Suchergebnisse

The fate of the 2,500 troop multi-national coalition force in Iraq remains uncertain as ongoing negotiations within the context of the Iraq-US Higher Coordinating Committee decide on its future.While there is general agreement that the counter-ISIS coalition in its present structure should end, both sides agree that there is a need for ongoing military assistance but in a bi-lateral framework.One of the key players in this discussion is Iraq's National Security Advisor, Qasim al Araji, a longstanding official in the Iraqi security establishment. He was trained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps and fought against the regime of Saddam Hussein before returning to Iraq in 2003. After the 2003 invasion, he was one of the first high-level detainees held by the Americans and released three months later, only to be detained again in 2007 and held until 2009 at Camp Bucca. Sometime after that he joined the Iranian-supported Badr Corps, was elected to Parliament in 2014 and was appointed as Iraq's Minister of Interior in 2017, and National Security Advisor in 2020. Despite a checkered relationship with the U.S. prior to 2017, his terms as Minister of Interior and National Security Advisor have won praise from foreign military and diplomatic officials who note his professionalism and willingness to work together, with the Americans in particular, on security "portfolios" of mutual concerns. In a long interview on 1 March on the sidelines of the Antalya Diplomacy Forum, he discussed the major threats facing his country with Responsible Statecraft. Asked about his thoughts on "America's obsession with Iran", he replied with humor: "My answer? Iran is obsessed with the American influence in Iraq as well. The view of the Iraqi government is that we don't support either Iranian or American influence on Iraqi decision making." RS: What do you see as the major security challenges facing Iraq today? Al Araji: Since the defeat of Daesh, narcotics are now the biggest challenge for us. The interference of other countries is another threat to our stability. Iraq believes it should not interfere in the affairs of other countries and would expect the same from other countries. RS: Are you satisfied with the support of regional neighbors on issues such as ISIS and drug trafficking? Al Araji: Narcotics and drugs are a global challenge, so it needs regional and international cooperation, not only with our neighbors but with all the world. There is already some degree of cooperation, but I think we can do more as narcotics are a common threat to the stability and prosperity of all countries. RS: How dire is the threat posed by Daesh and how prepared are the Iraqi forces to handle it alone? Al Araji: Our battle with Daesh is primarily an intelligence battle. The information we have is that Daesh does not have many fighters in Iraq, but we should cooperate with other partners in sharing intelligence, and to fight and defeat the remaining Daesh fighters. We believe the main threat is the 10,000 Daesh foreign fighters from different countries in addition to those from Iraq and Syria. The remaining Daesh fighters in Iraq do not pose a significant threat to Iraq but they are still a threat. Iraq is capable of confronting Daesh by itself, but it needs to cooperate with others to dry up the financial support and other resources to Daesh. Last year we signed around 23 memorandums of understanding with our neighbors and other countries to deal with Daesh. I also think al Hol camp is a significant threat. We need to find a way to resolve the situation in al Hol, otherwise it will keep providing extremists for Daesh. We urge countries to repatriate their citizens as there are almost 60 countries with citizens in al Hol. There are about 4,000 Iraqi families in this camp, and Iraq has repatriated about 1,924 families, but there are many more that must be repatriated.RS: There has been concern over spillover effects from the Gaza war in the region and an escalation. What are your thoughts on how this is impacting Iraq?Al Araji: The spillover from Gaza will impact Iraq and the whole region at the same time. The war crimes happening in Gaza will impact the stability of the whole region. Humanity is rejecting what is happening in Gaza right now. The policy of starvation, the policy of killing, and the policy of displacing people is affecting the whole world, and I am wondering why the international community is unable to stop this war. Nobody can stop the sympathy toward what is happening right now to the Palestinian people in Gaza. I think you know about the American Air Force airman who burned himself to death because of Gaza. RS: There has been significant questions about the role of militias in the national security structures. Why can't the militias be demobilized and incorporated into the MOD and MOI? Al Araji: These factions are not working against the government but supporting the current government. Some of them played a role in defeating Daesh in Iraq. Yes, there isn't a legal framework for their existence in Iraq, our security institutions are very obvious, and the current