Sheikh Al-Khazali: The Khor Abdullah Agreement was designed for maritime navigation and is not a concession of Iraq’s borders.

The General Secretary of the Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq, His Eminence Sheikh Qais al-Khazali, confirmed on Thursday that the controversy surrounding the Khor Abdullah agreement has been taken in an inaccurate media direction. He pointed to the existence of what he described as a “media machine and Ba’athist figures” working to portray the agreement as “a concession of Iraq’s borders with Kuwait,” which he considered a misleading and unrealistic approach.
Sheikh Al-Khazali said in a televised interview that these media outlets are ignoring a fundamental fact, which is UN Security Council Resolution No. (833), which came based on a letter from the Secretary-General of the United Nations to the Council, which includes an explicit recognition of the new land and maritime borders, including the maritime borders up to Pillar No. 162.
His Eminence added that the essence of the discussion about the Khor Abdullah Agreement revolves around the issue of recognizing Security Council Resolution (833), stressing that the one who took the initiative to recognize this resolution was the head of the fallen regime, Saddam Hussein, in his capacity as Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council at the time, which means that he was the one who “sold out the issue,” according to the description of the media of that period.
Sheikh Al-Khazaali continued by saying that the recognition did not stop there. Rather, a decision was issued by the National Council at the time, acting as a legislative authority, to uphold the UN resolution, which means that “the one who sold out was Saddam and his regime”.
Sheikh Al-Khazaali pointed out that the current agreement, known as the “Agreement Regulating Navigation in Khor Abdullah,” is a clear and public agreement, not a secret one as rumored. He emphasized that it concerns the regulation of navigation, not the demarcation of borders.
In a related context, Sheikh Al-Khazaali criticized some prominent figures in the media, warning of the danger of issuing uncontrolled statements that could harm civil peace and the country’s stability. He emphasized the need for legislation to regulate this type of media discourse, stating that “it is unacceptable for anyone to say whatever they want in the media, even if it is at the expense of the country’s interests”.