente, lo incatenarono e lo tennero in prigione per anni. Ma Ibn Hanbal si rifiutò di rinunciare al suo punto di vista e gli abusi subiti non fecero altro che incrementare a dismisura il suo prestigio […]. Quando il vecchio e dolorante Ibn Hanbal uscì di galera, grandi folle lo accolsero e lo applaudirono. Nel vedere questo la corte imperiale divenne sempre più diffidente nei confronti della filosofia islamica e delle idee greche che l’avevano ispirata. Il califfo al-Mutawakkil ridimensionò il ruolo dei mutaziliti e ricoprì di onori Ibn Hanbal, un segno del prestigio calante dei mutaziliti e con esso dei filosofi”.

La sua vittoria nello scontro teologico sancì in qualche modo il primato degli ulema sulle questioni teologiche rispetto al potere politico ed alle disquisizioni filosofiche degli intellettuali (un esito che si rifletterà anche sulla successiva, quanto celebre, diatriba tra il filosofo Ibn Rushd o Averroè ed il religioso e mistico Muhammad al-Ghazali).

A cavallo tra il X e l’XI secolo, tuttavia, il potere centrale iniziò ad indebolirsi a causa dell’affermazione in diverse province dell’Impero di dinastie locali sempre più autonome ed indipendenti sul piano politico. Tanto che, intorno all’anno Mille, l’effettivo potere del califfo abbaside non superava i confini dell’attuale Iraq. Allo stesso tempo, si arrivò ad una decisiva separazione tra il potere politico-militare e quello religioso che portò la figura del califfo a divenire una carica meramente nominale.

In questo contesto, nel 945, il capo del clan persiano dei Buyidi si assicurò il titolo di amir al’-umara (emiro degli emiri) e fondò una potente dinastia militare che governò di fatto su Iran e Iraq per oltre un secolo, garantendo, tra le altre cose, una libertà religiosa che portò ad una notevole affermazione dello sciismo nella regione dopo secoli travagliati e carichi di persecuzioni per i partigiani di Ali. I Buyidi, in particolare, diedero forte impulso alle celebrazioni di festività tipicamente sciite come l’Ashura (dove si celebra il martirio dell’Imam Hussein) ed alla costruzione di santuari e mausolei come quelli di Ali a Najaf e quello di Hussein a Kerbala. Gli studiosi sciiti, inoltre, vennero generosamente incoraggiati e le scuole in cui si studiava l’operato dei dodici Imam (diretti discendenti di Muhammad e, di conseguenza, legittimi detentori del potere politico e religioso all’interno della umma islamica, secondo lo sciismo) si moltiplicarono rapidamente.

Paradossalmente questa prima affermazione (reale) dello sciismo non portò ad una accesa conflittualità con la componente sunnita della popolazione. Anzi, sunniti e sciiti iracheni fecero fronte comune contro il sempre più aggressivo controcaliffato fatimide (sciita ismailita) d’Egitto che si era assicurato il controllo sulla Siria, aprendo così un nuovo capitolo dell’eterna rivalità tra le due regioni de Levante. La presenza in Siria dei Fatimidi, di fatto, rappresentò per lungo tempo un antemurale all’influenza mediterranea sull’Iraq. Sotto i Buyidi prima, ed i Selgiuchidi poi (di etnia turca), l’Iraq si orientò in modo deciso verso la Persia e l’Oriente. Ed in questo periodo, fino almeno al XII secolo, l’Islam giuridico e formale (legato alle scuole ortodosse) perse la sua centralità in favore della diffusione delle correnti mistiche sufi, molte delle quali nate proprio in Iraq. Ad esempio, a Baghdad nacque la confraternita della qadiriyya (il cui nome deriva da Abdul-Qadir al-Gaylani, morto nel 1146) che avrà un ruolo di primo piano anche nell’islamizzazione del Caucaso. A Bassora, invece, mossero i primi passi i membri dell’ordine rifa’iyya (seguaci di Ahmad al-Rifa’i, divenuti celebri per pratiche pittoresche quali camminare sui carboni ardenti o ingoiare spade).

Una parziale riaffermazione dell’Islam “legale” si ebbe con gli sforzi della dinastia zangide e del celebre condottiero arabo-curdo Salah al-Din ibn Ayyub (che, a sua volta, diede vita alla dinastia ayyubide) che, dapprima riportò Gerusalemme sotto sovranità islamica e, successivamente, sconfisse il controcaliffato fatimide e riportò l’Egitto sotto l’autorità simbolica del califfo abbaside di Baghdad. Tuttavia, lo stesso Salah al-Din (Saladino) finì per rappresentare una minaccia al califfato, visto che in più di un’occasione strinse d’assedio Mosul nella speranza di aprirsi la strada verso Baghdad e riunificare il cuore dell’Islam sunnita sotto un’unica e completa autorità: la sua.

Al termine di una serie di lotte interne all’Impero creato da Gengis Khan, nel 1251 Mongke, nipote di Temujin, assunse il pieno comando delle forze mongole ed inviò suo fratello Hulagu a conquistare l’Asia occidentale. Questi, alla testa di un esercito di oltre 70.000 uomini, entrò in Iraq nel 1257 e l’anno dopo pose sotto assedio la capitale del califfato abbaside. Lo scontro che portò alla caduta della dinastia califfale ed al saccheggio di Baghdad è stato descritto in questi termini dallo storico Ibn al-Athir: “Il racconto comprende la storia di una terribile sciagura, che non ha precedenti nella storia e che ha colpito il mondo intero, anche se soprattutto quello musulmano […] Essi si scatenarono nella città come falchi affamati che attaccano uno stormo di colombe o come lupi rabbiosi che assaltano un gregge di pecore, correndo a briglia sciolta e con volti protervi, uccidendo e seminando terrore […] Il massacro fu così immane che il sangue degli uccisi scorreva in un fiume più grande del Nilo […] Essi spazzarono via i tesori degli harem di Baghdad […] e la luminosità del giorno si mutò in tenebra”.

