Shafaq News-
Baghdad
Attacks launched by
armed factions from Iraqi territory toward neighboring countries, particularly
Syria and Kuwait, have prompted a joint statement from six Arab states urging
Baghdad to halt the operations, according to official statements.
Recent developments
show that these attacks have expanded beyond military targets to include
civilian infrastructure, as reported by Kuwaiti authorities, despite claims by
the factions that their operations are limited to US military facilities.
Saudi Arabia,
Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar, and Jordan urged the Iraqi
government “to take immediate measures to halt attacks carried out by
factions, militias, and armed groups from Iraqi soil toward neighboring
states.” They emphasized the need to safeguard fraternal ties and prevent
further escalation. Baghdad responded by calling on any party with evidence to
submit it.
Regional Escalation
and Official Stance
Syrian political
analyst Ahmed Kamel said the strikes primarily undermine Iraq, explaining that
the missiles used are limited in scale and impact, often hitting non-critical
locations, “but place Iraq at risk of being drawn into the conflict.”
Researcher Ziad
Al-Arrar stated that Iraq has moved beyond serving as a transit arena and has
become “an active party” in the war. He anticipated that shelling
launched from Iraqi territory toward a base in Syria would carry consequences
for relations between Baghdad and Damascus, as well as for broader regional and
international assessments of Iraq’s position.
“The Iraqi
government is striving to avoid direct involvement, describing the country as
being in a sensitive position,” Al-Arrar noted, adding that efforts by the
government and political actors to distance Iraq from the conflict face
significant challenges, given the ongoing confrontation between the United
States and Israel on one side and Iran on the other, alongside the alignment of
armed factions with Tehran and growing Arab criticism of attacks targeting
neighboring countries from within Iraq.
The escalation
intensified following the outbreak of US-Israeli hostilities with Iran on
February 28, when multiple Iraqi factions affiliated with the so-called
“Islamic Resistance” entered the confrontation, carrying out dozens
of operations against US positions inside Iraq and across several Gulf states,
in addition to Jordan.
In a televised
interview, Iraqi Foreign Minister Fuad Hussein reaffirmed the government’s
rejection of Iraq becoming a party to the conflict, while acknowledging that
the country has turned into an open arena for multidirectional fire. He said
Iraqi airspace has become a corridor for US and Israeli strikes against Iran,
as well as for Iranian strikes toward other destinations, “placing Iraq
amid a conflict it did not initiate.”
Read more: Tehranvs. Baghdad: Iraq’s armed factions face a strategic recalculation
Armed Factions’
Perspective
Figures close to
the factions present a different account, asserting that Iraq is implementing
measures to secure its borders. Moein Al-Kadhimi, a leader in the Badr
Organization, stressed that the government has deployed security forces along
the Syrian frontier, pointing to movements by ISIS within Syrian territory and
the presence of foreign bases.
Speaking to Shafaq
News, Al-Kadhimi described attacks targeting Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF)
positions as unjustified, adding that some strikes originate from inside Syria.
He called on the Syrian government to curb suspicious movements near the border
and prevent their use in ways that threaten Iraq’s security.
Legal Implications
Iraq’s Supreme
Judicial Council President Faiq Zaidan on Friday warned that unilateral
decisions by armed factions on war and peace could produce what he called
“serious consequences,” describing such actions as a breach of the
constitution.
Zaidan noted that
Article 61 (Ninth) restricts the declaration of war to a formal process
involving the Presidency, the prime minister, and a two-thirds parliamentary
majority. Actions outside this framework, he said, undermine governance and
weaken the rule of law.
“Attempts by
armed groups to engage in combat decisions independently pose a threat to
sovereignty and stability,” Zaidan cautioned, highlighting the risks of
fragmented authority and the potential to draw Iraq into conflict without
national consensus. He also warned that “bypassing elected institutions
could erode public trust and expose Iraq to international repercussions.”
Political
researcher Abdul Qader Al-Nayel highlighted a further legal dimension, stating
that Iraq’s constitution prohibits the use of its territory to launch attacks
against neighboring states, while Article Nine bans the formation of armed
groups outside the defense and interior ministries.
Al-Nayel noted that
Iraqi law classifies such armed groups as terrorist entities, with penalties
reaching capital punishment for using Iraqi territory to carry out attacks on
neighboring countries. He warned that the continuation of these operations without
decisive government deterrence places Iraq in a precarious international
position, and cautioned that targeted countries retain the right under
international law to pursue sources of fire.
Iraq as a Conflict
Arena
Political analyst
Ahmed Al-Hamdani told Shafaq News that the current situation reflects Iraq’s
longstanding role as a battleground for regional rivalries, describing it as a
venue for settling scores. He noted that Iraqi forces deployed along the Syrian
border have come under bombardment by US or Israeli forces, while instability
across the border continues to threaten Iraq’s security environment.
Zaidan concluded by
calling for stronger state control over arms and reinforced constitutional
institutions to safeguard stability and national sovereignty.
Read more: Iraq’s neutrality fades: Formal war involvement draws closer?
