The dispute over Khor Abdullah (the Abdullah Channel) has long ceased to be just a territorial conflict - it has become a symbol of the systemic crisis of the Iraqi state. This narrow but strategically vital waterway, connecting Basra to the Persian Gulf, has turned into a battleground not only between Iraq and Kuwait but also between the Iraqi people and their own government. Ignoring the Constitution and the will of its citizens, the Iraqi government stubbornly seeks to hand over part of the nation’s territory, fuelling public anger and accusations of corruption.

The Federal Court of Iraq has already ruled the agreement to transfer Khor Abdullah to Kuwait illegal. Yet, in response, the authorities have pressured judges, forced resignations, and attempted to push through a new deal in parliament. Such actions cast doubt not only on the legitimacy of the ruling elite but also on the very future of Iraqi sovereignty.

The History of Khor Abdullah: From Ottoman Rule to Modern Betrayal

Khor Abdullah, also known as the Abdullah Channel, is not just a waterway but a key element of Iraq’s economy and security. It provides access to the port of Umm Qasr, the country’s only deep-water port, on which all of Iraq’s maritime trade depends.

Its history dates back to the Ottoman Empire, when the channel was under Baghdad’s control. After World War I and Kuwait’s existence under British protectorate status, borders remained disputed. Yet even after Kuwait’s recognition by the UN in 1963, Khor Abdullah remained de facto under Iraqi administration.

The turning point came with the Gulf War (1990–1991). Saddam Hussein’s defeat and international sanctions weakened Iraq, allowing Kuwait to assert territorial claims. In 1994, under UN pressure, Iraq formally recognized Kuwait’s sovereignty, but the issue of maritime borders was never fully resolved.

The real drama unfolded in 2012 when the corrupt government of Nouri al-Maliki signed a dubious agreement effectively handing Khor Abdullah to Kuwait. This move sparked outrage: first, it violated Iraq’s Constitution, which prohibits territorial concessions without a national referendum. Second, investigations pointed to possible corruption - rumours swirled of large payoffs to Iraqi officials from Kuwait. And finally, losing control of the channel threatened a major infrastructure project - the Al-Faw Port, intended to become Iraq’s new maritime gateway.

The People vs. the Government: Protests and the Fight for Justice

In 2023, Iraq’s Federal Court ruled that the 2012 agreement was unconstitutional and demanded its annulment. Instead of complying with the law, the authorities launched a campaign against judges - forced retirements, pressure on the chief justice, and attempts to ram through a new deal in parliament. This scandal exposed an ugly truth: the ruling elite is willing to sacrifice national interests for personal gain.

The streets of southern Iraq, particularly Basra, erupted in mass protests. Thousands marched with slogans: “No to selling our land!”, “A government of traitors!”, “Khor Abdullah is Iraq!” Even among traditionally pro-government Shiite factions, a rift emerged - many lawmakers and religious leaders openly sided with the people.

Kuwait: Why Does It Want Khor Abdullah?

For Kuwait, this channel holds little critical economic value - it already has modern ports handling steady trade. But behind Kuwait’s insistence on controlling Khor Abdullah lie not just strategic but deeply emotional motives. This is revenge - retribution for past humiliations, a way to show Iraq that times have changed and Kuwait now calls the shots.

Victory in the 1991 war and Saddam Hussein’s fall did not erase Kuwait’s trauma of invasion and occupation. Controlling the disputed channel is a symbolic act, a reminder of Iraq’s defeat and current weakness. But beyond symbolism, there is cold calculation. With vast oil wealth and Western backing, Kuwait can afford hardline measures against Iraq, using economic pressure as a political tool.

Seizing Khor Abdullah would allow Kuwait to strangle Iraqi trade by controlling shipping in this strategic zone. This is not just about convenience - it is leverage to force Baghdad into compliance with Kuwaiti interests.

Meanwhile, Kuwaiti society, though most of its members never experienced the 1990 war, still views Iraq through state propaganda framing it as a perpetual aggressor. Kuwaiti media and officials regularly emphasize the “Iraqi threat,” justifying a tough stance. This creates another barrier to normalization, as any softening could be seen as weakness or betrayal.

Thus, the fight over Khor Abdullah is not just a territorial dispute but a continuation of a long-standing confrontation where Kuwait, backed by financial and political might, seeks to dictate terms to its former aggressor.

What Happens if Iraq Loses Khor Abdullah?

The consequences could be catastrophic - strategically, politically, and economically. First, economic losses. Blockading Umm Qasr - Iraq’s main trade port - would paralyze maritime imports and exports, including oil shipments. This would devastate the budget, widen deficits, and deepen reliance on neighbouring states.

Second, deterred investment. Losing control of the shipping channel would scare off foreign companies, especially in energy. Third, higher logistics costs. Alternative routes through Iran or Kuwait would make Iraqi goods less competitive.

Politically, the fallout would be severe:

– A crisis of legitimacy: Surrendering strategic land without a fight would be seen as weakness and betrayal.

– Government collapse: The ruling coalition is already splitting, with pro-Iran and nationalist factions exploiting the crisis to pressure the prime minister.

– Opposition gains: Anti-government forces - from Shiite militias to secular protesters - would gain a powerful rallying cry.

– A dangerous precedent: If Khor Abdullah is surrendered today, Basra’s borders or even oilfields could be next.

– International humiliation: Iraq would again be cast as the loser, weakening its standing in OPEC+ and the Arab world.

Inside Iraq, protests in the south could escalate into full-scale revolt. The people will not forgive capitulation - especially if opposition leaders take a hardline stance.

Is There a Way Out?

Theoretically, three scenarios exist:

International arbitration - but the UN traditionally backs Kuwait, and the US / EU won’t risk escalation.

Military pressure - risking sanctions and isolation, as in the 1990s.

A national referendum - the only legitimate option, but the regime fears it could turn into a vote against the entire government.

Without question, losing Khor Abdullah is not just a territorial concession but a point of no return. Iraq risks economic collapse, civil conflict, and the final erosion of sovereignty.

Conclusion

Khor Abdullah is not just land - it is a matter of national dignity. If Iraq surrenders the channel today, it may lose far more tomorrow. The protests in Basra and beyond have shown: the people will not stay silent. The key question remains - do Iraqis have the strength to stop their elites’ betrayal?

“If we stay silent today, nothing will remain tomorrow.” This slogan, echoing through Basra’s streets, is a warning to the nation. Time will tell if those in power will listen. Most likely, they will not.

Viktor Mikhin, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, Middle East Expert. Courtesy

https://journal-neo.su/2025/08/14/khor-abdullah-how-the-iraqi-government-is-trading-away-national-heritage/