Iraq oil agreements worth more than $60 billion were signed Friday in Washington, as Western energy companies moved to deepen their position in a country simultaneously seeking closer U.S. ties and a way to move its oil that doesn’t depend on the Strait of Hormuz.

The deals came at a U.S.-Iraq business summit hosted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, where Iraqi officials signed non-binding agreements and memorandums of understanding with American energy, healthcare, and technology firms.

Baghdad’s Message: Everyone Is Welcome

Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi framed Iraq’s approach in the simplest possible terms.

Speaking through a translator, he described an open-door policy — inviting anyone with a project to come and talk, and promising that Iraq would not make things difficult for anyone.

That posture reflects a country trying to attract capital quickly, at a moment when its export capacity is under pressure and its regional position is shifting.

The War Next Door

The U.S.-Israeli war on Iran has destabilised Iraq’s neighbour and the broader region.

Tom Barrack, a regional envoy for President Donald Trump, offered a two-sided reading. The conflict has produced chaos and confusion, he acknowledged. But it has also placed Iraq at the forefront of what he described as a new strategic security alliance with the United States and others.

That framing captures why these agreements are landing now. Instability has costs, but it also creates openings — and Iraq is positioning itself as the stable partner in an unstable neighbourhood.

Chevron Moves on Two Major Fields

Zaidi visited Chevron’s Houston headquarters Thursday before Iraqi officials signed agreements advancing the company’s potential entry into the West Qurna 2 and Nassiriya oilfields.

But Chevron’s more strategically significant commitment involves pipe rather than wells.

Jake Spiering, a Chevron president of corporate business development, told the Chamber event that the company will invest in a pipeline designed to bypass the Strait of Hormuz entirely — creating a new export route out of Iraq.

The proposed path would carry Iraqi crude to Syria’s west coast on the Mediterranean.

Why the Hormuz Bypass Matters

Iraq’s exports have been badly damaged by the war, largely because of the partial closure of the strait that normally carries around 20 percent of the world’s oil and gas.

For a country dependent on oil revenue, having a single maritime chokepoint control access to global markets is an existential vulnerability. A Mediterranean route removes that dependency.

The strategic logic extends beyond Iraq. Every barrel that reaches market without transiting Hormuz reduces the leverage that control over the strait provides.

Spiering also offered a longer-term vision, suggesting Iraq’s energy potential could eventually make it the Middle East’s equivalent of the Henry Hub natural gas and Cushing oil trading centres in the United States — not merely a producer, but a regional pricing and trading hub.

ConocoPhillips Buys Into Kirkuk

ConocoPhillips announced it had agreed to acquire a 42 percent stake in BP Energy of Kirkuk Ltd, partnering with BP on the redevelopment of four producing oilfields in northern Iraq.

The move brings a major American producer into fields with a century of history behind them.

BP’s Long View

BP CEO Meg O’Neill described Iraq as holding fantastic potential from a resource perspective, and framed the partnerships as contributing to both Iraqi and global energy security.

BP’s history in the country runs deep. The company was involved in the original discovery of Kirkuk in 1927 — a connection that predates modern Iraq’s political geography.

ConocoPhillips CEO Ryan Lance acknowledged his company lacks that lineage but pointed to experience operating in difficult environments, citing Alaska’s North Slope.

His stated aim was bringing technology, expertise, personnel, and capital to help the Iraqi people.

The Political Backdrop

Zaidi’s five-day U.S. trip included a White House meeting with Trump on Tuesday.

Trump said afterward that the United States would be doing substantial deals with Iraq, framing the relationship in terms of job creation on both sides.

The alignment of interests is clear enough. Washington wants regional partners and non-Iranian energy supply. Baghdad wants investment, export routes, and security guarantees. Energy companies want access to some of the world’s largest and least-developed reserves.

The Caveats Worth Noting

Two things temper the headline number.

First, the agreements are non-binding. MOUs signal intent, not commitment. The gap between announced deal value and actual deployed capital in energy projects is frequently substantial.

Second, the Syria pipeline is a proposal, not infrastructure. Building a crude export line across Syrian territory involves security, political, and financing challenges that have defeated similar plans before.

What to Watch

Three developments will show whether Friday’s announcements translate into something durable.

Whether Chevron’s West Qurna 2 and Nassiriya arrangements convert from memorandums into signed contracts with defined terms.

Whether the Syria pipeline advances past the concept stage — including who funds it, who secures it, and whether Damascus and Baghdad reach workable terms.

And whether Hormuz reopens. If the strait returns to normal operation, the urgency behind alternative export routes diminishes considerably, and the economics of expensive new pipelines look different than they do today.