🔴 ARAGHCHI’S GIFT TO TRUMP: TALKS BEFORE THE ELECTION AND A SHARP DISPUTE IN TEHRAN

In a move that has sparked widespread controversy inside Iran, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi announced on Thursday that Tehran had presented Washington with a new proposal involving the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and the resumption of negotiations aimed at reaching a “final agreement,” according to CNN.

According to the account, the proposal would give Washington seven days after accepting it to fulfill conditions based on the “Islamabad Agreement,” including lifting sanctions, releasing frozen assets, and halting military operations.

Tehran reportedly prefers to resume negotiations before the U.S. midterm elections in November.

📰 THE BEGINNING: KYODO LEAK

Before Araghchi traveled to New York, Japan’s Kyodo News Agency published a report citing a “senior Iranian official” who said Tehran had informed Washington of its readiness to reopen the Strait of Hormuz within seven days.

Given that Araghchi served as Iran’s ambassador to Japan from 2008 to 2011, his imprint on the leak appears clear.

💣 TRUMP’S STATEMENT

U.S. President Donald Trump then dropped a surprise announcement, saying his envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner had held three hours of talks with Iranian officials on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, describing the meeting as “very good.”

🎞 THE RESPONSE: REZAEI’S STATEMENTS

Hours later, Mohsen Rezaei, Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, stated that Araghchi’s mission had been limited to conveying Iran’s seven conditions through intermediaries, stressing:

“Until the Iranian conditions are implemented, the Strait of Hormuz will not be opened and there will be no negotiations.”

Some analysts interpreted his remarks as authorization for talks. However, Tasnim News Agency reported that Araghchi’s meeting with Witkoff took place “without coordination or authorization from the relevant authorities, including the Supreme National Security Council,” describing it as a “major mistake.”

⚠️ LATEST DEVELOPMENT: CALLS TO QUESTION ARAGHCHI

Against this backdrop, Iranian parliamentarian Amirhossein Sabeti announced that a motion had been filed to question Foreign Minister Araghchi in the Islamic Consultative Assembly, citing “actions taken without authorization from the leadership” and a “series of mistakes,” including his meeting with Witkoff and Kushner in New York.

📌 BOTTOM LINE

📶 Tehran is facing a sharp internal dispute.

The foreign minister is speaking in New York about a “new proposal” and a “seven-day deadline,” while official institutions maintain that his mandate was limited to conveying Iran’s conditions through intermediaries.

Araghchi’s silence over these contradictions, along with the repeated leaks attributed to Iranian sources, raises questions about whether a parallel negotiating channel is operating outside the formal decision-making framework.

☑️ Our website

🖋@observer_5

📽 Statements by Mohsen Rezaei, Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, on Wednesday regarding Tehran’s conditions for negotiations and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.



☑️ Our website

🖋@observer_5

🚨 Maariv: Israel Will Not Wait for Trump — “Dramatic” Decision on Iran Is Near

🏴‍☠️ The Israeli newspaper Maariv published a report titled:

“Israel will not wait for Trump, and the dramatic decision against Iran is on the way: It is only a matter of time.”

🔴 What does the report mean?

According to the wording of the report, there is an assessment in Israel that Tel Aviv will not wait for the U.S. administration or President Donald Trump’s position before making a decision on Iran, and that a decision described by the newspaper as

“dramatic”

is approaching the implementation stage.

The report published in Israeli media points to escalating geopolitical and military indicators and pressures:

1️⃣ Geopolitical Dimensions — Preempting Political Developments

🔹 Israeli Decision-Making Autonomy:
The suggestion that Israel will not wait for the next U.S. administration is intended to send a message to both Washington and Tehran that Tel Aviv regards the Iranian nuclear issue and Iran’s regional expansion as an existential threat that transcends any future U.S. political understandings.

🔹 Psychological Warfare:
The use of phrases such as “dramatic decision” and “only a matter of time” forms part of a broader rhetorical escalation and coercive diplomacy aimed at pushing the international community toward tougher sanctions or a more forceful position.

2️⃣ Military and Operational Dimensions

🔹 Air Force Readiness:
The use of an image showing an Israeli fighter jet, reportedly an F-16, taking off with afterburners is intended to signal the existence of a military plan potentially ready for execution and direct targeting, such as strikes against critical infrastructure or missile arsenals.

