The National Security Council’s decision to authorize retaliatory action by the PMF and other military and security forces, in effect, marks Baghdad’s clear departure from years of restraint. This move is not merely a tactical reaction to recent attacks; rather, it reflects a shift in Iraq’s security doctrine—one now grounded in “active response to aggression.”
The summoning of the US embassy’s chargé d’affaires and the submission of an official protest note further indicate that the Iraqi government seeks to anchor this shift within the framework of international law and the principle of national sovereignty. In essence, Baghdad has conveyed two simultaneous messages: first, its rejection of violations of its sovereignty; and second, its readiness to respond directly.
This development must also be analyzed in the context of domestic public pressure. Widespread public protests against foreign attacks have pushed the government toward adopting a more explicit stance, thereby reinforcing the domestic legitimacy of this decision.
Emergence of a New Official Front in the Region
With the formalization of the “right to respond,” Iraq is effectively becoming a more active player within the principle of confrontation with the United States and Israel. This situation amounts to the opening of a new front at the regional level—one no longer reliant solely on non-state actors, but backed by direct state support.
The martyrdom of several PMF commanders and personnel in what are described as aggressive attacks by the United States and the Zionist regime, including Saad Duwai al-Baiji, has served as an accelerating factor in this process. Such events typically lead to greater cohesion among resistance forces and a strengthened resolve to respond.
At the same time, the backing of Iraqi political and religious currents—including the positions taken by Sayyid Ammar al-Hakim in response to recent US-Israeli attacks on PMF forces—points to the emergence of a form of internal consensus. This consensus is strategically significant, as any military action in its absence could have triggered internal divisions.
Regional Security and Deterrence Implications
Iraq’s decision could significantly reshape deterrence dynamics in the region. Previously, attacks on resistance forces in Iraq often went unanswered directly by the government; that equation now appears to have shifted.
Reports indicating the withdrawal of US and NATO forces from Victoria Base suggest that even before the full implementation of this policy, signs of its impact are already visible. This development could lead to a reduction in foreign military presence, or at least to a reconfiguration of force deployments.
At a broader level, the decision is likely to raise the operational costs for the United States and its allies in the region. As the scope of responses expands, so too does the likelihood of entering an escalating cycle of tension—one that could affect the entire region.
Scenarios Ahead and Future of Developments
In the short term, an increase in reciprocal attacks and a further escalation of tensions is likely. Iraq now finds itself in a position where it must strike a balance between maintaining internal stability and responding to external pressures.
In the medium term, if this policy is accompanied by internal cohesion and regional support, it could strengthen Iraq’s position as an independent actor in the region. This would not only elevate Baghdad’s standing in regional equations, but could also present a new model of interaction between the state and resistance forces.
In the long term, the emergence of such a front may lead to a redefinition of the region’s security order—one in which regional actors play a more prominent role and dependence on external powers is reduced.
NOURNEWS