Iran Presses Iraq to Fully Restore Flights as US Sanctions Bite

Iran has formally appealed to Iraq to scrap the remaining restrictions on air travel between the two neighbours, arguing that services must return to normal despite the pressure Washington is exerting through its sanctions regime. In a statement issued on Thursday, Iran's Foreign Ministry urged Baghdad to remove the curbs, characterising the American measures as both unlawful and cruel.

The ministry's rebuke targeted what it described as the extraterritorial application of US sanctions, a practice Tehran says is designed to choke off its commercial and aviation links with other countries. It called on Iraqi authorities to take what it termed an independent and responsible stance on the disagreements between the two governments, suggesting that the current restrictions do not serve the interests of either side.

At the heart of Iran's argument is the sheer scale of movement between the two countries. The Foreign Ministry noted that millions of Iranian and Iraqi citizens depend on cross-border travel, whether for family visits, commerce, medical care or religious observance. Restricting that movement, it argued, imposes hardship on ordinary people who have no connection to the political disputes driving the sanctions.

The dispute follows a partial easing of the situation earlier in the week, when flights between the Iraqi city of Najaf and Iran resumed late on Monday. Iraq's state-run news agency attributed the restart to what it called diligent efforts by Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi, a sign that Baghdad has been working behind the scenes to keep channels open despite the American measures.

Iraq's ambassador to Iran, Yasser Abdulzahra al-Hajjaj, added a further layer of nuance by stating that Baghdad had never actually decided to suspend Iranian flights in the first place. That claim points to the real obstacle behind the disruption: foreign ground-handling companies at Iraqi airports refused to service the flights, apparently fearing they would expose themselves to US penalties.

That distinction matters. If the suspension was never a formal Iraqi government policy, then the restrictions may be more a product of corporate risk aversion than of state action. Tehran's appeal therefore appears aimed as much at reassuring potential service providers as at pressuring Iraqi officials, since without ground handling, no flight can operate regardless of what Baghdad decrees.

Even with Najaf back online, the broader picture remains grim. Flights stayed grounded at Baghdad, Erbil and Sulaimaniyah airports, forcing travellers to undertake overland journeys of at least twelve hours. That disruption has been especially painful for pilgrims moving between the Shia-majority regions of both countries, a flow of people with deep religious and cultural significance.

The frustration has spilled onto the streets. Protests were reported outside Najaf international airport and in the southern and central cities of Nasiriya, Karbala and Amarah, according to the Iranian broadcaster Press TV. The images from Najaf, where demonstrators gathered against the US restrictions, underscored how quickly an aviation dispute can become a popular grievance.

The trigger for the crisis was a US ban that came into force on September 23, targeting any company that does business with Iranian airlines. The measure has sharply curtailed Iran's international air connections, effectively forcing foreign carriers and service firms to choose between the Iranian market and access to the United States.

The numbers illustrate the damage. Flights to and from Tehran's Imam Khomeini international airport have dropped by 42 percent, according to the aviation tracking service FlightRadar24. Routes to Georgia, Oman and Azerbaijan have been halted altogether, while services to Dubai have been suspended since September 23.

Not all routes have collapsed. Flights to China have remained steady, and the busiest route, to Turkiye, has declined by only 19 percent, even as individual airlines have moved in and out of the market. That pattern suggests that geography and bilateral ties still shape how far Washington's measures can reach.

Iraq had already sought relief from the United States, requesting an exemption on humanitarian grounds covering medical treatment, education, religious visits and the interests of civilians. That request reflects Baghdad's difficult position as it tries to balance its relationship with Washington against its deep social, economic and religious ties with its eastern neighbour.

For Iran, the aviation restrictions are part of a wider economic squeeze. By pressuring third-country companies rather than Iranian carriers directly, Washington has extended the reach of its sanctions well beyond its own borders, a strategy Tehran condemns as a violation of international norms. The Foreign Ministry's language about illegality and inhumanity is a deliberate framing, aimed at generating sympathy among governments that resent being forced to choose sides.

Regional airlines have already felt the chill. The United Arab Emirates barred Iranian carriers in late September, and other operators have quietly adjusted schedules to avoid running afoul of US rules. The cumulative effect is an Iranian aviation sector increasingly isolated from its neighbours, with land borders and a handful of resilient routes carrying the burden.

The question now is whether Iraq can find a way to restore full service without provoking Washington. Najaf's reopening offers a template, but the refusal of ground-handling firms remains the binding constraint. Unless those companies are assured they will not be penalised, Baghdad's declarations may amount to little in practice.

For the millions who rely on these routes, the stakes are immediate and personal. Patients seeking treatment abroad, students travelling to universities and families separated by borders all face longer, costlier and more dangerous journeys. Iran's appeal to Iraq is, at its core, an attempt to put those human consequences back at the centre of a dispute that has been framed largely in geopolitical terms. Whether Baghdad can deliver will depend on how much room Washington is willing to allow.