🔹 Preemptive Strike Scenario:
This could indicate preparations for a preemptive attack aimed at preventing Iran or members of the “Axis of Resistance” from increasing their military readiness or completing advanced weapons programs.

📌 Conclusion:

The post reflects a brinkmanship strategy, combining heightened military readiness with efforts to prepare domestic and international audiences for the possibility of a direct and unilateral escalation against Tehran.

☑️ Our website

🖋@observer_5

🔴 After Baghdad, Najaf, Erbil and Sulaymaniyah Airports Join the Suspension of Iranian Flights

In a new escalation in restrictions on Iranian air traffic in Iraqi airspace, the airports of Najaf, Erbil and Sulaymaniyah have announced the suspension of flights to and from Iran, joining Baghdad International Airport, which had previously stopped receiving Iranian aircraft.

❌ Najaf Suspends Flights “Until Further Notice”

The administration of Najaf International Airport announced on Thursday evening that all flights arriving from and departing for Iran would be suspended from 2:00 a.m. on Friday, September 25, 2026, until further notice, citing “official directives from the competent authorities.”

A source within the airport administration said the decision was made following an instruction from the Prime Minister’s Office to Najaf Governorate.

The decision comes days after Iranian airlines stopped operating flights to Baghdad International Airport, which had halted the reception of Iranian aircraft early Wednesday, September 23, 2026.

Najaf Airport had subsequently become a major hub for Iranian flights following the suspension at Baghdad. Its flight schedule showed that 18 of the 20 scheduled flights were bound for Iranian cities.

❌ Erbil and Sulaymaniyah Follow Suit

In a subsequent development, Kurdish sources announced the suspension of Iranian flights to Erbil and Sulaymaniyah airports starting Friday.

Reuters confirmed that the airports of Erbil and Sulaymaniyah in Iraq’s Kurdistan Region had suspended Iranian flights effective Friday.

Prior to the decision, direct flights between Iran and the Kurdistan Region were still listed on flight schedules. Friday schedules showed direct flights between Erbil International Airport and Tehran’s Imam Khomeini International Airport, including one operated by Mahan Air from Erbil to Tehran and another in the opposite direction, as well as similar flights from Sulaymaniyah International Airport.

🎙 Tehran: No Decision to Resume Najaf Flights

Meanwhile, the executive director of Imam Khomeini International Airport in Tehran confirmed that flights to Najaf could not currently operate and that no new decision had been made regarding their resumption.

Iran’s Civil Aviation Organization also announced that Baghdad Airport would stop receiving Iranian flights, while consultations had been held to divert some of them to Najaf before Najaf was also suspended.

✈️ Mokhber: “Either Aviation in the Region Is for Everyone, or No One”

In a related statement, Mohammad Mokhber, an adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader, commented on the developments, saying:

“Aligning with America in implementing hostile policies will remain firmly etched in the memory of the Iranian people.”

He added:

“Aviation in the region is either available to everyone, or it is available to no one.”

He continued:

“If Iran cannot fly or access airport services, then no country in the region will have this capability either.”

☑️ Our website

🖋@observer_5

🔴 Pezeshkian Announces Iran Is Prepared to Give Up 60% Enriched Uranium

📍 New York

In remarks that were expected from a president known for positions critics regard as weakening Iran, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian announced that Tehran is prepared to give up its stockpile of uranium enriched to 60%, during an interview with U.S. network Fox News on the sidelines of the 81st session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

The announcement came amid escalating U.S. threats of large-scale military strikes against Iran, most recently at the UN General Assembly, where U.S. President Donald Trump spoke openly about destroying Iran.

First: Pezeshkian’s Statements to Fox News

During the interview with anchor Bret Baier, Pezeshkian was asked directly whether Iran was prepared to give up its 60%-enriched uranium. He replied:

“Yes. Within the framework of international law and based on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, we will comply with everything we are supposed to comply with.”

The Iranian president provided further details about the offer, saying that Iran is

“prepared to significantly reduce the concentration of these materials”

and is

“prepared to undergo a verification process”

by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

He added that Iran

“has never sought to possess a nuclear weapon,”

referring to the religious edict prohibiting the accumulation of weapons of mass destruction and describing such weapons as

“impure”

and

“religiously forbidden.”