Il prezzo pagato dalla popolazione civile di Baghdad, a prescindere da alcune evidenti esagerazioni, fu altissimo. Quella che soffrì di più fu la componente sunnita della popolazione. La comunità cristiana venne in parte risparmiata grazie all’intercessione della moglie (cristiana) di Hulagu, mentre quella ebraica ne uscì praticamente indenne. Gli sciiti, a loro volta, senza alcun fondamento, vennero accusati di aver favorito l’ingresso dei mongoli. In particolare, uno dei ministri dell’ultimo califfo abbaside, lo sciita Ibn al-‘Alqami, venne additato come responsabile della disfatta e come traditore in quanto aiutante della causa gengiskhanide.

In realtà, è cosa nota che Hulagu avesse consiglieri sia sunniti che sciiti ben prima dell’arrivo a Baghdad. Uno di essi, il celebre filosofo, fisico e teologo sciita Nasir al-Din Tusi, nell’opera autobiografica Sayr wa-Suluk, aveva già avuto modo di descrivere la distruzione della biblioteca di Alamut (dove risiedeva, sebbene piuttosto critico con gli abitanti ismailiti della città-fortezza), sempre da parte dei mongoli. Una volta presa Alamut, Hulagu, particolarmente interessato alle scienze naturali, risparmiò lo stesso Tusi che, dopo la caduta di Baghdad, assunse il ruolo di direttore degli affari religiosi per il Khan, favorendo (in modo decisivo secondo alcuni) la diffusione dello sciismo duodecimano tra la Persia e l’Iraq.

Nonostante ciò, i mongoli non risparmiarono affatto dalla profanazione e distruzione i santuari sciiti e molte eminenti figure sunnite irachene non tardarono a conferire la loro consacrazione alla nuove autorità di Hulagu in virtù del fatto che fosse preferibile un sovrano giusto, sebbene non musulmano, ad uno musulmano ingiusto (magari sciita).

Ad ogni modo, la caduta di Baghdad e del califfato abbaside ha segnato un punto di svolta nella storia dell’Islam e della regione. Da quel momento in poi, i principali pensatori sunniti, dall’hanbalita Ibn Taymiyya (nato poco dopo l’invasione mongola) al ben noto sociologo ante litteram Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), concentrarono i loro sforzi sulla descrizione di ciò che sarebbe dovuto essere il “califfato ideale”. Ibn Taymiyya in particolare (da taluni considerato in modo anche fuorviante come il precursore dell’estremismo islamista del XX e XXI secolo) indicò nel ritorno alla purezza dell’Islam delle origini e nella denuncia decisa delle deviazioni (causa dello sfaldamento dell’unità islamica) la via per la restaurazione di un autentico califfato. Altre importanti conseguenze della conquista mongola prima e delle successive devastazioni delle confederazioni nomadi-tribali turche (i cosiddetti “montoni bianchi” ed i “montoni neri”) e degli eserciti timuridi furono l’accentuarsi della divisione tra l’Iraq e l’area mediterranea (Egitto e Siria soprattutto), l’affermazione definitiva dello sciismo, delle tendenze mistiche dell’Islam e di alcuni movimenti ad esse collegati.

Di particolare interesse, in questo senso, fu la diffusione intorno al XV secolo della confraternita della Naqshbandiyya (originaria dell’Asia centrale e diffusasi soprattutto tra la popolazione curda ed in parte tra quella arabo-sunnita dell’Iraq), e l’apparizione del movimento di ribellione musha’sha’.

Il fondatore di questo movimento, Muhammad ibn Falah, discendente diretto del Profeta profondamente influenzato dalla dottrina messianica sciita, rivendicò il possesso di una conoscenza mistico-esoterica; si arrogò il titolo di Mahdi (il Salvatore atteso che diffonderà la giustizia nel mondo) e quello appunto di al-Musha’sha’ (il Radioso). Il suo successore, invece, si spinse fino ad affermare di essere la reincarnazione spirituale di Ali.

A prescindere da questi aspetti, il movimento conobbe una certa fortuna sia grazie all’alleanza con alcune importanti confederazioni tribali della regione, sia perché le istanze religiose si mischiavano ad altre di carattere prettamente sociale (denuncia delle sofferenze dei poveri, dei rapporti feudali e della ricchezza dei proprietari terrieri); un qualcosa che da qui in poi contraddistinguerà sempre le periodiche rivolte di movimenti di ispirazione sciita in tutto l’arco del mondo islamico.

All’inizio del XVI la forza propulsiva del movimento musha’sha’, che portò lo stesso a spingersi dall’Iraq meridionale fino alla periferia di Baghdad, conobbe una brusca frenata. E lo “Stato” da esso creato venne gradualmente inserito all’interno di una nuova entità territoriale di ispirazione sciita: l’Impero safavide.

By Robert Inlakesh | Al Mayadeen | October 1, 2026

US President Donald Trump has officially announced a formal withdrawal of American troops from Iraqi territory, yet the economic, social and diplomatic hold on the nation remains. If US troops are going to be permanently booted out, it necessitates an Iraqi national resistance that is capable of operating as a guarantor.

On October 21, 2011, former US President Barack Obama announced that the United States had withdrawn its remaining occupying forces from Iraqi territory. Then, only two and a half years later, the US re-deployed its forces back into the country under the guise of fighting the Daesh insurgency.

