Iraq’s diplomatic corps faces a potential international credibility crisis after approving a list of ambassadorial appointments that allegedly includes relatives of senior officials, political loyalists and figures linked to armed groups under sanctions.
The 93 appointments were intended to revive Iraq’s global representation after years of paralysis. Instead, they unveiled a pattern of nepotism and political quota-trading, exposing how alleged breaches of law and constitution can occur without consequence.
The National spoke to diplomats, politicians and members of parliament who expressed frustration at the process, worrying that host countries could quietly delay or reject accreditation for envoys allegedly tied to corruption or sanctioned factions.
“The list came as a shock to observers and everyone involved in diplomacy in Iraq,” said one diplomat, describing the uproar that followed the new round of ambassadorial appointments, the first in more than a decade.
Diplomats and several members of parliament claim that the appointments effectively hand control of parts of Iraq’s diplomatic network to political parties and armed groups, some of which are on US sanctions or terrorism lists.
Many of the appointed envoys are also linked to pro-Iran factions, raising fears that Iraq’s diplomacy abroad could increasingly align with Tehran’s positions at a sensitive time, as Iran faces pressure over nuclear issues and renewed sanctions.
Among the new envoys are Qais Al Amiri, brother-in-law of Popular Mobilisation Forces chief and US-sanctioned Faleh Al Fayyad, and Rahman Al Amiri, a relative of Hadi Al Amiri, leader of the Iran-backed Badr Organisation.
Also named is Laith Al Athari, spokesman for US-sanctioned Asaib Ahl Al Haq, and several figures once linked to Sarayaa Al Salam, the armed wing of the Sadrist movement, which has been heavily involved in Iraq's bloody civil war.
“We were hoping for a new Iraq – a country projecting the image of a reborn state,” the diplomat explained. “Instead, this is a disaster. We will be projecting an image of corruption and nepotism, not only inside Iraq but across the world.”
Procedure ignored
For years, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs avoided naming new envoys because it could not balance the demands of Iraq’s competing political blocs. The last major batch of ambassadors, about 40 figures, mostly respected career diplomats, was appointed around 2010.
Since then, successive governments have extended the terms of ageing diplomats or left key posts vacant to avoid political friction. When the ministry reached a breaking point, political parties stepped in, according to people familiar with the process.
By law, 75 per cent of new nominees should come from within the ministry, and political parties can nominate up to 25 per cent. But according to diplomatic sources, the final list broke that balance, with roughly 45 per cent drawn from parties and only 55 per cent from the ministry.
Even the ministry’s internal selection process was allegedly tainted, as many of the 500 candidates were not approached for qualifications and interviews.
Once the list reached parliament, procedure was again ignored. Usually, a few days must pass after an item is placed on the agenda before it is voted on. But, according to several MPs, it was decided to push it through "suddenly", despite protests from members who left the room to break the quorum.
Lawmakers said they were asked to vote without seeing the nominees’ CVs, while veteran diplomats complained that years of service and training had been overlooked.
Haider Al Salami, who sits in the parliament’s Foreign Relations Committee, said political considerations took precedence over merit. [
“The selection process ignored competition among qualified candidates, including those from the diplomatic corps,” Mr Al Salami told The National. Three members of the parliamentary committee who sat on a panel established by the cabinet to review the names of the candidates “had their roles marginalised,” he added.
“Ultimately, the decision was made by the leaders of the political parties, who decided who would be appointed and who wouldn't,” explained the MP.
Several lawmakers and Foreign Ministry employees filed lawsuits with the Supreme Court after the August vote, arguing that the appointments were unconstitutional. Yet before the court could rule, the presidency approved the list, the new ambassadors were sworn in, and the court later dismissed all the challenges, ruling that the matter did not affect the national interest.
President Abdul Latif Rashid, who oversaw the swearing-in ceremony on September 10, urged the ambassadors to “defend Iraq’s interests abroad with integrity and honour”. Foreign Minister Fuad Hussein said the selection process was “rigorous” and aimed to “project Iraq’s stability and openness to the world”.
Iraq's Foreign Ministry declined to comment after The National approached it for comment.
Biased process
Iraq’s modern political history is known to be riddled with corruption and nepotism that became entrenched during decades of mismanagement.
After the 1990 invasion of Kuwait and Iraq’s subsequent diplomatic isolation, state institutions were reportedly built around loyalty to Saddam Hussein rather than competence. His removal in 2003 did not dismantle this system; it simply decentralised it. Instead of one family’s dominance, Iraq became ruled by militia-linked parties, each carving up state resources for their networks.
Post-2003 governments promised transparency but delivered little. Billions of dollars in oil revenue vanished through ghost employees, rigged tenders and kickback schemes. Public sector jobs were widely seen as becoming a currency of political favour, not merit. Each ministry allegedly turned into the domain of the party controlling it, making governance a spoils system.
International watchdogs routinely rank Iraq, an oil-rich country, among the most corrupt countries in the world, with Transparency International placing it near the bottom of global indexes for years.
Meanwhile, alleged nepotism has hollowed out institutions, driven young professionals abroad and left public services in decay. Iraq’s infrastructure, from hospitals to power grids, crumbles while the elite builds fortunes abroad.
Attempts at reform are reportedly short-lived, as entrenched interests block any move that threatens their control. For many Iraqis, corruption is not a distant political issue; it’s the lived reality of watching unqualified relatives of politicians run ministries into the ground.
Mr Al Salami confirmed that about half of the appointments at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs "were made from outside the diplomatic corps, which is a quota for political parties, as if the ambassador represents the party rather than Iraq".
He expressed concerns about the qualifications and backgrounds of some appointees, including those with criminal records and terrorism charges and covered by the recent amnesty law.
A letter from the Interior Ministry to the Cabinet, reportedly mentioning six or seven individuals with criminal records, was also ignored by the government committee. Even within the government committee, which was chaired by one of the candidates, there were objections, but the “will of political parties prevailed", he said.
The interview process was also criticised for being biased, with only certain individuals being invited to participate. “They just interviewed some of them whom they wanted to be appointed,” said the MP.
Government allies argue that the scale of the reshuffle inevitably required some political balancing, and that many of the appointees are qualified professionals. But even officials within the ministry are said to acknowledge the damage to credibility.
Parliament is now preparing amendments to the Foreign Service Law to restrict ambassadorial nominations to career diplomats, scrapping the 25 per cent quota reserved for political nominees. But passing such a bill would require the same political blocs that benefit from the system to vote against their own privileges.