Pezeshkian also stressed that Tehran had actually reached an agreement with U.S. President Trump, telling Baier:

“We have already reached an agreement with your president… and based on that, we are prepared and still willing to move forward.”

Second: Iran’s Conditions for Moving Forward

Pezeshkian linked the proposed nuclear concession to several clear conditions:

1. Lifting the U.S. economic blockade:

He said Tehran had not closed the Strait of Hormuz, insisting that it

“was open,”

and that

“the U.S. government must decide whether it wants to end this war or not.”

2. Returning to the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU):

The MoU was signed last June and included arrangements for a temporary ceasefire before subsequently collapsing.

3. Release of frozen Iranian assets:

Pezeshkian said that

“our money in China is blocked,”

adding that Iran

“cannot even withdraw its money from a country to which we supplied goods.”

Third: Offer to Move Forward Before the Midterm Elections

In a separate meeting with

NBC News

and other media outlets at a New York hotel, Pezeshkian said:

“We do not want this to reach the midterm elections.”

He added:

“We hope the Americans return to the Memorandum of Understanding before the midterm elections.”

Fourth: Other Issues Raised by Pezeshkian

• Denial of an attempt to assassinate Trump: Pezeshkian said the Iranian government had “never, whether openly or secretly, sought to assassinate Donald Trump or members of his family.”

• Strait of Hormuz: He reiterated that Iran had not closed the strait and that it remained open, arguing that there was no legal justification for a U.S. attack.

• Domestic protests: He said that “anyone who wants to protest has the full right to do so,” but that “turning protests into a weapon is something entirely different.”

• Yemen: He stressed that the Houthis

“are responsible for their own actions and do not receive orders from us,”

while acknowledging that there are “communications” but “no systematic relationship.”

🎆 Fifth: Trump’s Nuclear Threat — “Annihilation” at the UN

The announcement comes amid an unprecedented escalation in U.S. rhetoric. In his address to the UN General Assembly on September 22, 2026, U.S. President Donald Trump explicitly threatened to
“annihilate”
the Islamic Republic of Iran if no agreement was reached to end the war.

Trump also threatened to

“send them to hell”

if Tehran did not surrender, while calling on other countries to join the United States in economically isolating Iran in order to force it to the negotiating table.


☑️ Our website

🖋@observer_5

⁉️ Why Are Americans Still Concerned About Iran’s Nuclear Program Despite Bombing Its Facilities?

1. The Enriched Material Was Not Destroyed — It Was Buried

After the bombing of the Natanz and Fordow facilities in June 2025, Iran announced that it had buried its enriched uranium deep beneath the mountains.

However, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) estimated that Iran possessed 440.9 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60%, an amount sufficient to produce several nuclear weapons if further enriched to 90%.

More concerning, the IAEA has been unable to verify the location of this material since June 2025. This means that a significant portion of it, believed to be at least 200 kilograms, is thought to remain stored in underground tunnels at Isfahan.

In other words, the Americans do not know exactly where this material went or how much of it remains. That alone is enough to keep the threat alive.

2. The Bombing Did Not Fundamentally Change the Timeline

According to assessments by U.S. intelligence itself, the time Iran would need to produce a nuclear weapon did not change fundamentally after the strikes.

Before the war, estimates suggested that Iran would need 3 to 6 months to produce a bomb. After the strikes, the estimate increased to 9 to 12 months, meaning the attacks delayed the timeline by only several months.

The reason is that the strikes targeted buildings and facilities, but not necessarily the enriched material itself, which had reportedly been moved to undisclosed locations before the attacks.

Moreover, the accumulated scientific and technical expertise of Iranian nuclear scientists cannot be destroyed by bombs. That knowledge would allow Iran to rebuild destroyed facilities relatively quickly.

3. Iran Is Rebuilding — Rapidly

Recent satellite imagery reportedly shows that Iran is not waiting. Since the beginning of 2026, intensive reconstruction has been underway at nuclear and military facilities, including Taleghan 2 at the Parchin complex, which is suspected of having been used for experiments related to nuclear warhead design.

The imagery reportedly shows excavators, cranes, and concrete trucks operating at the site, along with new concrete reinforcement designed to make the facility more resistant to future airstrikes.