government is doing its best to control the weapons that are outside of the government's control. These factions first formed during the occupation of the US troops in Iraq. Any country that feels it is occupied by another country would give rise to such resistance factions. After the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq in 2011, the country was stable with few major security problems. But when Daesh invaded and occupied over one third of our territory, these factions formed again to defeat Daesh. What is happening now in Gaza is an excuse for these factions to restart their activities, and that is embarrassing the government because the government is trying to do its best to prevent an escalation.We are in communication with them. I am personally talking to these factions and if some of them are willing to join the Iraq Security Forces, we can work on that together. The stability of Iraq depends on all weapons being under control of the State and government.RS: The US has been critical about the lack of action on attacks against their forces. Why is it so hard to capture and prosecute those responsible for the attacks?Al Araji: There are very clear orders and instructions from the government to capture and prosecute anyone who is playing a role in attacking the Americans. Those who attacked the American embassy were captured and arrested. And some of those who also attacked American advisors in the Iraqi bases are being arrested as well.RS: Do you believe it is time for the US-led coalition forces to leave Iraq or is there a compelling reason for them to remain? Al Araji: The Iraqi forces are capable of confronting Daesh and other security challenges, and this is understood by the global coalition. The relationships between Iraq and the global coalition are positive and we are looking forward to keeping these relationships friendly. We are friends and partners. They are here because we asked them to be here, and after 10 years, Iraq has the right to reassess the terms of this presence. There is an Iraqi-US Higher Coordinating Committee, and it will assess the presence of the Americans and the Coalition in IraqWe are waiting for the result of these committees and depending on the reports we will take action. Iraq wants to establish separate bilateral relations with the members of the global coalition. It already has a bilateral agreement with the Americans, and we are looking forward to strengthening bilateral relations with other countries. We really want to have bilateral cooperation with the US and all the other members of the coalition. RS: The Americans seem obsessed with the influence of Iran in Iraq. Is that a justified concern? Al Araji: (laughing) My answer? Iran is obsessed with the American influence in Iraq as well. The view of the Iraqi government is that we don't support either Iranian or American influence on Iraqi decision making. We have good relations with Iran and the US, but the conflict between both is negatively affecting Iraq. Hopefully Iraq will not be a proxy battlefield for them. I think restoring relations between the US and Iran will also help the relation between Iraq and the US and will affect Iraq positively overall.

Against the backdrop of the ongoing Gaza war and an enraged Arab street, the future of 2,500 U.S. troops stationed in Iraq is once again in question. Despite a full withdrawal in 2011, the government of Iraq "invited" U.S. forces to return in 2014 to combat Daesh, or ISIS. But seven years after the "Caliphate" was pronounced defeated, the multinational Combined Joint Task Force-Operation Inherent Resolve maintains a large military presence in Iraq, ostensibly to "work by, with and through regional partners to militarily defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, in order to enable whole-of-coalition governmental actions to increase regional stability."Despite those laudable intentions, attacks against U.S. military personnel have intensified and so has political pressure to conclude the mission, far beyond similar calls for expulsion following the targeting of Qassim Soleimani in 2020. The presence of foreign forces in general and the U.S. troops in particular is vexing to Iraq with its long history of occupation (although calling 2,500 non-combat forces an occupation is a bit of a stretch), but is also an opportunity, particularly among Iranian-backed political parties and militias, to create a strawman responsible for all of the country's ills.For many Iraqis the counter-ISIS coalition is like the guest who has overstayed his welcome."The presence of U.S. military forces on Iraqi soil has been increasingly causing problems to Iraq and its neighbors; it also gives a pretext to terrorists to resume their attacks on Iraqis," said Dhia Al-Asadi, former minister of state who headed the Al-Ahrar (Sadrist) Bloc in parliament. "These forces should withdraw immediately so that a legitimate, nationalist Iraqi government can take the lead and build its military and security capacity without unsolicited U.S. interference."Yet, not all Iraqis concur with those views."Despite the considerable strength of militia forces