Iraq, having experienced a regime change operation followed by a brutal occupation and nationbuilding project, was left incapable of defending itself from the ISIS takeover, let alone pushing back against the United States redeploying its forces. First, the Obama administration deployed forces that it said were there to protect its diplomatic staff, in addition to advisors to the Iraqi armed forces.

Later it would expand this presence, expanding its “Operation Inherent Resolve” into Syrian territory, providing it with supply routes and a platform from which to de facto occupy northeastern Syria. The US operation in Syria and Iraq helped them eventually achieve their longtime goal of regime change in Damascus by depriving the Syrians of their access to the nation’s oil resources and fertile agricultural lands.

In 2020, Donald Trump had agreed to remove his forces from Iraqi territory, re-iterating this pledge during a meeting with then Iraqi PM Mustafa al-Kadhimi. The following year, former President Joe Biden then declared the official end of his nation’s combat mission inside the country. Only now, in 2026, and after extensive attacks on US military facilities by the Islamic Resistance in Iraq, has the pledge to withdraw American forces been followed through on.

When the US and Saudi Arabia recently blamed Iraqi forces for carrying out an attack on Riyadh’s East-West Pipeline, launching a large-scale bombing campaign across the country, some Iraqi officials instead issued statements against Iraq’s armed factions that had vehemently denied involvement in the incident.

The Trump administration is openly pushing for the disarmament of all military factions within the country, a project Washington has also sought to impose on all Resistance groups across the region. The United States has not allowed for there to be a reasonable integration of Resistance forces like Hezbollah in Lebanon with the Lebanese Armed Forces, nor allowed time for formal agreements to be struck in Iraq of a similar nature. Their goal is simply to disband these groups and then exert control over the armed forces of Lebanon and Iraq, leaving them all but defenseless and without access to strategic weapons capable of deterring violations of national sovereignty.

In the case of Baghdad, the nation’s government was a construct of US occupation; Washington still holds the economic cards that are capable of pressuring any leadership, no matter how well-intended its goals are, while it maintains an enormous soft-power pull through its extensive NGOisation project inside the country. Iraq was not allowed to rebuild its nation’s military following the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s rule in 2003, leaving it defenseless against ISIS terrorism a decade later.

On the ground, this is why there was a need for the Hashd al-Shaabi (Popular Mobilisation Forces) to emerge. It was the Hashd that was chiefly responsible for defeating the terrorist invasion and purging its militants from Iraqi cities. Many of these groups that fought under the banner of the Hashd then went on to develop considerable military power and an extensive arsenal.

As revealed during the Ramadan War earlier this year, the Israeli Mossad was able to develop bases inside Iraqi territory, while numerous militant groups still exist across the country’s territory, including various armed factions that are backed by the CIA and the Mossad.

If the Islamic Resistance in Iraq is disbanded and disarmed, then Iraq will be in the exact same defenseless position that allowed for ISIS to sweep through the nation so rapidly and seize so much territory, leaving behind a trail of blood in their wake. This poses a threat to not only Iraq, but other neighbouring countries, including Iran. It threatens Syria’s fragile status quo too.

An Iraq without the Islamic Resistance would be like a Lebanon without Hezbollah, completely left at the mercy of the United States and their Israeli allies. Washington and Tel Aviv have a project that aims to totally dismantle regional sovereignty; this is why they have dedicated trillions of dollars and countless resources to destroying the armed forces of both Iraq and Syria over a period of nearly 30 years now. They are not about to simply sit by and allow Iraq and Syria to rebuild capable militaries, allowing them to follow the will of their people and to defend their own national interests.

The United States still maintains its air defence systems inside Iraqi territory, can use the country’s airspace at will and, as we saw only months ago, will launch airstrikes across the nation at the drop of a hat.

In order to deter a return of American occupation forces, under the guise of fighting whatever future threat they choose to use, there must be an Iraqi military force that is capable of acting in defense of the country, both on the ground and through the use of its long-range munitions if need be. A nation without a real military force cannot enjoy sovereignty. And a nation that is not able to go against the will of the United States, will serve as its proxy and will suffer the blowback that is inherent in complicity.

The US withdrawal from Iraq did not happen without a long history of resistance against its forces and public opinion that also opposes American interference. Protecting the achievement of ridding the country of the majority of US forces takes real military deterrence. Otherwise, the Israelis and the US will simply use the country’s territory for whatever projects they wish.

Press TV – September 30, 2026 

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s prediction that Iran’s economy would soon collapse underscores the depth of delusion within the current American leadership.

“Iran is absolutely not sanctionable,” Deputy Economy Minister Mortaza Zamanian said this week as Tehran worked to keep trade flowing despite Washington’s latest sanctions campaign.

Zamanian cited Iran’s extensive borders, established commercial routes and longstanding trading relationships, saying that they make it impossible for external pressure simply to switch off the country’s economy.

His remarks came as Washington intensified its economic terrorism against Iranian oil, shipping, aviation, finance, technology and foreign companies supporting those sectors.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that Iran would probably make its final oil deliveries to China within two weeks, after which, he asserted, “they will have nothing.”

That prediction deserves comparison with history, because American administrations have imposed increasingly severe sanctions since 1979 while repeatedly expecting economic pressure eventually to produce decisive Iranian economic collapse.

The economy did not disappear under those campaigns; instead, Iran developed domestic industries, expanded regional commerce, strengthened Asian trade and accumulated extensive experience operating outside Western financial systems.

The proposition that an economy which has absorbed American sanctions for almost half a century will suddenly become economically empty within two weeks therefore indicates the depth of delusion among the current US leadership.

Iran enters the current confrontation with a large domestic market, substantial productive capacity, enormous energy resources and deeply established commercial relationships extending across neighboring countries and wider Eurasian markets.

