At a moment when political tensions are escalating and Iraq’s ability to steer its internal compass appears increasingly fragile, the recent interview of President Masoud Barzani on Shams TV with journalist Eli Nakouzi emerged as one of the most compelling discussions of Iraq’s and Kurdistan’s intertwined political trajectories. In this conversation, Barzani articulated a profound vision for preserving both statehood and the Constitution amid the political disorder that has eroded rational governance. His words reflected not those of a party leader seeking electoral gain, but of a statesman who carries the memory of war and the resolve of peace—reordering the nation’s priorities around stability and constitutional integrity.

Defending the Constitution: In Times of Peace and War

Barzani’s emphasis on defending the Constitution was not a nostalgic reference to a past struggle, but a moral testimony to an era when Iraq’s new charter was written in both ink and blood. By recalling that moment, Barzani reminded Iraqis that the Constitution was not a gift from victors, but the fruit of shared sacrifice—particularly of the Kurds who endured dictatorship and chemical bombardment to help forge a new national pact.
His message was unmistakable: the Constitution, born in war, must not be emptied of its meaning in peace. Respecting it remains the only guarantee for Iraq’s survival as a state for all its components, rather than a playground for partisan conflict and foreign influence. In essence, Barzani seemed to appeal to Iraq’s political conscience, warning that the Constitution must not become a silent witness to state collapse, but its last line of defense.

The Federal Court: Between Law and Politics

Barzani’s observations about Iraq’s judiciary were especially sharp when he addressed the Federal Supreme Court, stressing the urgent need for judicial independence. He warned that the court had come under pressure from political forces—an alarming development for any democracy. Having played a central role in drafting Iraq’s post-2003 Constitution, Barzani argued that the text itself does not require amendment as much as it requires a judiciary that interprets it with fairness and integrity.
When he described the current Federal Court as “unconstitutional in its composition,” Barzani was not attacking the judiciary but defending it—calling for the establishment of a truly constitutional court that reflects Iraq’s national balance and derives its legitimacy from law, not sectarian consensus. His critique was a call to restore the judiciary as an impartial arbiter and a pillar of trust between Baghdad and Erbil, not as a political tool in the hands of any side.

The Kurdistan Region: A Model of Possible Statehood

When the discussion turned to the Kurdistan Region of Iraq, Barzani spoke not with triumphalism but with the sober language of governance. He contrasted the Region’s “will, planning, and precise execution” with the “chaos and stalled projects” in Baghdad, summarizing Iraq’s tragedy in a single insight: its crisis is not one of resources, but of will.
In Barzani’s telling, Kurdistan is not “a state within a state,” but a model of what Iraq could be—a functioning federal entity that, after waves of war, invested in civil institutions, service networks, and economic and security stability. Between his lines lay a quiet message to Baghdad: what has been achieved in Kurdistan can be achieved across Iraq, provided the state is governed with reason rather than sectarian patronage.

Respect and Hostility: The Relationship with the Coordination Framework

One of the interview’s most sensitive moments came when Barzani remarked that within the Coordination Framework, there are “parties we respect and others that have taken a hostile stance and tried to end the Region.” This was not a rhetorical jab, but a precise description of the fractures shaping Erbil–Baghdad relations.
The Kurdistan Region, which helped institutionalize federalism as a national choice, often finds itself constrained by policies that view diversity as a threat rather than a strength. Yet Barzani distinguished between disagreement and enmity, between critique and confrontation—reminding all that respect does not mean conformity, and political differences must not evolve into national hostility. In doing so, he projected the image of a leader who speaks not only for the Kurds but for an Iraq yearning for equilibrium.

Principles of Partnership: No Subordination

Regarding elections and the broader Baghdad–Erbil relationship, Barzani distilled his political philosophy into three principles: partnership, balance, and consensus. “If some reject federalism,” he said, “we too reject dictatorship.” With this statement, he drew the boundaries of the relationship between the federal government and the Region—asserting that partnership does not mean subordination, balance does not imply quota-based politics, and consensus is not weakness but a prerequisite for stability.
For Barzani, the state must be governed through agreement, not exclusion; through mutual respect, not political blackmail. His words revealed a dual vision—rooted in past experience but oriented toward Iraq’s future—defending national unity through respect for Kurdistan, not at its expense.

Conclusion: A Statesman’s Call to Responsibility

In closing, Barzani directed several messages of reflection and reform. He urged Iraqis to think about the country’s future, to repair what is broken, and called on Kurds to vote for those capable of delivering services and safeguarding their destiny. In this sense, his interview offered not just a political roadmap but a national ethic: one based on shared responsibility rather than division.
For Barzani, Kurdistan’s fate is inseparable from Iraq’s—but it cannot remain hostage to the failures of others. His appearance on Shams TV was therefore more than an interview; it was a political document articulating a vision for rescuing governance from chaos. Through it, Barzani reaffirmed that politics is not a contest for power but a duty toward people and homeland, and that the Constitution—written under bombardment—remains the state’s truest compass amid the storm.

Barzani’s message was not only to Baghdad, but to all who view federalism as a threat rather than an opportunity, and to those who see Kurdistan as a political prize rather than a national project. With this realism, he redefined the center–region relationship on the basis of mutual respect, not submission—asserting that genuine partnership arises not from fear, but from confidence in the Constitution, justice, and a shared future.

In a time when Iraq desperately needs a voice to restore meaning to its politics, Masoud Barzani once again became that voice—the voice of the Constitution in an era of disorder.

by:Shiyar Khalil