4. The Real Concern: A Sudden “Breakout”

The U.S. concern is not simply about how many facilities were destroyed or whether those facilities remain operational. It is about “breakout time”, meaning the amount of time Iran would need to produce a single nuclear weapon if it made the political decision to do so.

Since enriched material already exists and the technical knowledge remains available, any Iranian political decision to pursue a bomb could potentially be implemented very quickly and might not be detected in time.

Put more simply: if you have 440 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60%, you are only one technical step away from producing weapons-grade material. That step, raising enrichment from 60% to 90%, does not necessarily require large facilities. It could potentially be carried out at a smaller, concealed site beyond the reach of an air campaign.

5. The Political Dimension: The Threat as a Negotiating Card

There is another factor that is no less important: the Iranian nuclear threat is one of Washington’s strongest arguments for maintaining sanctions and economic pressure.

If that threat disappeared, it would become more difficult for Trump to justify the air and naval blockade, comprehensive economic sanctions, and the continued U.S. military presence in the region.

Therefore, there is an American interest in keeping the threat alive.


☑️ Our website

🖋@observer_5

🚨 A Cheap Stunt and Diplomatic Degradation at the United Nations

In a scene that crossed the boundaries of diplomatic norms and underscored what critics describe as the increasingly theatrical nature of Israel’s conduct at the UN, Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations approached the Iranian delegation’s seat and attempted to “gift” them a Starlink device in front of media cameras.

This was not merely an act of rudeness, but a provocative stunt that reflected political desperation. It was a transparent propaganda spectacle, apparently intended to divert attention from ongoing allegations of war crimes and violations by manufacturing a media show inside the halls of the international organization.

But the response was harsh in its simplicity: complete indifference.

The Iranian representative did not even bother to look at him, maintaining complete composure as though the intruder were nothing more than background noise. A silence more eloquent than a thousand speeches delivered a devastating blow to the tawdry spectacle, reducing the intruding ambassador from a supposed “provocateur” to little more than a clown holding a pathetic box and unable to command anyone’s attention.

When arguments and moral authority collapse, they resort to empty spectacles.

And when composure and strength are present, indifference can become the most humiliating response.

☑️ Our website

🖋@observer_5

🚨 INTEL WATCH | U.S. SURVEILLANCE OVER THE STRAIT OF HORMUZ

🇺🇸

Two U.S. Navy surveillance aircraft are currently being tracked over the Strait of Hormuz:

• MQ-4C Triton — high-altitude intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance
• P-8A Poseidon — maritime surveillance and reconnaissance

The activity comes as Iranian media reports a broader increase in U.S. reconnaissance flights around Iran.

🔴 INDICATOR: The concentration of ISR assets around the Strait and Iranian airspace warrants close monitoring as regional military tensions continue to rise.

☑️ Our website

🖋@observer_5

BILL GATES WARNS OF UNPRECEDENTED TECH TURBULENCE

In a nearly 6,000-word essay published on GatesNotes, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates warned that humanity is entering

"one of the most turbulent times in human history"

as artificial intelligence reshapes the global economy.

Contrary to dramatic visual depictions of war or climate collapse, Gates focused on structural shifts in labor markets, governance, and technology.

KEY TAKEAWAYS & DATA:

• Unprecedented Pace of Job Loss: Unlike previous industrial shifts that took generations, Gates projects widespread disruption across law, medicine, software engineering, and manufacturing within a single decade.

• Cognitive Replacement: Past technological advances automated manual labor, whereas AI directly replaces human cognitive tasks, making entry-level and mid-level white-collar roles particularly vulnerable.

• "Human Reserved" Work: Gates proposed that governments establish a "Human Reserved" designation—similar to nature reserves—to protect key occupations where human contact is critical, such as certain roles in healthcare and education.

• Revising Tax Policies: To prevent rapid worker displacement, he suggested taxing AI systems and automated machinery to offset payroll tax revenue losses and fund retraining programs.

• Global Security Risks: Beyond employment, Gates flagged AI-enabled cyberattacks on critical infrastructure, autonomous weapons, and deepfake-driven disinformation as imminent risks requiring international regulatory frameworks.

Gates emphasized that stopping AI development is geopolitical fantasy; instead, public institutions and governments must build dedicated transition plans immediately.

