Iraqi Foreign Policy Between Alignment and Neutrality: Which Path for Iraq’s Future

Introduction

Iraqi foreign policy no longer faces merely the challenge of managing relations with other states. It now confronts a strategic dilemma concerning the kind of role Baghdad seeks to play in a regional and international environment marked by intensifying polarization and multiple centres of power. By virtue of its geographic position and political and economic weight, Iraq sits at the heart of a complex web of interactions among regional and international powers. Some are competing for influence, while others seek to harness Iraq’s geography in the service of their strategic interests.

Since 2003, Iraqi foreign policy has pursued varying attempts to balance competing powers. These efforts, however, have not always produced an independent and stable foreign policy, owing to the interaction of domestic factors with external pressures and the existence of multiple centres of influence within the decision-making process.

The dilemma becomes most apparent when Iraq faces a choice between aligning with a regional or international bloc and adopting a policy of neutrality. Alignment may provide political, economic and security support in the short term, but it can place the independence of national decision-making under considerable strain. Neutrality, by contrast, may give Iraq an opportunity to reinforce its sovereignty and broaden its relations, but it requires strong institutions and a genuine capacity to safeguard national interests.

The central question, therefore, is no longer which bloc Iraq should join, but how it can protect its interests without becoming an arena in which other powers settle their disputes.

First Scenario: Alignment with a Regional or International Bloc

Alignment is one possible course for Iraqi foreign policy, particularly as competition among regional and international powers intensifies. Under this scenario, Iraq would deepen its strategic relationship with a particular party – whether Iran, the United States and its Western partners, or the Arab regional environment – in pursuit of political, security and economic support.

1. Alignment with Iran

Iraqi-Iranian relations rest on intertwined historical, geographic, security and economic ties. These relations have developed substantially since 2003, particularly in trade, energy, political exchange and security cooperation.

Closer strategic relations with Iran could provide Iraq with support in addressing certain security and regional challenges, while also expanding economic cooperation. Yet turning this relationship into full political alignment would expose Iraq to complex challenges, especially when Iranian interests conflict with Iraq’s Arab or international relationships.

Continued tension between Iran and the United States could also leave Iraq vulnerable to pressure from both sides, placing it in a position where distinguishing its national interests from the demands of regional alignment becomes increasingly difficult.

The problem, therefore, does not lie in developing relations with Iran. It lies in allowing those relations to become a strategic dependency that constrains Iraq’s ability to make independent decisions.

2. Alignment with the United States and the West

This option would be driven by Iraq’s desire to secure political, security, economic and technological support from the United States and other Western countries.

Such a course could create important opportunities to develop Iraq’s security and military institutions, strengthen its economic capabilities, attract investment and expand cooperation in technology, energy and education.

Full alignment with this bloc, however, would carry its own risks. It could weaken relations with Iran and other regional powers, while making Iraq more susceptible to shifts in US policy and the changing priorities of successive American administrations.

Excessive reliance on external support could also reduce Iraq to a state governed by the calculations of international power politics, rather than an actor capable of defining its interests and negotiating on their basis.

3. Alignment with the Arab Regional Order

Strengthening Iraq’s Arab relationships is an important option for restoring its natural place within its regional environment, expanding economic and investment partnerships, and developing cooperation in energy, security and counterterrorism.

This approach could rebuild trust between Iraq and Arab states, broaden its partnerships and reduce its dependence on any single external power.

Its success, however, would require political clarity regarding the nature and objectives of Iraq’s Arab relationships, the capacity to manage regional disagreements, and a commitment to ensuring that renewed Arab engagement does not become another form of alignment at the expense of relations with other parties.

Alignment with any one of these blocs may yield short-term gains, but it remains a high-risk strategy if pursued at the expense of independent national decision-making. Iraq cannot build a stable foreign policy by replacing dependence on one external power with dependence on another.

Second Scenario: Positive Neutrality – From Avoiding Conflict to Shaping the Balance

Unlike passive neutrality, which rests on disengagement from conflict and the avoidance of clear positions, positive neutrality is a strategic approach through which Iraq would preserve the independence of its decision-making while continuing to exercise an active regional and international role.

This does not mean maintaining an identical distance from every party on every issue, nor does it require Iraq to set aside its national interests. Rather, it means developing the capacity to engage different powers according to the nature of each issue and the requirements of Iraqi interests.

This scenario can be built on three principal foundations.

1. Active Neutrality as an Instrument of National Sovereignty

Active neutrality can help protect the independence of Iraqi decision-making by preventing complete political or security attachment to any one bloc and by denying outside powers the use of Iraqi territory as an arena for regional and international confrontation.

It would also allow Iraq to make foreign-policy decisions with greater freedom from direct pressure and enhance its ability to build balanced relations with the United States, Iran, Arab states, Türkiye and other international powers.

The value of active neutrality extends beyond the protection of sovereignty. It can also support domestic stability by reducing the likelihood that external conflicts will spill over into Iraq’s political arena.

2. Diplomatic Mediation Among Regional and International Powers

Iraq possesses several attributes that could enable it to serve as a mediator. It maintains extensive relations with competing regional and international actors, while its geographic location places it at the junction of the Gulf, Türkiye, Iran and the Levant.