The World Bank describes Iran as relatively diversified for an oil-exporting economy, with substantial manufacturing, agricultural and service activity supported by a large population and significant domestic consumption.

That domestic market sustains production across food, pharmaceuticals, construction materials, steel, petrochemicals, machinery and consumer goods, meaning Iranian production does not depend entirely upon continuous access to Western consumers.

Iran has also developed major industrial capabilities suited to its own resources and infrastructure, including steel, refining, petrochemicals, cement, power generation, construction, food processing and pharmaceutical manufacturing.

These capabilities have continued developing despite restrictions on Western investment and technology, demonstrating that Iranian industrial activity does not depend upon permanent participation by Western companies.

Iran’s prolonged exposure to sanctions has produced accumulated technical and commercial knowledge, giving Iranian companies decades of experience managing restricted supply chains and unreliable access to foreign suppliers.

When foreign manufacturers withdraw, Iranian companies have learned to redesign equipment, substitute components, develop domestic suppliers and cooperate with businesses from countries willing to maintain commercial relationships.

Academic research has documented this process, showing that sanctions can simultaneously restrict foreign technology while encouraging domestic technological development and adaptation within affected Iranian industrial sectors.

The resulting knowledge extends beyond individual companies, because engineers, technicians, procurement specialists and managers have accumulated practical experience managing shortages, substitution and alternative sourcing.

Iranian manufacturers therefore do not design procurement systems around the assumption that every international supplier will remain available indefinitely, making adaptation part of ordinary commercial planning.

Iran’s geography provides another economic advantage, because the country borders Turkey, Iraq, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan while possessing coastlines reaching the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman.

Those borders connect Iranian commerce with the Caucasus, Central Asia, South Asia, the Persian Gulf, Turkey and Iraq, while transportation corridors also connect Iran with Russia and wider Eurasian markets.

Financial sanctions can make transactions more difficult, but they cannot physically relocate Iran or eliminate its access to neighboring markets, suppliers, transportation routes and established regional trading relationships.

Iran has consequently developed commercial links involving Iraq, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Caucasus, Central Asia and China through years of sustained economic interaction.

The World Bank has documented Iran’s increasing trade orientation toward neighboring countries and China as sanctions restricted conventional international relationships, making this regional pivot an established economic feature.

China adds another dimension because it combines enormous industrial capacity with sustained demand for Iranian energy while supplying machinery, manufactured products and industrial inputs required throughout Iran’s domestic economy.

The US-China Economic and Security Review Commission identifies China as Iran’s largest trading partner and estimates that China imported approximately 1.4 million barrels of Iranian crude daily during 2025.

Chinese independent refiners have continued purchasing Iranian crude through commercial arrangements designed to reduce their exposure to American financial restrictions and sanctions enforcement.

That relationship demonstrates why Iran does not require unrestricted access to every Western market when Chinese demand and extensive regional commerce provide alternative markets for Iranian commodities.

Iran’s energy resources provide enormous economic depth, with the World Bank ranking the country second globally in proven natural-gas reserves and fourth globally in proven crude-oil reserves.

Those resources provide export potential while also supplying abundant domestic energy and petrochemical feedstocks supporting manufacturing, electricity generation, transportation and numerous energy-intensive industrial activities.

Iran has consequently developed a substantial downstream economy converting hydrocarbons into refined products, petrochemicals and industrial inputs rather than depending exclusively upon crude-oil exports.

The World Bank has noted that sanctions encouraged additional processing of hydrocarbons into petrochemicals, illustrating how restrictions contributed to changes within Iran’s export structure.

Iran has also developed financial mechanisms outside conventional Western banking, including bilateral currency arrangements, exchange houses, barter, intermediary companies and indirect settlement channels supporting international commercial activity.

The World Bank has documented growing use of bilateral currency exchange, barter and indirect payment mechanisms as Iranian trade shifted increasingly toward neighboring countries and China.

These arrangements provide alternative methods for exchanging value when conventional dollar-based transactions become unavailable or prohibitively difficult.

Their existence helps explain why Washington increasingly targets third-country banks, intermediaries and commercial facilitators, because Iranian commerce extends through extensive international networks beyond domestic financial institutions.

Against this background, Bessent’s prediction assumes that eliminating a major source of oil revenue would effectively remove the broader economic foundations supporting Iran’s productive system and commercial institutions.

Iran’s economic structure is considerably broader, because oil exports represent one component of national activity alongside manufacturing, agriculture, services, domestic consumption and regional commerce.

The World Bank estimates that Iran’s economy contracted during the Iranian year ending March 2026, while simultaneously describing adaptation through changing trade patterns and alternative payment mechanisms.

Economic contraction, however, is fundamentally different from the disappearance of productive capacity, infrastructure, commercial institutions and domestic relationships sustaining millions of Iranian consumers and businesses.

American sanctions have repeatedly targeted Iranian banking, oil exports, investment, technology, shipping and foreign companies, yet Iran has retained its industrial base and redirected substantial trade toward neighboring countries.

Washington possesses powerful financial tools, but financial restrictions cannot physically eliminate Iran’s factories, oilfields, farms, engineers, consumers, ports, borders or commercial relationships accumulated over decades.

The central question is therefore whether American pressure can erase the productive, geographical, resource and commercial foundations Iran has accumulated across nearly half a century of economic adaptation.

Nothing in Iran’s economic history demonstrates that those foundations can disappear within two weeks, particularly while the country retains domestic production, regional markets, energy resources and established commercial relationships.

Iran therefore enters the present confrontation with domestic capabilities, energy resources, industrial capacity, geographic advantages and international relationships capable of keeping its economy operating despite intensified American terrorism.

