Larijani in Baghdad, others in Beirut

In politics, visits are not measured by commemorative photos, but by the new balances they leave behind. When Ali Larijani landed in Baghdad, he knew that signing a security memorandum with Iraq would be seen in Tehran as a step towards consolidating two decades of influence. Hours later, in Beirut, he had to listen not to words of welcome, but to messages of rebuke from the head of state himself. Between the two capitals, the difference emerged between a country that legitimises Iran’s presence and another that is trying to break its grip.

In Baghdad, the secretary-general of Iran’s National Security Council sat at the official table and signed a security cooperation memorandum with National Security Adviser Qasim al-Araji, in the presence of Coordination Framework Prime Minister Mohammed Shiaa al-Sudani. The scene was political par excellence, lending double legitimacy to the memorandum at a time when Tehran is experiencing its weakest phase of regional influence.

Al-Sudani has always used a cheap excuse denying any Iranian interference in Iraqi affairs, describing it as an exaggeration, without being able to convince himself of this pretext before convincing the Iraqis! But on this day he received an interesting response from Beirut, hours after Larijani’s visit to Baghdad ended.

At first glance, the scene appears to be merely a bilateral agreement between two neighbouring countries. Its headlines are about borders, combating smuggling and exchanging intelligence information. But what is not written in the text of the memorandum is the most important: granting Tehran official recognition with an Iraqi signature, legitimising its continued security presence in a country that has been its unrivalled sphere of influence for two decades.

Washington was quick to comment. US State Department spokeswoman Tami Bruce said: ‘Any security agreement that gives Iran a dominant role in Iraqi affairs undermines the stability of the region and is contrary to the interests of the Iraqi people themselves.’ This clear statement, -dir-ected more at Baghdad than at Tehran, serves as a reminder that Iraq, as a sovereign state … cannot be a conduit for a security project that serves only one party.

A few hours later, the same man was in Beirut, but the tables had turned and the tone had changed completely. He did not hear the usual words of welcome, but instead received a blunt statement from President Joseph Aoun: there is no place for weapons outside the authority of the state, and we will not allow another country to interfere in Lebanon’s sovereign decisions. Prime Minister Nawaf Salam reiterated the position even more clearly: the time for tolerating foreign interference in Lebanon’s affairs is over.

In politics, this was akin to a -dir-ect declaration of sovereignty, clarifying the difference between Lebanon as a state and Lebanon as a mini-state represented by Hezbollah for decades.

Ali Larijani is not just a political´-or-security envoy. His intellectual background reveals the nature of his mission. He comes from a family that theorises about Iranian hegemony in the region. His father, Mirza Hashem Amoli, is one of the leading Shia religious authorities in Qom. His brother, Mohammad Javad Larijani, is a theorist of the conservative foreign policy current, whose personality blends Persian nationalist culture, Shia doctrine, and political pragmatism. His book, ‘Quotations on National Strategy,’ explains the ‘Qom, Mother of Villages’ theory, which is taught in Iranian security and intelligence institutes, with the aim of shifting the centre of the Islamic world from Mecca to the city of Qom and expanding Iranian influence through ideological discourse cloaked in political and security rhetoric.

From a broader perspective, the signing of the memorandum of understanding in Baghdad between Larijani and Al-Araji, who lived in Iran for nearly half his life as a fighter in the Badr Brigade, and is seen today as more of an Iranian employee in the Green Zone than an advisor to the Iraqi national mother, is a new episode in the consolidation of Iranian influence in Iraq. By contrast, Beirut appears to be a potential gateway to breaking one of the pillars of this influence by weakening Hezbollah and disarming it. The difference between the two capitals illustrates the difference between a state that allows the ‘Qom’ project to penetrate its security structure and another that is trying, albeit belatedly, to close the door on it.

Iran skilfully manages its regional affairs through figures such as Larijani, betting on gaining time and building legitimacy from within the national institutions of states, rather than through chaos alone. What happened in Baghdad is a legitimisation of this kind. What happened in Beirut, on the other hand, is a test of the state’s ability to say ‘no’, even in the face of a regional player that combines history, ideology and politics at the same time.

From Baghdad to Beirut, Larijani’s visit carried a single thread in two different colours: one that reinforces the legitimacy of Iran’s presence, and another that heralds the beginning of its challenge. In this contradiction, the contours of the future map become clear, where the state either imposes its sovereignty´-or-becomes a name without substance.

Rate the article
Bad	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	Very good
Result : 100%							Participated in the vote : 1