Baghdad can use these advantages to host political dialogue, narrow differences and help reduce regional tensions, particularly between parties that find direct communication difficult.

Earlier Iraqi diplomatic initiatives have demonstrated that this role can be used to open channels of dialogue among regional powers.

Mediation, however, cannot be achieved simply by proclaiming neutrality. It requires the confidence of competing parties, domestic political stability, and diplomatic institutions capable of managing initiatives and sustaining them over time.

3. Economic and Diplomatic Diversification

Diversification is among the most important conditions for successful positive neutrality. Iraq cannot preserve its political independence while remaining excessively dependent on a single state or bloc economically.

The more Iraq diversifies its trade and investment partnerships and its sources of technology and energy, the greater its room for political manoeuvre and the lower the likelihood that economic ties will be used as instruments of pressure.

This requires expanding relations with Arab, Asian and European countries and deepening cooperation with emerging economic powers. Such diversification would create new opportunities in industry, energy, transport and infrastructure.

In this sense, neutrality ceases to be merely a political posture and becomes an integrated strategy for protecting sovereignty and advancing development.

Third Scenario: Passive Neutrality or Strategic Ambiguity

This is one of the most dangerous possible trajectories for the future of Iraqi foreign policy. It is characterised by the absence of a clear position on regional and international developments and by reliance on reactive responses instead of a foreign policy defined by clear objectives.

At times, such ambiguity may appear to offer a way of avoiding polarization. It can, however, become a source of weakness when the state loses the ability to define its positions or defend its interests with clarity.

The risks associated with this scenario are evident in three areas.

1. The Absence of Diplomatic Initiative

When Iraq lacks a clear view of unfolding events, its position becomes subordinate to the evolution of crises and the policies of other actors. This reduces its ability to influence events and turns its foreign policy into a response to external pressure rather than a means of generating initiatives.

2. Declining Regional and International Influence

The absence of an active role could diminish Iraq’s standing in regional and international organizations and reduce its opportunities to participate in joint economic and political initiatives.

Other states may also seek alternative partners if Iraq appears unable to maintain stable positions or honour understandings with consistency.

3. Dependence on External Support and Fragile National Decision-Making

Strategic ambiguity may deepen reliance on external powers in security or economic affairs, thereby weakening the state’s ability to protect its interests independently.

The risks become more severe when external pressure intersects with domestic political divisions, causing foreign policy to reflect internal competition rather than a unified national vision.

Passive neutrality, therefore, does not shield Iraq from conflict. Instead, it leaves the country more exposed to its consequences.

Fourth Scenario: Which Course Best Serves Iraq’s Interests

Comparison of the three scenarios suggests that alignment with a particular bloc may deliver immediate support and short-term gains, but it also imposes constraints on the independence of Iraqi decision-making. Passive neutrality or strategic ambiguity, meanwhile, risks eroding Iraq’s regional and international role and increasing its vulnerability to external pressure.

Positive neutrality appears to be the option best suited to Iraq’s interests because it can combine the protection of national sovereignty with the expansion of foreign relations, without requiring the country to become fully entangled in competing blocs.

Success, however, depends on more than a political declaration. It requires several essential conditions.

First, Iraq needs a unified national vision for foreign policy, built on domestic political consensus regarding the country’s highest strategic interests and on insulating external relations from partisan rivalry.

Second, state institutions and Iraq’s diplomatic, security and economic capabilities must be strengthened so that the country possesses the practical instruments required to implement its foreign policy rather than relying on statements and declared positions alone.

Third, Iraq must develop economic, trade and investment partnerships with a wide range of regional and international powers. This would reduce dependence on any single bloc and improve the Iraqi economy’s ability to withstand external pressure.

Fourth, Iraq should activate its diplomatic role in mediation and conflict resolution, using its geographic and political position to serve as a bridge for communication and cooperation among competing parties.

Fifth, Iraq must establish a clear national position against external interference while maintaining balanced relations with regional and international powers and preventing its territory from becoming an arena for proxy conflict.

Conclusion: Iraq Does Not Need to Choose a Bloc as Much as It Needs to Control Its Own Decisions

The future of Iraqi foreign policy will not be determined solely by a choice between alignment and neutrality. It will depend on the state’s ability to convert its geographic position and political weight into instruments of agency and influence within its regional and international environment.

An Iraq that maintains balanced relations with a wide range of actors, diversifies its economy and builds strong national institutions will be better equipped to protect its interests than one that ties its future to the interests of a single bloc.

Positive neutrality does not mean that Iraq should remain neutral where its interests or sovereignty are concerned. It means retaining the independence to define its positions, exercising agency in the management of its relationships, and cooperating with all parties without becoming subordinate to any of them.

The real challenge for Baghdad is not to avoid making choices, but to move from choices made under pressure to choices guided by the national interest. Once Iraq acquires that capacity, it need no longer remain merely an arena in which rival blocs compete. It can instead become an actor capable of bringing them closer and shaping the balance among them.

This is the value of positive neutrality: not withdrawal from the world, but engagement with it without compromising the independence of national decision-making.