By Hala Farhat | Al Mayadeen | September 30, 2026

Iraq’s government has declared September 30 the final date for ending the US-led coalition’s military mission. Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi’s office says October 1 will find the country “free of any foreign military presence,” closing a deployment that once reached about 170,000 US troops.

But withdrawal leaves intact much of the damage inflicted by the invasion and the 13 years of sanctions that preceded it, along with the financial arrangements through which Washington continues to exert influence.

The US left Iraq’s productive economy devastated, its institutions dismantled and reshaped, and its workforce left increasingly dependent on a state funded by oil. Access to that income remains vulnerable to US pressure.

The question after the troops leave is how much control Iraq will have over the economy they leave behind.

Thirteen years of sanctions

The erosion of Iraq’s economy began long before March 2003. The UN Security Council imposed sweeping sanctions after Saddam Hussein’s regime invaded Kuwait in 1990. Drawing on internal UN records, Joy Gordon’s Invisible War describes one of the most comprehensive and devastating sanctions regimes ever imposed.

The embargo quickly collapsed incomes. Reconstructed World Bank estimates showed GDP per capita collapsing to a third in a single year,  going from about $3,527 in 1990 to $1,255 in 1991.

Public employees who had earned $150 to $200 a month before sanctions were earning $3 to $5 by 1996, according to a 1997 assessment. By 2000, the International Committee of the Red Cross reported salaries as low as $2 a month and unemployment around 50 percent.

Factories, power stations, and water plants could not recover without imported equipment and spare parts. Yet any member of the sanctions committee could hold an entire contract indefinitely, even over a single disputed item. Gordon documents Washington’s use of the “dual-use” designation to restrict goods as basic as water pipes. By August 2002, the UN counted 2,058 contracts worth about $5.2 billion that had been placed on hold, including $745 million in oil industry equipment.

The restrictions also placed Iraq’s oil income beyond Baghdad’s direct control. Under the Oil-for-Food program, buyers paid into a UN-administered escrow account. After deductions for compensation, administration, and weapons inspections, the proceeds could finance only approved purchases. Iraq exported roughly $65 billion in oil under the program but could not use that money as ordinary budget revenue for wages, maintenance, or local services.

The collapse pushed skilled workers out of their professions. A UN humanitarian survey of 1,157 degree holders employed by aid organizations found 725 in general-service or menial jobs, including doctors, engineers, and scientists working as drivers, clerks, and guards.

By the time US troops arrived, Iraq had endured years of falling wages, industrial decline, and lost expertise. The occupation’s first decisions deepened that damage.

Dismantling the state, contracting out reconstruction

On May 16, 2003, the occupation authority issued Order 1, barring senior Baath Party members from public employment and requiring the screening of senior staff in ministries, hospitals, and universities. A week later, Order 2 dissolved the Defense Ministry, army, Republican Guard, and intelligence bodies.

The International Center for Transitional Justice estimates that Order 2 alone left about 400,000 conscripts, officers, and officials without jobs. The World Bank counted more than 2 million unemployed Iraqis, nearly 30 percent of the labor force, around 2003–2004. Meanwhile, Iraq’s health minister estimated that roughly half the country’s prewar doctors had fled as kidnapping and assassination made their work increasingly dangerous.

The occupation then opened the weakened economy to foreign competition. Order 39 allowed wholly foreign-owned companies and guaranteed investors treatment no less favorable than Iraqi businesses, while excluding natural resource extraction. Other orders suspended tariffs, later replaced by a flat 5 percent levy, and capped income tax at 15 percent from 2004. The World Bank warned that rapid opening would cost jobs in a country whose private sector was too weak to employ displaced workers.

Reconstruction brought billions of dollars, but much of the spending flowed through foreign contractors. The United States spent more than $60 billion over roughly a decade, according to the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR). More than $25 billion went to training and equipping security forces after the occupation had dissolved Iraq’s existing military institutions.

SIGIR found that reconstruction began without adequate security, consultation with Iraqi ministries, or planning for long-term maintenance. Its final report estimated waste at $3 billion to $5 billion from the main reconstruction fund and as much as $8 billion overall. The largest early infrastructure contracts went mainly to US firms. A $1.8 billion award to Bechtel in January 2004 was open only to American bidders.

Iraq’s own money followed a similar path. UN Security Council Resolution 1483 established the Development Fund for Iraq to receive oil revenue, with the occupation authority directing spending until June 2004.

An Iraq Revenue Watch analysis of contracts paid from Iraqi funds found that US companies received 74 percent of their value. US and British companies together received 85 percent, while Iraqi firms received 2 percent. Audits found that 73 percent of the value of Development Fund contracts above $5 million had been awarded without competitive bidding.

Oversight was inadequate even to establish how some of that money had been used. A 2010 SIGIR audit found that the Defense Department had failed to establish required accounting controls for about $8.7 billion of the $9.1 billion it received from the fund. It could not document spending of about $2.6 billion.

The result was a reconstruction process that directed vast sums abroad while leaving Iraq with damaged services, limited productive capacity, and institutions struggling to rebuild.

An oil-funded system of patronage

With factories closed or looted and no private industry to replace them, the state became the place where Iraqis look for work. An assessment by the International Fund for Agricultural Development, using World Bank data, says public employment accounts for nearly all formal jobs and 40 percent of all jobs. Salaries and pensions took about 90 trillion dinars, roughly $69 billion, more than 40 percent of the 2024 budget, and the World Bank says another half a million government jobs were added during the spending expansion that preceded 2025.

The private sector has not filled the gap. Estimates put imports at more than 90 percent of the goods in Iraqi shops, while manufacturing makes up only around 2 percent of GDP. The World Bank says nearly 29 percent of the population is aged 15 to 29, and that this large group is entering the labor market amid limited job creation, a preference for public-sector work, and a private sector too small to absorb them. Youth unemployment is about 32 percent, and only around 11 percent of women take part in the labor force.