in Iraq, surpassing that of the Iraqi national army, their calls for the withdrawal of Americans and allies are primarily rhetorical," said Nahro Zagros, editor in chief of Kurdistan Chronicle and former vice president of Soran University in Erbil. "If the decision rested with the Iraqi populace, the majority would prefer the continued presence of Americans. However, Iraqi affairs are not under Iraqi control but influenced by neighboring powers."According to Falah Mustafa, a close adviser to the president of the Kurdistan Region on Foreign Policy Affairs, "any decision [on the future of the coalition forces] must be based on national consensus.""For the Kurdistan Region, certainly we are part of Iraq and we will abide by any decision that Iraq makes, but one single group of Iraqi society cannot determine this alone, because Iraq is a diverse country. Shias, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkmen, Chaldeans, Assyrians, and Christians, we all need to agree on this issue because it is about the stability, security of this country," he said.While the U.S. has sought to maintain a military presence in Iraq, arguments to keep them there do not stand up to scrutiny. There is an unspoken proposition that Iraq could be used as a launch platform for attacks against Iran or elsewhere, but this is specifically prohibited by the 2008 Strategic Framework Agreement, which remain the foundational document for the Iraq-U.S. relationship. It says, "The United States shall not use Iraqi land, sea, and air as a launching or transit point for attacks against other countries; nor seek or request permanent bases or a permanent military presence in Iraq."Besides, Iraq is not needed for this purpose. The U.S. currently has a major logistical base in Kuwait with over 13,000 army troops, a naval base in Bahrain housing the U.S. Fifth Fleet and Al Udeid Air Base in Doha is the largest military installation in the region with over 8,000 troops. The Persian Gulf can fit a Carrier Battle Group with ease. These, in addition to other bases in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Jordan and Turkey, maintain more than sufficient ground, air and naval assets to challenge any military force in the region. A second argument is the often-stated rhetorical trope that leaving Iraq would be a victory for the Iranians. While it may be a rhetorical victory for Iran, rhetoric should not be the basis for foreign policy. A military withdrawal from Iraq would be seen in Tehran as stabilizing Iran's western borders, but it must be acknowledged that the U.S. seeks the same outcome on its borders. The Monroe Doctrine has been the cornerstone of U.S. hemispheric policy for 200 years, just as Persian influence has driven similar aspirations towards Iraq for over a millennium. Former Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif famously said, "Look at the map. The U.S. military has travelled 10,000 kilometers to dot all our borders with its bases. There is a joke that it is Iran that put itself in the middle of U.S. bases."The U.S. argument conflates influence with interference. The economies and cultures of the two societies are vastly intermingled, shown most clearly with the hundreds of thousands of pilgrims which peacefully cross the borders annually to visit Qom and Najaf. Yet, the fundamental U.S. concern should not be one of Iranian influence but of Iranian interference, of which its insinuation into the political and economic structures will continue, regardless of the U.S. troop presence.Last, some would argue for a continued U.S. troop presence, asserting that the counter-ISIS mission is not finished, and ISIS remains a significant threat to both Iraq and the international community. While there may be some validity to this argument, it begs the question whether the Iraqis need continued foreign assistance or can accomplish this mission unilaterally. A U.S.-Iraq Higher Military Commission has recently been meeting to analyze these and other concerns to determine the rationale for a continued military mission. Mustafa, who previously served as head of KRG's Department of Foreign Relations, said it is important to remember that "this should not be emotional; it should not be affected by other factors.""Iraqis, the U.S. — the relevant people — need to sit down together, discuss and assess the situation on the ground, review the extent of engagement, assess the threats, Iraqi capabilities and determine together the nature and shape of future arrangements and future relations between Iraq and the U.S., and the rest of coalition countries," he said.According to Al-Asadi, "Daesh, like al-Qaida before it, will not cease to exist as a threat not only to Iraq but to the region and the entire world. Names, strategies and means may change, but the masterminds and beneficiaries of such groups will always keep them ready to strike, and sometimes they serve as a hired gun."However, he added: "Iraqi forces are qualified and capable of dealing with this threat. They may need some up-to-date technology, training and honest cooperation with regional and world countries who ought to share the same