After years of judicial investigations that collided with political immunities and dozens of lawsuits that surrounded the judicial investigator in the Beirut port explosion case, Judge Tariq Al-Bitar, the discriminatory public defender, Judge Muhammad Saab, blew a huge surprise, by reviewing the basis that he had prepared, in which he held the former President of the Republic, Michel Aoun, criminally responsible, based on his prior knowledge of the presence of ammonium nitrate and its danger, and the question of whether he had done what his position required of him to deport Risk before disaster strikes.
Judge Saab signed the review on Tuesday afternoon in its final form, and then proceeded to the office of the judicial investigator, Judge Tariq Al-Bitar, where he held a meeting with him that lasted a full hour, during which he handed him the file after completing his mission, and they discussed its content and the demands that it reached. Informed sources revealed to Asharq Al-Awsat that the 260-page Foolscap review “listed the names of the figures who were aware of the presence of ammonium nitrate in the port, led by Aoun, who had received a detailed report on the presence of these materials, their danger, and the possibility of their explosion, without presenting the issue to the Supreme Defense Council, despite its sessions being held in the Republican Palace under his leadership.”
It is not yet clear what nature of the action Saab requested to be taken against Aoun and whether he directly sued him, but the sources suggested that he “held criminal responsibility and requested that he be prosecuted for the same crimes for which former Prime Minister Hassan Diab and a number of politicians, security, military and judicial leaders are being prosecuted.”
This issue opens the door to a legal and constitutional debate about the mechanism for prosecuting the President of the Republic. The sources pointed out that the immunity linked to the position of the President of the Republic “does not prevent him from being held accountable for criminal crimes, provided that the issue of the authority responsible for the trial and the procedures to be followed is raised before the relevant judicial and constitutional authorities.” She stressed that the Public Prosecution “asked the judicial investigator to charge President Aoun with responsibility for what happened on the fourth of August, especially since he knew in advance of the presence of nitrates and warned of the danger of their explosion two weeks before the disaster occurred, and his responsibility is no less than the responsibility of (former) Prime Minister Hassan Diab and the other defendants.”
Completing the review constitutes the most important stage before the issuance of the indictment, which is expected before the end of this year. Al-Bitar is currently studying it, knowing that he is not bound by the Public Prosecution’s demands, and he has the right to accept them in full or in part, or contradict them. A judicial source confirmed to Asharq Al-Awsat that the review “defined responsibilities for 73 defendants, including legal persons from companies. It also addressed the jurisdiction of prosecutions for judges, representatives, ministers, security personnel, and the military, and classified actions and responsibilities according to the positions of those concerned and the role of each of them.”
But the reading did not stop at administrative, political, and judicial responsibilities, but rather went on to ask questions that preceded, accompanied, and followed the disaster on August 4, 2020. According to the source, “fundamental questions were asked: Did an explosion or a detonation occur? Was it caused by a mistake or a terrorist act? Did the entire amount of ammonium nitrate that arrived at the port, estimated at 2,750 tons, explode? Are there Lebanese parties linked to the import of the shipment from Georgia or to what happened later? Was the port exposed to Israeli targeting?
According to the source, the study dealt with the names of individuals about whom suspicions were raised in the media without prosecuting them or hearing their testimony, and examined “the seriousness of these suspicions,” setting criteria for determining responsibility that extended from the port administration and judges to the security and military services and the highest political levels. With the end of the review and the file returning to the era of Judge Tariq Al-Bitar, the port case moves to its most sensitive stage: from an investigation that lasted for years and collided with successive political and judicial obstacles, to the stage of naming responsibilities and drawing their boundaries. If the indictment remains in the hands of Al-Bitar, the Public Prosecution’s review has placed before him a broad legal map, which may make the coming months decisive in determining who bears, judicially, responsibility for the August 4 disaster.
