The visit of Iraqi Prime Minister Ali Al-Zaidi to Damascus has sparked a wave of questions regarding the extent of openness towards Syria and the potential security and economic risks involved, especially amid ongoing concerns about armed groups and smuggling
networks along the borders, as well as the unclear direct economic benefits from the agreements between the two countries. This visit, the first by an Iraqi prime minister to Damascus since the fall of the former Syrian regime in late
2024, is part of governmental efforts to strengthen relations with neighboring countries, amidst inquiries about security guarantees and mechanisms for implementing economic and trade agreements. Experts have pointed out that rapid political openness may carry risks to national security, warning
against forming partnerships with parties whose past and regional roles remain unresolved, particularly given the Turkish intelligence influence in the region. There is an emphasis on imposing strict security conditions to protect borders from the repercussions of armed group activities,
stressing that priority should be given to sovereign and security considerations rather than merely diplomatic protocols. Similarly, researchers believe the visit lacks deep strategic vision, noting that crisis management in Iraq still heavily relies on diplomacy instead of building an
integrated security system. They explained that border control, combating smuggling, and addressing informal presence along the border require clear field mechanisms, precise information exchange, and defined responsibilities, rather than general memorandums of understanding. Warnings were issued that Iraq’s attempt to
act as a mediator or guarantor in complex regional issues without internal consensus and a unified sovereign vision could place the country before challenges beyond its negotiation capacity, highlighting that the timing of the visit raises questions about Iraq’s regional
positioning. These concerns coincide with the ongoing threat posed by ISIS, despite statements from the transitional Syrian leadership about the decline of threats and the existence of security coordination between the two countries; however, such assurances do not replace the
need to verify security arrangements to prevent militants’ infiltration and the activation of smuggling networks. Economically, the project to rehabilitate the oil pipeline linking Kirkuk, Haditha, and Banyas has emerged as a key issue in discussions, as it could provide
Iraq with an additional outlet to export oil via the Mediterranean Sea and partially reduce reliance on traditional export routes prone to disruptions. Nevertheless, the project’s implementation remains uncertain, requiring technical and financial evaluations, security guarantees, and determining the cost
of rehabilitation as well as the terms of operation and export. It has been emphasized that economic memorandums of understanding must include clear timelines, implementation mechanisms, and financial guarantees to avoid becoming mere media slogans that do not impact the
budget or job opportunities, especially amid financial pressures and heavy dependence on oil revenues. Conversely, a trade union advisor considered the prime minister’s regional tour a balanced diplomatic move that could contribute to diversifying oil export outlets, expanding investment partnerships,
and advancing development projects. However, achieving these goals depends on converting understandings into enforceable contracts and tangible projects instead of limiting efforts to diplomatic visits. These developments place the Iraq-Syria rapprochement before a real test concerning the ability of both
parties to provide verifiable security guarantees and transform economic agreements into projects with clear returns that serve Iraq’s interests while preserving border security and its regional maneuvering space.
