Shafaq News
Just days into 2026, a wave of escalating
developments, from US attacks in Venezuela and massive protests Iran to
intensified Saudi-led airstrikes in Yemen, has sharpened concerns that the
international system is sliding into a new phase of conflict, one defined less
by direct wars and more by proxy battles, internal destabilization, and geopolitical
pressure with potential repercussions for Iraq and the wider region.
Observers, interviewed by Shafaq News,
argue that the compressed timing of these developments is no coincidence.
Instead, it reflects a broader international shift led by the United States and
its allies toward reshaping conflict management. Rather than large-scale
military invasions, pressure now unfolds through destabilization from within
-street movements, factional conflicts, and selective military strikes- raising
concerns that Iraq could soon be drawn deeper into this evolving landscape.
From Moscow, Asif Melhem, head of the GSM
Center for Research and Studies, frames current developments as part of a wider
pattern of “managed chaos.” In his view, unrest in places such as Iran,
Lebanon, Gaza, and Yemen may each have local triggers, but they ultimately
intersect with US-led global strategy.
Melhem argues that internal turmoil
provides Western powers with leverage. Economic protests in Iran, for example,
“allow pressure to be repackaged as a democracy and governance issue, creating
pathways for political and institutional coercion through international
bodies.” Similar instability in Yemen, Lebanon, and Syria, in his opinion,
opens space not only for intervention but also for limiting the influence of
rival powers such as Russia and China.
Ahmed Fouad Anwar, professor of Zionist
studies at Alexandria University, describes the current phase as a
“reproduction of proxy wars in a new format.” According to Anwar,
confrontations have shifted from direct clashes to “backyard battles,” where
local crises become bargaining chips among major powers.
He warns that Iraq could be pulled into
this pattern through internal unrest, mirroring scenarios seen in Yemen and
Sudan. For Anwar, conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon illustrate how indirect
pressure can achieve strategic aims without formal declarations of war, turning
regional files into negotiable assets within broader international deals.
From Ramallah, international relations
expert Ashraf Akka goes further, describing the current moment as a “clear
marker of a new regional phase.” He contends that Iraq sits at the center of a
strategy aimed at containing Iran and dismantling any political project that
challenges US–Israeli–Western influence.
Akka argues that fragmentation across the
Middle East is no longer theoretical but imminent, driven by what he views as a
transparent push for dominance and resource control. In his assessment, the
region is uniquely exposed due to implicit understandings among major powers
that tolerate or enable such interventions.
Ahmed Al-Yasiri, head of the
Arab-Australian Center for Strategic Studies, links the current escalation to
political timing rather than crisis. He believes many of these files were
effectively postponed until 2026.
Al-Yasiri points to Yemen as an example of
diverging priorities between Saudi Arabia and the UAE, while describing Iran’s
protests as internal pressure designed to pave the way for external targeting.
Venezuela, meanwhile, has re-entered Washington’s strategic equation,
resembling a renewed attempt at political change rather than isolated
confrontation.
In Baghdad, political scientist Issam
Al-Feyli sees a coherent US approach aimed at neutralizing perceived threats,
whether in Venezuela or Iran. The methods vary, from military pressure to
street mobilization, but the strategic outcome remains consistent.
Al-Feyli notes that US engagement in
Venezuela took a direct military-political form, while Iran faces pressure
through internal unrest, warning that Washington may act either directly or
through allies, particularly Israel, which he says is preparing a distinct form
of escalation against Iran. Talk of a brief “12-day war,” he suggests, may have
been only an opening chapter.
Regarding Iraq, Al-Feyli stresses that
recent messages delivered by US envoy Savaya carried explicit demands:
disarmament of factions, anti-corruption measures, and an end to external
interference. He draws parallels with pre-intervention signals sent to
Venezuela, cautioning that no region should assume immunity from US targeting.
For Al-Feyli, the announcement surrounding
the arrest of Venezuela’s president and his wife served as a warning beyond
Caracas, signaling to leaders worldwide that defiance of US interests could
carry personal and political consequences.
Taken together, these perspectives
converge on a shared conclusion: the international system is entering a phase
where instability itself becomes a strategic instrument. The Middle East,
already fractured by unresolved conflicts, appears especially vulnerable.
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth recently
declared that Washington can “impose its will anywhere, at any time.” And
analysts interpret such rhetoric as confirmation that pressure campaigns,
whether overt or indirect, will continue. For Iraq and its neighbors, the
challenge lies in navigating this environment without becoming the next testing
ground for a conflict whose tools may have changed, but whose costs remain
devastating.
Written and edited by Shafaq News staff.