On Tuesday, the security authorities in Baghdad reiterated their emphasis on continuing to pursue those who launched explosive drones against neighboring countries. The head of the Security Media Cell, Lieutenant General Saad Maan, stressed that “investigations are continuing to identify the perpetrators” of the attacks against Saudi territory. The Iraqi Prime Minister, Ali Al-Zaidi, had relieved the operations commander of Maysan Governorate (south), and dismissed its police chief, along with other security officials, after it was proven that the attacks targeting Saudi Arabia were launched from a location within the governorate.
The official agency quoted the head of the Security Media Authority, Lieutenant General Saad Maan, as saying, “An intelligence committee discovered the platform from which the drones were launched inside Iraqi territory.” He continued: “The investigation is ongoing and ongoing, with the help of intelligence and technical efforts and forensic evidence, as well as fingerprints and other details related to completing the investigation to reach whoever committed this act.” Maan stressed that “the focus is on who committed the act, and there is a new vision and a new line, the purpose of which is to insist on not giving any opportunity to those who try to mix the cards or drag Iraq into what we do not want.”
The security official stressed that Iraq does not allow any aggression against countries in the region, indicating that it “seeks to be a positive meeting point in the Middle East and the entire world.” He pointed out that "contact was made with the Saudi side to clarify the measures taken by the government." Iran entered the line after it officially asked Iraq to participate in the investigation, which Al-Zaidi agreed to, according to the government’s military spokesman.
Politically, the leader of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan Party, Pavel Talabani, held a series of meetings with Iranian leaders during a visit he made, on Tuesday, to Tehran, which he began with a meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ismail Baghaei said that Talabani’s visit to Tehran comes at the invitation of the Iranian Foreign Minister, and within the framework of the ongoing consultations that Iran is conducting with the Iraqi government and the Iraqi Kurdistan Regional Government, with the aim of expanding bilateral relations and promoting peace and stability in the region, economic cooperation and border security. The Kurdish official's visit to Tehran came a day after various areas in Sulaymaniyah, the stronghold of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan party, were attacked by five missiles believed to be Iranian, which leads sources and observers to suggest that the visit will focus on the security file.
A statement from the National Union Party said that the meeting between Talabani and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi “discussed the latest political changes and military developments in the region, and that Jalal Talabani stressed that the problems need a peaceful solution and continuous dialogue.” The statement quoted Talabani as emphasizing his party’s efforts to “consolidate peace and calm the situation, and that the Kurdistan region respects the security and sovereignty of neighboring countries, and we are bound by a common and ancient history with the Iranian people.”
In turn, a senior Kurdish source believes that Talabani will present to the Iranian side a wide range of security, political and economic issues, given the large delegation accompanying him. The source does not rule out that “Talabani will convey a message from Washington to Tehran, given the good relations between Talabani and his party with the two capitals.” But he agrees with the point of view that gives priority to the security file, given the many attacks launched by Iran and its factions in Iraq on Kurdistan under the pretext of the presence of some Iranian Kurdish parties within the region. According to some statistics and sources, at least 6 Kurdish parties opposed to Tehran operate inside Iraq within the borders of the Kurdistan region, including the Iranian Kurdistan Democratic Party and the Free Life Party - PJAK, in addition to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, known as Komla.
These parties agreed at the beginning of this year to unify their political ranks to form a joint coalition known as the “Coalition of Political Forces of Iranian Kurdistan,” in a move that appears to seek to keep pace with regional developments and the ongoing conflict between the United States and Iran, and the consequences that may result from it. The source believes that “discussing the security situation with Tehran has become a priority for Sulaymaniyah and Kurdistan in general, given the fears and damage it causes to lives and property. I do not rule out that Talabani will ask the Iranian side to put pressure on its factions and allies inside Iraq to reduce pressure and attacks on the region.”
Despite Iraqi regional and federal assurances to the Iranian side that it will not be allowed to be attacked from within Iraqi territory, Iran and its factions have continued, for many months, to target the region under various pretexts. In 2023, Baghdad and Tehran signed a comprehensive military security memorandum of understanding with the aim of securing the common border between the two countries, neutralizing the Iranian opposition within Iraqi territory in Kurdistan, and closing and moving its headquarters about 50 kilometers away from the Iranian border. However, these measures did not prevent the Iranian side from continuing attacks on Kurdistan.
