Saudi Arabia's Response... and Iraq's Exposure

Iran has exposed Iraq’s weakness. This comes after the Islamic Republic of Iran has gone to great lengths in its attacks on both distant and nearby neighbors, revealing the extent of its bankruptcy as a system founded in 1979 on the idea of “exporting the revolution,” and highlighting the inability of any state in the region to trust it.

The Saudi response, which consisted of striking sites belonging to “Popular Mobilization” (Hashd al-Shaabi) in Iraq, was merely a natural reaction to the exposure of the Iraqi government’s inability to control the country and decide on matters of peace and war.

Iran carried out its attacks directly or through proxies, utilizing its regional leverage, particularly in Iraq, where it strives daily to prove that the country remains under its dominance.

The attacks targeting the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, launched from Iraqi territory, illustrate the fragility of the situation in a country unable to regain its balance. The Saudi response, which targeted sites of “Popular Mobilization” militias, signaled that the war in the region has entered a new phase, following Saudi Arabia’s unequivocal declaration that it is no longer prepared to endure Iranian blackmail indefinitely, and that patience has its limits.

The Islamic Republic is currently employing all its available cards to escalate the war it is waging against the United States. It is unable to admit that it is not a superpower and that it must reach an understanding with the Donald Trump administration that would transform it into a normal state rather than a dominant power imposing its will on others through Iraq, Yemen, and Lebanon. It is difficult for the Islamic Republic to acknowledge that escalation serves no purpose. Moreover, this escalation reveals the reality of the Iraqi situation: Iraq cannot exist outside the Iranian sphere of control. Despite all efforts by the government, including setting a deadline for eliminating weapons outside state control, it remains unable to break free.

Prime Minister Ali al-Allaq recently visited Washington. Donald Trump showered him with praise when he received him in the Oval Office. It took only a few days to become clear that the Iraqi gamble for the White House occupant was misplaced, and that al-Allaq is unable to cleanse Iraq of Iran’s direct influence.

Ultimately, while al-Allaq launched a largely successful campaign against corruption in Iraq, it is also true that this campaign has not reached the true heads of a corrupt system that emerged in 2003, resulting from the George W. Bush administration handing Iraq to Iran on a silver platter.

There is a clear link between corruption in Iraq and the role played by Iran in the country, particularly because corruption is used not only to fund Iraqi militias affiliated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), but also to finance the Islamic Republic’s treasury and its regional instruments.

Donald Trump’s statement that “we will teach Iran a harsh lesson and consider strikes targeting its proxies” is insufficient. Such rhetoric remains mere words, despite new American strikes on Iran, in the absence of a clear stance on Iraq’s status. The required American position should be an unambiguous acknowledgment that the country remains under Iranian control and poses a threat to its neighbors. There are IRGC bases on the borders of Iraq and Jordan, and even Syria. Furthermore, most of the missiles launched by Iran toward Kuwait originated from Iraqi territory.

The most dangerous aspect of the matter is that Iranian attacks on Saudi Arabia, conducted through Iraq, have revealed not only the government’s shortcomings. These attacks have shown that the “Islamic Republic” does not respect the agreements it signs with other countries. This includes the agreement Saudi Arabia and Iran signed in Beijing in 2023. Iran has not only violated this agreement through the Houthis in Yemen, but has also deliberately affirmed that Iraq is within its sphere of influence. Moreover, the “Islamic Republic” appears ready to use Iraq in the war it is waging against the Gulf Cooperation Council countries and Jordan.

Donald Trump’s statements that the attacks targeting “Popular Mobilization” units in Iraq, which were carried out in coordination between Saudi Arabia and the U.S. Central Command, “were conducted in coordination with the Iraqi government,” are of no avail. Such remarks amount to ignoring an unavoidable reality. This reality boils down to a very simple question: What is Iraq’s position in the regional equation, and can it be more than a pawn orbiting within Iran’s gravitational pull?

It is regrettable that Ali al-Zaidi’s attempt to balance his government’s relationship with Iran on one hand and with neighboring Arab states on the other was not a serious endeavor. The Iraqi prime minister was forced to announce the postponement of his visit to Riyadh, at least for the time being. This is a logical postponement, pending clarification of Iraq’s position in the regional equation and whether it is possible for the country to break free from Iranian dominance...

The “Popular Mobilization” forces, which comprise a number of militias, symbolize this ongoing dominance since 2003. The salaries of militia members are drawn from the Iraqi state budget. Trump’s talk of “coordination” with al-Zaidi’s government is of no use; rather, it is an evasion of the fundamental question concerning his bet on Iraq—a bet that is futile as long as the Iraqi militias’ weapons hold the first and final say in a country where Iranian military advisors roam freely and act with impunity.