The IMF’s 2025 assessment describes the same pattern, citing high unemployment, an excessive state footprint, corruption, a weak banking system, and an inefficient electricity sector, and it called the wage trajectory fiscally unsustainable. Analysts describe a cycle in which secure public wages raise the pay that educated workers expect, private firms struggle with unreliable power and weak finance, and young graduates keep turning to the state for jobs, which raises the demand for more public hiring.

Oil pays for all of it. The World Bank estimates that oil supplied about 88 percent of government revenue and 91 percent of exports in 2025.

The financial levers Washington keeps

Iraq’s oil income has passed through outside hands since 1996, first a UN escrow, then the occupation authority’s fund, and now the New York Fed.

The Development Fund’s accounts were opened at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, where Iraqi oil revenue still flows. Buyers pay dollars into a Ministry of Finance account, and the Central Bank of Iraq converts part of the income into dinars for government spending. US jurisdiction over dollar clearing, correspondent banking, and physical cash shipments gives Washington substantial influence over Iraq’s access to its money.

In January 2020, after Iraq’s parliament called for foreign troops to leave, the Trump administration threatened to block access to the account. Iraqi officials said it then held about $35 billion and warned that losing access would disrupt salary payments and the exchange rate.

US restrictions introduced in November 2022 forced banks seeking dollars for international transfers to disclose the final beneficiaries and purposes of transactions through an electronic platform, with requests screened by the New York Fed. US and Iraqi accounts linked the measures to concerns about transfers to sanctioned Iranian actors.

Consequently, more than 80 percent of daily wire requests were initially blocked or returned. Transfers fell from $224.4 million on October 17, 2022, to $22.9 million on January 17, 2023. Demand shifted to the parallel market, where the dinar traded at about 1,588 to the dollar in February against a newly set official rate of 1,300. In a country dependent on imported food and consumer goods, restricted dollar access raised costs for ordinary households.

In April 2026, Washington applied pressure through physical cash, halting a shipment of about $500 million and suspending parts of security cooperation. Iraqi officials said the halt affected banknotes used for travel, medical treatment, education, and retail exchange, while electronic transfers for imports continued. Some shipments resumed in July. On September 26, Baghdad announced that Washington had agreed to continue them.

US sanctions have also reshaped access to Iraq’s oil fields. Russia’s Lukoil left West Qurna 2 after sanctions, and Chevron signed agreements to take over its development. During al-Zaidi’s July visit to Washington, Iraq signed dozens of agreements with companies including ExxonMobil, KBR, Halliburton, and Shell. US Energy Secretary Chris Wright cited more than $60 billion in commercial agreements, while al-Zaidi told The National that US companies would receive top priority. According to the Atlantic Council, Donald Trump framed the deals as American oil companies taking the place of US forces.

As US forces prepare to leave Iraq, they leave behind a trail of devastation. Decades of sanctions and occupation have weakened its productive economy, dismantled state institutions, and left livelihoods dependent on an oil-funded system of patronage. The consequences will endure long after the troops depart.

Washington retains substantial power over Iraq through its influence over dollar access and the financial channels that sustain the state. The withdrawal ends a military mission, while leaving Baghdad to contend with both the damage of US intervention and the control Washington continues to exercise.

Press TV – September 30, 2026

Iraqi anti-terror resistance group Kata’ib Sayyid al-Shuhada has rejected any surrender of its weapons, with its spokesman stressing that resistance would continue despite pressure and that Iraqi resistance fighters would sustain their support for their fellow fighters in Lebanon.

Sheikh Kazem al-Fartousi, spokesman for the group, which is a subdivision of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) coalition, made the remarks to the Lebanese news website UNews.

“We have not retreated from the resistance, and there will be no surrender of weapons,” he said, the website reported on Tuesday.

“The resistance’s weapons in Iraq are at its disposal and Iraqi resistance would continue supporting the Lebanese resistance,” the official added.

“The pressure has not deterred us from continuing along this path and will not lead us to retreat even a single step in confronting the enemy.”

The statement came as the Iraqi government, headed by Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi, has, as a result of US pressure, been seeking to advance a plan to establish a state monopoly over weapons.

A day earlier, Haj Abu Mujahid al-Assaf, the security official of Kata’ib Hezbollah, another member of the PMU, also pointed to the upcoming prospect of expulsion of US-led forces from the Arab country, saying that, upon the occasion, the Iraqi people would celebrate the expulsion, associating the pending development to the efforts made by Iraqi resistance groups.

Al-Assaf further warned that if the restrictions imposed by the United States on Iranian aviation continued after October 1, the Iraqi people would take a clear position, adding that the possibility existed of closing border crossings with countries participating in the Washington’s efforts at targeting the Islamic Republic.

The withdrawal, agreed on two years ago, comes against the backdrop of the ongoing war between the United States and Iran that has also sometimes spilled over into Iraq.

The withdrawal, agreed on two years ago, comes against the backdrop of the ongoing war between the United States and Iran that has also sometimes spilled over into Iraq.

America has become an imperial power that aims to invade and dominate the weak countries. This tendency has created global insecurity and led America to lose wars. In terms of natural resources and firepower, America dominates like no other country. It has the largest and most flexible military, the most weapons, and the most devices […]

Al Mayadeen | September 29, 2026

Head of the Political Council of the Iraqi Harakat Hezbollah al-Nujaba, Sheikh Ali al-Asadi, criticized Baghdad’s decision to prevent Iranian aircraft from landing at Iraqi airports, stressing that it constitutes compliance with US pressure and warning that popular action could follow if the decision is not reversed.

