Mishaan Al-Jubouri defends possible visit of Syria’s Ahmed Al-Shara’ to Iraq

BAGHDAD — Prominent Sunni politician Mishaan Al-Jubouri has defended the possible visit of Syrian interim President Ahmed al-Shara’ to Baghdad, calling Prime Minister Mohammed Shia Al-Sudani’s outreach to the Syrian figure a bold and statesmanlike decision.

“Sudani’s visit to Qatar and his meeting with Shara’ was the act of a statesman, despite knowing in advance that it would bring trouble with the loudest voices — those loyalist factions with influence, power, and weapons that sometimes surpass the strength of the state’s own arms,” al-Jubouri said in an interview with UTV.

He described Shara’, a former inmate at the U.S.-run Bucca prison, as a young man driven by nationalist ideals.

“Shara’, the young man in his twenties who came to Iraq, was full of zeal and patriotism,” al-Jubouri said. “He came to help confront the invasion by 30 countries and the toppling of a modest, small-scale state in comparison. He chose the path of resistance against a world united against Iraq. That’s how I view him.”

Al-Jubouri’s comments come amid growing opposition from powerful Iran-aligned factions in Iraq ahead of the Arab League summit scheduled for May 17 in Baghdad. Critics have condemned the possible invitation of al-Shara’, citing his alleged past ties to extremist groups.

The Dawa Party, led by former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, released a statement rejecting the presence of anyone “accused of committing crimes against Iraqis.” Qais al-Khazali, leader of Asaib Ahl al-Haq — a U.S.-designated terrorist organization — warned that al-Shara’s visit “could have consequences if the law were enforced and he got arrested,” referencing an outstanding warrant tied to past affiliations with Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Prime Minister Al-Sudani confirmed the invitation during remarks at the Sulaimani Forum earlier this month, following a meeting with Al-Shara’ in Doha mediated by Qatari Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani.

Some excerpts of Al-Jubouri’s interview on UTV:

Prime Minister Sudani’s visit to Qatar and his meeting with Shara’ was the act of a statesman, despite knowing in advance that it would bring trouble with the loudest voices—those loyalist factions with influence, power, and weapons that sometimes surpass the strength of the state’s own arms.

Shara’, the young man in his twenties who came to Iraq, was full of zeal and patriotism. He came to help confront the invasion by 30 countries and the toppling of a modest, small-scale state in comparison. He chose the path of resistance against a world united against Iraq. That’s how I view him. When the Americans arrested him in 2005, he was imprisoned alongside many who are now leading the scene. But because he’s a Sunni, Shara’ was labeled a terrorist, while the Shiites were seen as mujahideen.

Shara’ left Iraq immediately after being released from Bucca prison. Meanwhile, the Shiites who were released participated in the sectarian war, committing massacres and forced displacements. This was a two-way conflict between Sunnis and Shiites, but the Shiites gained the upper hand because they held the weapons.

The campaign against Shara’ is sectarian. I, Mishaan al-Jubouri, was once their partner during the opposition era, and I was part of the Iraqi Leadership Council formed in London before 2003, as well as a main partner in Parliament after the regime change. Yet they leveled countless accusations against me and charged me with terrorism in multiple cases.

Any Sunni who raises his voice in defense of his people is accused of terrorism. The clearest example is Khamis al-Khanjar [leader of the al-Siyada Alliance], who they previously praised, and now they smear him. Today, they’re labeling me with every name because I acted like a Sunni, responded to my community’s sentiments, and rejected the imposition of Eid by Mishaan al-Khazraji.

The aspirations of Sunnis in Iraq differ from those of the Shiites. Sunnis don’t want Syria to become what Iran is to the Shiites. As a Sunni, I see the Iraqi Shiite as closer to me than a Syrian or Turkish Sunni. But some Shiites might see the Iranian Shiite as closer to them than the Iraqi Sunni due to ideological reasons—though this doesn’t apply to everyone.

Iraqi Sunnis were crushed after 2014. They faced humiliation, lost control over their economies, and had their cities dominated. Political representatives were imposed on them—controlled by Tehran and the Revolutionary Guard. That’s why they celebrated the change in Syria, rejoicing at the fall of the Safavid occupation that turned our cities into a bridge to the Syrian crescent. And despite the Assad regime having done me personal favors, I will not speak ill of Assad. If he asked me for help, I would do whatever I could.

I hope Iran accepts the peace offers in the Rome negotiations. Otherwise, it will end in bombs and aircraft carriers, which are already present in our region. Time will reveal who remains and who surrenders everything. They will eventually withdraw from our cities, because the crescent no longer exists. I hope the Iranians don’t act with the same stubbornness Saddam Hussein did when he defied the world and brought destruction to Iraq, leaving it under Iranian influence.

Whoever wants to go to the Shiite region or state in southern Iraq can go—and take the oil with them. But we hold on to Baghdad and a united Iraq. I can say with certainty that Sunnis don’t want to reclaim power in Iraq. If anyone among us thinks of a scenario like al-Jolani’s, I’ll be the first to fight him.

They allowed ISIS to grow stronger. It was clearly an Iranian-engineered plan, designed precisely to let Iran tighten its grip on our cities and turn them into a bridge to Hezbollah. The person behind the plan has since gone to face his Creator [God], and I don’t want to speak about him. The Sunnis were the victims. Even the Samarra bombings—Iran was behind them. Zarqawi used to go to Iran to collect funds. All the al-Qaeda leaders came from Iran. I know what I’m saying.

Shara’ didn’t come to Iraq to fight Shiites. But Shiite factions went to Syria to fight alongside the regime against the people’s revolution, under the pretext of protecting holy shrines. So who should compensate whom? When Abadi refused to send them to fight for Assad, they denied him a second term, even though he was among the best prime ministers Iraq has had. Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis told me, “As long as I’m alive, I won’t let him serve again.”

There are Sunni and Shiite politicians who oppose the regime and work in the U.S. within the Republican Party, advocating for a law to liberate Iraq. But that law only brings more sanctions. Even the earlier law passed in the 1990s wasn’t the cause of the invasion. The occupation came for other reasons. I told them that what they say in the media harms civil peace and hurts the Sunnis’ interests.