☑️ Our website

🖋@observer_5

IRAQ & THE REGIONAL SHIFT: ABDUL MAHDI'S ASSESSMENTS ON AL MAYADEEN

Former Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi delivered a series of strategic statements during an interview with Al Mayadeen, offering an evaluation of the changing power dynamics across the Middle East.

A veteran political figure with deep ties across regional capitals and political factions, Abdul Mahdi increasingly acts as a prominent political voice aligning with regional sovereign decisions and the "Axis of Resistance" frameworks.

Key Statements & Regional Environment Impacts

1

. "Iran holds the initiative, and Yemen proves it is capable of doing so as well."

• Impact: Highlights a fundamental shift from strategic defense to proactive engagement across regional fronts. It underscores how non-state and state actors in the network—specifically Tehran and Sanaa—are asserting operational leverage, forcing international and regional adversaries into reactive postures.

2.

"The failure of U.S. bases to protect host nations raises questions about their utility."

• Impact: Directly challenges the long-standing security architecture in the Gulf and broader Middle East. By questioning the protective value of U.S. military installations, these remarks encourage regional states to rethink reliance on foreign troops and accelerate discussions around alternative security arrangements or bilateral non-aggression frameworks.

3.

"The path of resistance in Lebanon is rising despite sacrifices and the Israeli naval/ground incursions in the South."

• Impact: Reaffirms that structural capacity in southern Lebanon remains resilient despite heavy leadership losses and military pressures. It signals to both regional populations and military planners that battlefield outcomes will be dictated by long-term attrition rather than tactical strikes.

4.

"Maritime shifts at Bab al-Mandab, the Red Sea, and the Strait of Hormuz favor the region's balance of power."

• Impact: Points to the critical role of maritime choke points in global geopolitics. Disruption or dominance over these waterways shifts economic and military leverage away from Western-backed naval coalitions toward local regional forces, directly impacting international trade routes and energy security.

5. On the issue of closing Iraqi airports to

"our neighbor, ally, and friend"

is a major mistake, a relinquishment of national sovereignty, and a sacrifice of our national interests and future.

He added that reversing course is better than persisting in a mistake.


☑️ Our website

🖋@observer_5

🔴AVIATION CRISIS AND SOVEREIGNTY: THE IMPLICATIONS OF BANNING IRANIAN FLIGHTS AND THE MESSAGES EXCHANGED BETWEEN BAGHDAD AND TEHRAN

Iraq-Iran relations are facing a renewed test following recent developments surrounding the decision to prevent Iranian aircraft from landing at Iraqi airports, followed by public mobilization and political and media warnings across the region.

FIRST: THE DECISION AND INTERNAL DEVELOPMENTS IN IRAQ

The decision to suspend the reception of Iranian flights at airports including Baghdad and Najaf came amid pressure on airlines and airports to comply with international classifications and sanctions targeting Iranian airlines.

The measure triggered escalating reactions on several levels:

1. Public and religious pressure:
Groups and social and political movements close to Tehran called for demonstrations and sit-ins outside airports to break the ban, arguing that the decision restricts the movement of visitors and religious tourism between the two countries.

2. Economic and service-sector tensions:
The decision directly affected transportation, hotel services, and commercial activity linked to religious tourism in cities such as Najaf and Karbala.

SECOND: IRANIAN MESSAGES AND THE POSITION TOWARD BAGHDAD

A post by Iranian journalist Mehrdad Khalili, addressed to Iraqi officials and referring to Ali al-Zaidi, reflects the nature of the political and media pressure being exerted by circles in Iran.

• Linking the Iraqi and Lebanese models: Comparing Iraq’s political trajectory with what the post described as the “Nawaf Salam path in Lebanon” carries a warning against moving away from Tehran’s regional axis or yielding to Western pressure.

• Sovereignty versus influence: Tehran views a regional state’s compliance with unilateral sanctions against Iran as a hostile step that warrants a response or direct pressure.

THIRD: WHAT THIS DEVELOPMENT MEANS FOR IRAQ AND IRAN

1. For Iraq:

• A test of decision-making independence: The crisis places Iraqi institutions and the Civil Aviation Authority in a difficult position between complying with the sanctions regime and international requirements aimed at safeguarding the aviation sector, and maintaining strategic and geographical ties with Iran.

