Policy Assessment Dr. Mohamad Kawas – Progress Center for Policies
Introduction
Observers are surprised that Iraq has raised a border dispute with Kuwait at a time when the region is witnessing a fierce war that could prove pivotal and historic for the entire Middle East. The dispute stems from the legacy of a previous conflict between the two countries during the era of Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq, which led to catastrophe for both nations and the region. What are the facts of the current development, the motives behind its timing, and the potential repercussions?
The Facts
On January 19 and then February 9, 2026, according to a statement by the Iraqi Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Baghdad deposited Iraq’s maritime maps and geographical coordinates with the UN Secretary-General (Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea).
The first submission included preliminary lists of geographic coordinates accompanied by an illustrative map. The second submission contained a supplementary update that triggered diplomatic escalation, as Kuwait considered it an infringement on its sovereignty in specific maritime areas.
On February 21, 2026, Kuwait summoned the Iraqi chargé d’affaires, Zaid Abbas, and delivered an official protest note, considering the coordinates to infringe upon its sovereignty over areas such as “Fasht Al-Qaid” and “Fasht Al-Aij.”
Iraq’s Foreign Ministry clarified that the deposit is a “sovereign matter” replacing previous submissions (2011 and 2021) and aims to update data in accordance with the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
Iraqi Foreign Minister Fuad Hussein noted that Kuwait had deposited its maps in 2014 without consulting Iraq and called for bilateral legal dialogue.
On February 24, 2026, the coalition led by current Prime Minister Mohammed Shia’ Al-Sudani, “Reconstruction and Development,” announced that depositing the maritime maps at the UN was the first initiative to settle this file and represents affirmation of Iraq’s maritime rights.
Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman) issued strong statements of solidarity with Kuwait, describing the Iraqi submission as an infringement on sovereignty.
Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Ministry stated: “The Kingdom categorically rejects any claims indicating rights for any party in the submerged area beyond the agreed borders between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the State of Kuwait.”
Egypt’s Foreign Ministry said it is following the issue with concern, affirming the importance of respecting Kuwait’s sovereignty and calling for dialogue that preserves the interests of both countries and regional stability.
Jordan emphasized dialogue, adherence to international law, and respect for sovereignty and good neighborly relations, while supporting Kuwait’s sovereignty.
Experts say what was deposited are not entirely new maps but an official update of coordinates and an illustrative map defining Iraq’s maritime areas under UNCLOS.
They add that the maps did not fundamentally alter the land borders (drawn under UN Security Council Resolution 833 in 1993) but affect interpretation in disputed maritime areas, particularly beyond Boundary Point 162 (the end of agreed land-sea demarcation).
Experts believe Iraq sees this as a sovereign step to strengthen its position in negotiations over Khor Abdullah and navigation access to its ports (Umm Qasr, Al-Faw).
Kuwaiti objections reportedly center on the inclusion of maritime areas and shoals (Fasht Al-Qaid, Fasht Al-Aij) within Iraqi domains, which Kuwait considers long-established under its full sovereignty and not previously disputed.
Specialists note that the dispute is not entirely new but an extension of a historical conflict predating Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait.
Under Saddam Hussein, Iraq argued that its maritime frontage was too narrow (about 13 km of Gulf coastline) and that Kuwait restricted adequate maritime access, prompting calls for “re-demarcation.”
After Kuwait’s liberation in 1991, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 833 (1993), demarcating land borders and part of the maritime boundary, leaving Khor Abdullah for negotiation.
In 2012, an agreement regulating navigation in Khor Abdullah was concluded to ease tensions. However, Iraq’s Federal Supreme Court in September 2023 invalidated it (due to failure to secure a two-thirds parliamentary majority), reopening the dispute and echoing Saddam-era resistance to perceived “maritime restrictions.”
Arab diplomatic sources cite several reasons for the timing:
Regional tensions with Iran over the Dorra gas field (shared with Kuwait).
Rising influence of militias in Iraq.
Post-election political crisis and the need for political forces to demonstrate defense of sovereignty.
Iraq’s economic challenges, particularly reliance on oil and ports such as Umm Qasr, with maritime boundaries affecting revenues and navigation.
Populist pressures in southern Iraq to defend sovereignty after the 2023 court ruling.
A possible attempt to strengthen Iraq’s negotiating position in broader oil/water issues or respond to Gulf pressures in other regional matters.
Although no clear mediation has emerged, contacts within the GCC and the Arab League are not ruled out, with potential Jordanian or Omani initiatives.
If Iraq takes further steps (such as filing additional maps or complaints), Kuwait could turn to international arbitration or the UN Security Council.
Conclusion
The crisis extends tensions that intensified after Iraq’s Federal Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the 2012 Khor Abdullah navigation agreement.
The dispute remains diplomatic and does not resemble the military escalation of 1990, but it once again strains Iraqi–Kuwaiti relations.
Rapid GCC solidarity reflects a desire to firmly support a member state despite internal Gulf tensions.
Arab positions such as Egypt and Jordan call for balanced dialogue and respect for international agreements.
Populist pressures in southern Iraq may be pushing Baghdad toward asserting maritime claims.
Political competition over forming a new Iraqi government may also explain the timing.
Given Iraq’s ties with Iran, Baghdad’s move cannot be separated from Tehran’s stance on the Dorra gas field with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
Though no formal mediation is visible, efforts from within the GCC and Arab League remain possible.
Further escalation could lead Kuwait to pursue international arbitration or Security Council action.