Speaking to Al Mayadeen, al-Asadi said, “We regret the decision by the Iraqi authorities to prevent Iranian aircraft from landing in Iraq.” He described the decision as “submission to American bullying,” adding, “The Iraqi decision-maker must reconsider it; otherwise there will be popular pressure aimed at changing the decision.”

He said the issue extends beyond Iraqi airports, invoking longstanding ties between Iraq and Iran. “The issue goes beyond airports. There are close relations with Iran, and therefore we must not bow to an irresponsible decision by America,” he said. “Popular options will be the most pressing, and all possibilities are on the table.”

Sheikh al-Asadi attributed growing US influence in Iraq to weaknesses among domestic political actors. “The weakness of the domestic political actor has allowed the American occupation to impose its decisions in Iraq,” he said, adding, “The decision-maker can choose not to implement American decisions, as some countries do.”

He stressed that “the decision must be sovereign and independent politically, economically, and in terms of security,” defining sovereignty as “complete independence, with Iraq being the decision-maker in all aspects of life.

According to Sheikh al-Asadi, “There are personal and partisan interests behind the absence of independence in decision-making.” He also accused Iraq’s political class of adopting contradictory positions toward Washington, slamming duality in the political class: on the one hand, it agrees to American decisions, while on the other, it condemns them.

He added, “The Resistance’s positions have been clear from the beginning, while the Iraqi politicians have ambiguity and complications.”

Iraq’s main problem is corruption

Turning to the issue of weapons and the debate over their regulation, Sheikh al-Asadi said his movement had held discussions with the Coordination Framework and rejected the term “weapons confinement”. “We discussed the matter with the Coordination Framework and rejected the term ‘weapons confinement.’ We established that the term is harmful and changed it to ‘weapons regulation,’” he said. “Iraq’s biggest problem is corruption, not weapons,” he asserted.

“We are in favor of the Dawn Strike against corruption, but we want it to continue. There are clearly identified corrupt figures, and the law must be applied to them,” the Iraqi leader said. He also expressed deep distrust of Washington, saying, “We do not trust the Americans one iota, and they do not keep their word.” He added, “What happened with Iran is the biggest proof that the Americans do not keep their word. They struck Iran during negotiations, and this is proof of their treachery.”

US assassination unit, like Blackwater

Shikh al-Asadi said Iraq should remain free of US interference in its internal affairs. “Iraq must be free, and the American envoy must not interfere in economic, security, or political affairs,” he said. He added that his movement had information about US activities in Iraq, saying, “We have information about all the American movements and about the division they established, which includes Iraqis under their supervision.”

“We know where this division is located and what its duties will be in the coming phase, and all of this is being monitored,” Sheikh al-Asadi warned. He revealed that the goal behind the creation of this division is to carry out assassinations and create discord, saying, “It is like ‘Blackwater’ under another name.”

He added, “The American movement is suspicious, and they have security companies that entered to compensate for the American military withdrawal.”

Al-Nujaba rejects political participation under current system

Sheikh al-Asadi said Nujaba had no decision to participate in Iraq’s political process. “We in Harakat Hezbollah al-Nujaba have no decision to engage in the political process, and we are not convinced by the way it is being managed,” he said.

On the issue of weapons, he told Al Mayadeen, “The conditions for handing over weapons are ending the American occupation and all foreign presence, including the Turkish presence.”

He added that the Peshmerga should fall under the command of Iraq’s commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces and warned that “the separatist factions are one of Iraq’s problems, and whenever Resistance intervention is necessary, we will intervene in every inch of Iraqi territory.”

Sheikh al-Asadi further argued that the continuation of armed resistance was linked to the circumstances that justify it: “The resistance has its justifications for resistance, and when these justifications end, so does resistance,” reminding that the justifications do not end with the mere withdrawal of the remaining foreign troops in the country.

Iraq’s leadership must use its leverage

Al-Nujaba’s top official said Iraq’s political leadership must understand the country’s sources of strength and leverage and use them to advance its independence and sovereignty.

Speaking about Iraq’s leadership, Sheikh al-Asadi said he believed the current political figure in question “wants to serve the public interest and do the required work,” describing him as someone who is acting “based on his Shia identity, if I may put it that way.” However, he said the figure is “new to politics” and lacks advisors genuinely committed to helping him succeed.

“Unfortunately, he does not have advisors who are genuinely committed to making his experience successful. Rather, his advisors are concerned with making themselves successful,” Sheikh al-Asadi said.

He stressed that the advisors attempt to influence the political leadership based on what they receive from Washington, adding, “They do not want to help him become a successful figure who can lead during this stage and perhaps the next stage.”

“Whoever leads Iraq must understand what Iraq truly is and what the cards of strength and leverage in Iraq are,” he said. He questioned the interests of foreign powers in Iraq, asking, “Who needs Iraq? Does Europe not need Iraq? Does Turkey not need Iraq?”

Sheikh al-Asadi also pointed to the Development Road project, asking, “Doesn’t the Development Road that they are talking about need Iraq?”

“All of these are leverage cards a political actor can use to achieve what he wants,” he said. “He can even use the cards held by the Resistance factions as leverage. We are offering him this card and telling him: Use us for the sake of serving Iraq.”

Al-Asadi says US sought to persuade factions to give up weapons

According to Sheikh al-Asadi, several US allies had contacted his movement seeking a truce. “Many of America’s allies sent us messages asking for a truce, including the American chargé d’affaires who “tried to contact us through one of the politicians and asked to meet with us.”

He also said US officials had offered projects and incentives in exchange for abandoning strategic weapons. “The Americans offered projects and incentives on condition that we give up our strategic weapons that reach Israel, but we rejected them,” the Iraqi official said. He warned that US pressure would continue even if armed factions surrendered their weapons, saying, “American pressure does not stop at any point. Even if the factions hand over their weapons, they will move on to the Popular Mobilization Forces and then to the Defense Ministry.”