amount of concern about the growing danger of these terrorist groups."While the need for "up-to-date technology, training and honest cooperation" is important, it could be provided by other nations' forces, contractors or remotely, rather than by the physical presence of U.S. forces.A final argument suggests the continued presence of U.S. forces is an insurance against internal Iraqi threats. According to Zagros, "the most significant danger originates from within Iraq itself, where militia forces persist in attacking fellow Iraqis and opposing factions.""I firmly believe that without the presence of Americans and their allies, Iraq and the broader region face the risk of fragmentation and collapse," he said.Yet, those same militia forces are using the presence of U.S. forces as a casus belli to wage a deadly campaign against the forces of occupation, aligning themselves with the Iranian "Axis of Resistance" to receive equipment, training and funding from the Quds Force. Counterintuitively, the very presence of U.S. troops strengthens the hands of the militias and creates instability, especially when the United States unilaterally targets militia leaders and infringes on Iraqi territorial sovereignty to do so.These four factors, alone, imply that the U.S. troop presence comes at high costs and marginal benefits. The U.S. continues to be painted as an occupier, an aggressor, a foreign agitator and the cause of Iraqi society's near-collapse since the 2003 invasion.As Al-Asadi notes, "Why does the U.S. want to negotiate its withdrawal from Iraq? If they really want to stabilize Iraq and the region, they should withdraw their military troops first, then they can diplomatically negotiate their future relations with Iraq. Given the fragility of the situation and institutional dysfunctionality, we cannot hope for a better situation. The major denominator is the existence of foreign military troops in Iraq."Since October 7, U.S. support for Israel has aggravated the anger, and has brought the question of continued U.S. presence to the fore. While some arguments for remaining may exist, and Iraq is certainly more important than Otto von Bismarck's famous quote that the Balkans are not "worth the bones of a Pomeranian grenadier," the U.S. should reflect, clear-eyed, on the risk to American lives, the provocation to Iran, the almost paternalistic view that the Iraqi security establishment can't succeed against ISIS on its own, or can't find other alternatives, and the significant animosity against U.S. policy throughout the region. The Counter-ISIS Coalition performed brilliantly, but it is time to say, "Mission Accomplished."

The U.S. airstrike that killed Mushtaq Talib al-Saidi, otherwise known as Abu Taqwa, and two other militiamen on Thursday has been unequivocally condemned by Iraqi leaders, starting with President Latif Rashid and Prime Minister Mohammed Shia Sudani down to every parliamentary member in range of a microphone."This is a blatant violation of Iraq's sovereignty and security," said Rashid in a post on X. "We also condemn the attacks on Iraq's Kurdistan Region. Iraq must not and will not be turned into a proxy battleground. Priority must be given to dialogue as a means to defuse tensions and find common ground.""The Iraqi armed forces hold the forces of the international coalition responsible for this attack," Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani's office said in a statement, also calling a "dangerous escalation and aggression."The foreign ministry also weighed in Thursday, saying, "Iraq reserves its right to take a firm stance and take all measures that deter anyone who tries to harm its land and security forces."Abu Taqwa was an operational commander in the Iranian-backed Harakat al-Nujaba, which was designated a global terrorist organization by the Trump Administration in 2019. But it is also part of the wider Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), an umbrella group of paramilitary organizations that are linked to the security apparatus of the Iraq government and were instrumental to the 2014-2017 campaign against Daesh (or ISIS). Abu Taqwa was the leader of a designated terrorist organization, but the implications of this attack question the very wisdom of this operation. At least six strategic consequences come to mind. Coming on the heels of a similar U.S. attack less than 10 days earlier, critics say Thursday's strike was a violation of Iraqi sovereignty and the government's authority to manage military operations within its own country. Whatever Washington says about respect for Iraq's autonomy and its relations with Baghdad, the attacks seem to suggest — at least to officials — otherwise. Second, the United States has been consistent in its messaging that it does not wish to expand the Israel-Gaza war into a regional war. The policy has been ostensibly to contain the conflict, but Thursday's operation seemed to test that goal in dangerous ways. Israel has its hands full with outside attacks from Hezbollah and the Houthis, and the logic behind provoking the Iraqi PMFs into expanding the conflict is puzzling. Third, the United States