Pezeshkian's Iraq visit was rich in symbolism, but what did it amount to?

For any newly elected leader, picking a country to make his or her first official visit holds great significance. It’s no exception for Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, who assumed office in July. There was much chatter around which country he would visit first and what that might say about his administration’s foreign policy priorities. Some expected it to be the US, where Dr Pezeshkian is due to address the UN General Assembly. Others suggested Russia, to attend the Brics summit. While the President confirmed he will be visiting both countries, he opted to make his first official trip to neighbouring Iraq , indicating that Tehran intends to give priority to the region. Despite spending just three days in Iraq , Dr Pezeshkian had an expansive agenda. Aside from Baghdad, he visited the holy cities of Najaf and Karbala. He was also Iran’s first sitting president to travel to Iraqi Kurdistan as well as the southern port city of Basra. Each destination was heavy on symbolism. Dr Pezeshkian is a devotee of Ali ibn Abi Talib, the fourth of the Islamic Caliphs and first of the Shiite Imams, and has repeatedly quoted him both during his election campaign and since entering office. His pilgrimage to Najaf, where Ali rests, was especially meaningful, even though the fact that he didn’t meet Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, one of the world’s top Shiite clerics and leading Shiite authority in Iraq, raised a few eyebrows. He also met members of Iraq’s Co-ordination Framework, an umbrella of Islamist Shiite parties sympathetic to Tehran. The Kurdistan leg of the trip was important on different levels. As someone born to a Kurdish mother in the Kurdish-majority Iranian city of Mahabad, Dr Pezeshkian delighted local journalists in Kurdistan by speaking to them in their language. When he met Iraqi President Abdul Latif Rashid in Baghdad, the two leaders reportedly spoke in Kurdish, without interpreters, marking a historic moment. After his return to Tehran, Dr Pezeshkian fondly recalled his meeting with Masoud Barzani, the head of Iraq’s Kurdistan Democratic Party, who was also born in Mahabad. It’s a different matter that the meeting drew protests from hardliners, unhappy that the President met a Kurdish leader without an official role. The linguistic diplomacy was well reciprocated by Iraqi Kurdistan President Nechirvan Barzani, who spoke in fluent Persian during Dr Pezeshkian’s visit, as he lauded the “many common cultural, historical and linguistic ties” between the Iraqi Kurdish region and Iran. Mr Barzani’s fluency in Persian comes no surprise, with the leader having lived some of his childhood in Iran. Dr Pezeshkian’s trip was especially significant because Tehran hasn’t always enjoyed warm ties with Erbil. The Iraqi Kurdish region allows the operation of Iranian Kurdish opposition parties on its soil, a perennial bugbear for Tehran and the subject of a recent security agreement with Baghdad. Erbil has also worked closely with the US and maintains unofficial ties with Israel. Iran has traditionally held closer ties with KDP’s rival, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan. As part of his trip, Dr Pezeshkian visited the PUK’s stronghold Sulaimaniyah and met party leader Bafel Talabani. But his warm reception in Erbil indicates Iran’s more ecumenical approach to Kurdish politics, particularly as the KDP’s concern that Tehran might back the PUK during the next month’s Kurdish parliamentary election will have been on the Iranian President’s mind. His visit to Basra was symbolic in and of itself. Iranians will remember the 1987 siege of the city, which took place during the Iran-Iraq War and left thousands dead on both sides. Almost four decades later, with the war appearing to be firmly in the past, the city welcomed the President with the slogan “forever neighbours”. But what does all this symbolism amount to? Experts point out that while much of the trip seems to have been focused on public diplomacy, fundamental problems remain in the bilateral relations. Trade ties, worth less than $10 billion, remain lukewarm and even though Tehran has pledged to double this, its attempts to do so have been hampered by the western-led sanctions. During his trip, Dr Pezeshkian spoke of grand plans for a union of Islamic countries. He spoke of how there are no more borders between most European countries and that one day the same could be true of the Muslim world, or at least between Iran and Iraq. And yet there are complexities even around the modest rail project that connects Basra to Iran’s Shalamcheh. It’s also the case that ever since Saddam Hussein was overthrown in 2003, Tehran has maintained relations with Baghdad through the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, rather than its foreign ministry. Iran’s ambassador to Iraq, like his predecessors since 2003, is an IRGC official. With a new president in office, is there an opportunity for the foreign ministry to take back some of the control it had on the country’s foreign affairs – particularly when it comes to dealing with Iraq – from the IRGC? That would be a monumental challenge for Dr Pezeshkian, but if he were to succeed, it could lead to much less interference from Tehran in Iraq’s complex domestic affairs. As often with diplomacy, making symbolic gestures is the easy part. As he attempts to revive Iran’s economy and build a peace-oriented foreign policy, Dr Pezeshkian will have his work cut out for him.