He concluded by highlighting that Washington had sought for years to alter the leadership of the Popular Mobilization Forces. “The main American project for years has sought to change the leadership of the Popular Mobilization Forces and dilute it, but the religious authority and some politicians rejected that,” Sheikh al-Asadi said.

The last of the US-led coalition forces are leaving Iraq. It’s a significant bonus for Iran. The withdrawal date, September 30, was also the date by which Baghdad had pledged to bring numerous powerful Iran-backed militias under state control. But this deadline looks certain to be missed. This effectively means that, at a moment when […]

The post Final US military withdrawal from Iraq is a major bonus for Iran appeared first on Asia Times.

The US military is set to complete its withdrawal from its remaining bases in Iraq on Wednesday under a deal signed between the US and the Iraqi government in 2024. The US is officially ending the mission of the anti-ISIS coalition that began in 2014 after the US redeployed troops to Iraq following a 2011 […]

Al Mayadeen | September 28, 2026

Iraq’s Ambassador to Tehran, Yasser Abdul-Zahra al-Hajjaj, announced that Najaf International Airport will reopen to Iranian flights within 24 hours, according to the Iraqi News Agency.

Al-Hajjaj confirmed the airport will resume receiving flights from Iran within the stated timeframe.

The suspension of Iranian flights to and from Iraqi airports, particularly Najaf International Airport, had triggered a wave of condemnation from official, factional, and religious authorities in Iraq. They called for the decision to be reversed, rejecting US dictates.

Iran submits formal complaint to ICAO over US aviation restrictions

Meanwhile, Iran has submitted a formal complaint to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) regarding US restrictions imposed on Iran’s aviation sector, the head of Iran’s Civil Aviation Organization, Abouzar Shiroudi, announced on Monday.

Shiroudi said the organization held consultations with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs before filing the complaint, as part of efforts aimed at restoring air routes. In remarks carried by the Iranian news agency IRNA, he said, “It is necessary to use diplomatic and legal potential to protect the rights of the country’s aviation sector.”

He added that “Iran’s Civil Aviation Organization, using all legal tools and in close coordination with the country’s diplomatic apparatus, prioritizes the follow-up of necessary measures to remove obstacles and resume all flights on routes that previously operated.”

The remarks follow US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s announcement on September 21 that Iranian airlines “will effectively be forced to cease operations as of September 23, due to secondary sanctions imposed on aviation service providers.”

Al Mayadeen | September 26, 2026

International flights from Iran to several destinations remain operational despite the expansion of US sanctions targeting the country’s aviation sector, according to Tehran’s Imam Khomeini International Airport.

The airport said Saturday that flights to Turkey, Malaysia, China, Pakistan, Vietnam, and Afghanistan were continuing according to their previously announced schedules.

The announcement comes as Washington escalates economic pressure on Iran and seeks to restrict the ability of Iranian airlines to maintain international operations.

Iranian flights continue despite sanctions

Imam Khomeini International Airport said that, aside from flights already canceled, no additional cancellations had been announced.

The canceled services include flights involving the United Arab Emirates, Iraq, Oman, and Georgia.

The airport also said it was working to restore suspended air connections as soon as possible.

The continued operation of several international routes comes despite growing restrictions on Iranian aviation following a new round of US sanctions announced on September 8.

The measures have affected Iranian airlines as well as companies and intermediaries involved in providing services to the country’s aviation sector.

Recent reporting indicates that Iranian carriers have continued operating some international services despite the sanctions, including flights to China, Turkey, Thailand, and Afghanistan.

US measures target Iran’s aviation sector

The US Treasury Department announced sanctions on September 8 against 36 targets linked to Iran’s aviation sector, including 27 Iranian airlines. Washington described the measures as an effort to target what it considers Iran’s remaining unsanctioned carriers and the networks supporting them.

The sanctions form part of a broader US campaign to restrict Iran’s access to international financial and commercial networks.

The measures have also placed pressure on foreign companies providing Iranian carriers with fuel, ground handling, aircraft-related services, and other forms of support.

The consequences, however, have varied by country. While some governments and companies have restricted Iranian aviation connections, other countries have continued to facilitate flights.

Iraq restrictions trigger backlash

In Iraq, the suspension of Iranian flights, particularly through Najaf International Airport, has triggered criticism from official, political, factional, and religious quarters.

Several Iraqi parties and figures have called for the decision to be reversed and rejected what they described as US pressure on Baghdad.

The Iraqi government is also moving toward dialogue with Washington in an effort to secure an exemption that would allow air links with Iran to resume.

Ali Akbar Velayati, international affairs advisor to Iran’s Leader, said the restrictions on Iranian flights were part of an effort by Iran’s enemies to compensate for their battlefield defeat by attempting to dismantle the “unity of the fronts” from within.

The Iranian Ambassador to Iraq, Mohammad Kazem Al-Sadegh, further told Iran’s ISNA news agency that a new decision surrounding Iranian flights to Iraq is likely to be announced soon.

He added that Iran is in contact with Iraqi officials and proposals on the matter have been submitted.

Al-e Sadegh noted that roughly 12,000 to 13,000 people travel between Iraq and Iran via Iranian airlines.

China maintains air links with Iran

China has maintained its opposition to unilateral US sanctions and continued to receive Iranian flights.

Flight-tracking data cited in recent reports showed Iranian services continuing to operate to Chinese destinations after the latest US measures took effect.

The continued connections with China also reflect the broader geopolitical divide over Washington’s unilateral sanctions policy, with Beijing maintaining economic and diplomatic ties with Tehran despite US pressure.