• Growing internal polarization: The decision could deepen the political divide between forces advocating greater integration with the international system and those calling for an unequivocal alliance with Tehran.

2. For Iran:

• Tightening regional constraints: Enforcement of the ban at Iraqi airports represents an unprecedented development that could further increase the regional and financial isolation of Iranian aviation.

• Erosion of traditional leverage: The decision suggests that Baghdad is taking steps to protect its international technical and financial interests, even when these measures clash with regional partners.

The decision is being viewed by the government in Baghdad as a political and strategic failure for Ali al-Zaidi.


☑️ Our website

🖋@observer_5

🔴 Iranian Diplomatic Confusion: How Pezeshkian’s Statements Undermine Tehran’s Red Lines

The glaring contradictions within Iran’s decision-making circles continue to send clear signals of confusion to the international community. While President Masoud Pezeshkian sought to appeal to the West through flexible diplomatic hints in New York, signaling Tehran’s desire to de-escalate and proposing an agreement to reopen the Strait of Hormuz before the U.S. elections, Iran’s governing establishment and officials quickly appeared to undermine these overtures publicly through Reuters. Iran’s swift reaffirmation that “there will be no concessions on the nuclear program even if an agreement is reached on the Strait” reflects a sharp political rift that weakens Iran’s geopolitical position.

From a strategic perspective, Pezeshkian’s move to signal flexibility, only to face immediate internal contradiction and pushback, does not merely point to a lack of coordination between the presidency and the centers of actual power, such as the Supreme Leader and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. It also risks stripping Tehran of some of the most important leverage at its disposal.

Key geopolitical consequences of this contradiction:

• Erosion of negotiating credibility: When the president speaks in terms of readiness for a compromise and other officials contradict him the following day, international actors, particularly Washington, may begin to treat the Iranian presidency as a front with limited real authority.

• Loss of the strategic Strait of Hormuz card: The closure of, or threat to maritime traffic through, the Strait of Hormuz was supposed to serve as maximum pressure leverage to compel the West to lift blockades and sanctions. But linking this card to contradictory positions, while simultaneously setting rigid conditions against negotiations over uranium enrichment, reduces its ability to produce tangible political gains.

• Exposure of internal tensions: The episode reflects a sharp struggle between the conservative current, which rejects any interference with enrichment or concessions, and the presidency, which is attempting to ease the severe economic and military pressure on the country.

🔻 But the broader picture is more complicated than simply an “Iranian split.”

What appeared in some of President Pezeshkian’s remarks to suggest a willingness to retreat from the nuclear project can, within its diplomatic context, be interpreted as a slip of expression or a linguistic margin in an extremely sensitive negotiating discourse, rather than a change in the state’s strategic position.

The rapid clarification that followed from Tehran was not necessarily an effort to “frustrate” the president. It can instead be understood as a precise recalibration of the message: diplomacy can open doors, but it does not redraw red lines.

And this is the key point: differences in roles between the presidency, the Foreign Ministry, and political and security institutions do not necessarily mean differences in the ultimate objective. The state may employ multiple channels of communication, but the strategic message that was reaffirmed remained clear: Iran is prepared to negotiate, but it will not negotiate under coercion over its nuclear rights.

Thus, what may initially appear to be confusion in Iran’s position can also be read as a division of roles between a diplomatic front that creates room for maneuver and institutions that establish the ceiling of the negotiations.

Pezeshkian may have chosen the wrong wording, but Tehran did not make a mistake in reaffirming its position.


☑️ Our website

🖋@observer_5

🔴 Al-Amiri Calls on Iraqi Government to Reverse Suspension of Iranian Flights, Describing It as “Unjust”

📍 Baghdad

Hadi al-Amiri, Secretary-General of the Badr Organization, called on the Iraqi government to reverse its decision to suspend Iranian flights and not to respond to U.S. pressure, describing the decision as “unjust.”

Al-Amiri made the remarks on Saturday, September 26, 2026, in Baghdad’s Tahrir Square during the central ceremony commemorating the second anniversary of the martyrdom of Hezbollah’s two former secretaries-general, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and Sayyed Hashem Safieddine.

In his speech, al-Amiri said:

“We strongly reject and condemn the unjust blockade imposed by America on Iran, particularly the latest blockade targeting air travel,”

describing it as “unethical, inhumane, and illegal.”

