Nournews: The joint U.S.-Saudi attacks on targets in the Iraqi provinces of Wasit, Karbala, Nineveh, Salah al-Din, Kirkuk, Diyala, and Basra cannot be viewed merely as a limited military operation. Rather, they constitute a blatant violation of Iraq's national sovereignty and an attack on one of the official pillars of the country's security structure.

The strikes have been justified by an unsubstantiated allegation that the Iraqi resistance launched a drone attack against Saudi Arabia. However, the available evidence suggests that, rather than demonstrating the strength of Washington and Riyadh, the operation is an attempt to conceal their strategic setbacks—particularly in the face of Yemen's resistance—and to open a new chapter of regional instability. Such a course of action could ultimately leave its architects facing the most severe security and political consequences.

The PMF: The Real Target of the Attack and a Test for International Law

In reality, the recent attack was directed not against what Western media describe as "Iran-backed militias," but against a component of Iraq's official security apparatus. Although the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) were originally established following a religious decree to combat terrorism, they were subsequently incorporated into Iraq's legal framework as an official force tasked with safeguarding national security alongside the Iraqi Armed Forces. Their funding, equipment, and logistical support are all provided by the Iraqi government. Referring to the strikes as an "attack on militia headquarters" is therefore little more than an attempt to legitimize an overt act of aggression.

Moreover, Iraqi officials have categorically denied that any attack on Saudi Arabia originated from Iraqi territory. The Iraqi resistance has consistently claimed responsibility for its operations openly, and secrecy has never been part of its operational approach. Consequently, relying on an unverified allegation to justify military action against Iraqi territory lacks legal credibility and constitutes a clear violation of international law and the sovereignty of an independent state. The silence of those who claim to champion international law—including the United Nations—raises serious and thought-provoking questions.

Arbaeen: Fear of the Muslim World's Soft Power

The timing of these attacks, as the world's largest annual religious gathering approaches, reinforces the possibility that the objectives of the operation extend beyond military considerations. For years, Arbaeen has evolved beyond a religious observance into a symbol of solidarity among Muslim nations and a demonstration of the resistance movement's soft power.

Past experience has shown that whenever this massive gathering approaches, efforts are made to create insecurity, spread psychological fear, and discourage pilgrims from participating.

Viewed in this context, the recent attacks can be seen as part of the same strategy—a strategy aimed at creating an atmosphere of threat to hinder the spread of Arbaeen's message and reduce the large-scale participation of pilgrims. Yet experience has also demonstrated that such measures have failed to diminish the significance of the event; instead, they have strengthened pilgrims' determination to attend and uphold their ideals.

Riyadh's Costly Gamble and the Emerging Regional Security Equation

The joint U.S.-Saudi operation cannot be analyzed in isolation from the broader chain of recent regional developments. From the intensification of attacks on Yemen and Gaza to mounting security pressure on the Axis of Resistance, a series of coordinated actions appears to be taking shape, signaling Washington's entry into a new phase of managing tensions in West Asia.

In this framework, Saudi Arabia appears less as an independent actor than as a participant in a broader strategy designed by the United States to reshape the regional balance of power—a strategy that reflects the failure of previous military and political options rather than their success.

These developments once again underscore the need to move toward an indigenous regional security framework, an approach that the Islamic Republic of Iran has advocated for years. At the same time, from Tehran's perspective, the continuation of pressure, threats, and military actions alongside calls for negotiations represents a contradictory and unacceptable policy.

Accordingly, Iran maintains that it reserves its inherent right to defend its national interests and security, while emphasizing that lasting regional stability can only be achieved when foreign intervention comes to an end and regional security arrangements are based on cooperation among the countries of the region rather than the intervention of extra-regional powers.