He added that “the blockade of Iran runs contrary to the interests of both the Iraqi and Iranian peoples.”

Al-Amiri called on the Iraqi government:

“We urge the Iraqi government not to comply with the unjust American decision against Iranian aviation.”

He stressed that “the Iraqi government must reverse this unjust decision in response to the will of the Iraqi people.”

Al-Amiri also considered the decision to close Iraqi airspace to Iranian aviation “the first test of achieving full and comprehensive sovereignty.”

He noted that “all aircraft suspended their flights after ISIS took control, except Iranian aircraft, which were carrying weapons and equipment to the Iraqi people.”

Addressing the broader context of the commemoration, al-Amiri said that:

““

Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah was a symbol of the unity and cohesion of the Resistance Axis, and his departure places a historic responsibility upon us to remain united under the banner of resistance.”

He added:

“Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah was a symbol of the unity and cohesion of the Resistance Axis, and his departure places a historic responsibility upon us to remain united under the banner of resistance.”

☑️ Our website

🖋@observer_5

🔴 Suspended Sovereignty and Mobilizing Rhetoric: Who Holds the Decision and Who Is Managing the Crisis?

#️⃣ PART ONE

In a mobilizing speech from Baghdad’s Tahrir Square, held to commemorate the second anniversary of the martyrdom of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and Hashem Safieddine, Hadi al-Ameri, Secretary-General of the Badr Organization, condemned the

“unjust blockade” i

mposed on Iran and called on the Iraqi government to

“reverse the unjust decision”

regarding the suspension of Iranian flights.

❓ But the question that imposes itself is: Who actually holds the decision-making power?

🛩 Al-Ameri and the Ministry of Transport: An Institutional Connection

Hadi al-Ameri is not simply a politician criticizing the Ministry of Transport from the outside.

He previously served as Iraq’s Minister of Transport (2010–2014), while the Badr Organization he leads secured the Ministry of Transport in the al-Zaidi government and retained it for 8 of the 14 years that followed.

❗️The ministry that should, in principle, have primary jurisdiction over the decision to suspend flights is therefore a ministry administered by the very organization whose leader is now publicly condemning the decision.

🔃 Inside Government and in Opposition: A Structural Duality

This duality is not a personal contradiction on al-Ameri’s part. It is a structural feature of Iraq’s sectarian power-sharing system.

The Badr Organization is part of the government, holding ministries, parliamentary seats, and influence within state institutions. At the same time, it can act as an opposition force when populist rhetoric offers greater political returns than assuming responsibility for an actual government decision.

The Badr parliamentary bloc had previously warned the Iraqi government against

“the consequences of responding to directives from the U.S. Treasury Department regarding the imposition of an air embargo on Iranian civil aviation,”

and demanded an “explicit position” on the ban on Iranian flights.

Yet that position was not translated into an executive decision.

🔖 The Nature of the Decision: Who Actually Issued It?

The decision did not originate from the Civil Aviation Authority, nor from the Ministry of Transport.

Rather, a direct executive order was issued by the Prime Minister’s Office following meetings between the Iraqi delegation and U.S. officials in New York on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, where the Iraqi side was reportedly informed that secondary sanctions would target any civilian facility allowing Iranian aircraft to land.

This means that the ministry with formal jurisdiction was bypassed, and that the government treated the matter as a political-security crisis rather than a regulatory issue.

🏛 Who Governs Iraq? Private Companies… and the Federal Reserve

It was private companies that actually halted the flights.

The British company Menzies and the Kuwaiti-British company NAS, through their joint venture MASIL, informed Iranian airlines that they could no longer provide ground-handling services,

“for fear of being subjected to sanctions by the U.S. Treasury Department.”

The Ministry of Transport, which should theoretically possess the infrastructure necessary to provide an alternative, was unable to fill the gap because it had never built that infrastructure in the first place.

Iraqi Airways is the “local partner” in the MASIL project, but the foreign partner provides the technical and operational management, equipment, and expertise.

This reflects a deeper structural reality: just as Iraq’s funds are held at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, its sovereign decision-making over its airspace is effectively constrained by foreign companies over which the state has limited practical control.


☑️ Our website

🖋@observer_5