continues to operate against Daesh in Syria, but much of that operation is controlled, resourced, and resupplied from within Iraq. Separately, Washington continues a conventional train and equip security cooperation program with the Iraqi Security Forces as well as augmenting the Iraqi Security Forces with assets ranging from intelligence to air support. This attack puts that entire relationship in question and has reignited the debate over the expulsion of the U.S. forces — an issue which Sudani raised himself only a week ago.But the debate goes back to the 2020 parliament vote which took place after the assassination of Qassim Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the commander of the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces and a member of the Iraqi parliament. Fourth, coming one day after the four-year anniversary of the Soleimani killing and on the heels of a terrorist attack in Iran which killed over 100 civilians at a ceremony at his tomb, it is hard to imagine a worse time to execute another PMF leader. Emotions were already running high among Iraqis and Iranians, and this could easily be exploited.Fifth, the attacks intensify the risk to American diplomats, troops, and civilians in Iraq. Calls for revenge are resonating throughout the country, and it is hard to ignore the high probability that fresh retaliatory attacks will follow from Thursday's strike. In carrying out military operations within the country of an ally, decisions must be respectful of the host country and well-coordinated. Politics, public opinion, and fundamental issues such as sovereignty must be thoroughly weighed. While it may make absolute sense to "take a terrorist off the battlefield" there are deeper considerations when that "battlefield" is in the country of an ostensible ally. Washington must develop better ways of coordinating with the Iraqis ahead of these operations, especially as General Patrick Ryder, Pentagon spokesman, made it clear yesterday, that the U.S. "maintains the inherent right of self-defense if our forces are threatened." He did add that "we'll continue to communicate, as we have been all along, closely with our Iraqi partners when it comes to the safety and security of our forces in Iraq."It is hard to see how that happened in the drone strike on Mushtaq Talib al-Saidi.

The Iraqi army captain who assassinated King Faisal II and his family in 1958 claimed, "All I did was remember Palestine, and the trigger on the machine-gun just set itself off." Although Iraqi historians refute this assertion and maintain the officer was a delusional madman, in the days leading up to the massacre of the royal family, the Iraqi opposition had been emboldened by growing anti-Israel sentiment and a perception that the Iraqi monarchy leaned too heavily toward Western nations which enabled Israeli aggression toward Arab states. Six decades later, the Palestinian question still enrages the "Arab Street." The war in Gaza raises concerns of violent regional spillover and Iraq would not be not immune from the consequences. Unlike the Houthis in Yemen and Hezbollah in Lebanon, however, it is unlikely that armed conflict will come to Iraq as sympathy for the Palestinians will not trump war fatigue. Yet, there are reasons to fear the indirect costs of war. Chief among those concerns revolve around neighboring Iran being involved in a wider conflict, but no less significant could be the effects on the internal politics of Iraq, its economy, and its international relations. Much will depend on the skills of Prime Minister Mohammed Shia Al-Sudani to balance the pressure from his political opponents and the armed militias.Internal politicsAll politics are local, and in Iraq they are often armed. Unlike the dictatorships, dynasties, and monarchies surrounding it, Iraq remains a parliamentary democracy, generally responsive to public sentiment but also coercion from armed militias outside of government control.Iraq's recent history shows the best and worst of democracy, free speech, and the right to assemble. In October 2019, widespread street protests over corruption, unemployment, inadequate services, and poor living conditions brought down the government of Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi. The Tishreen ("October") protesters demanded the resignation of Abdul-Mahdi, commitments to reform, and early elections. While authorities responded with a relatively heavy hand, the government fell within two months. Abdul-Mahdi's replacement, Mustafa al Kadhimi, enjoyed a full term in office but the process of replacing him with the current prime minister, Mohammed Shia Al-Sudani came after Iraq went through the longest period without a formal government in its modern history. Among other factors, his appointment was fiercely opposed by the powerful rabble-rousing Shia leader Muqtada al-Sadr when Sadr was unable to form a government. Sadr's party resigned en masse from Parliament but not before his followers stormed the Council of Representatives in July 2022 twice, and occupied the Presidential Palace the following month. The departure of the Sadrists from the palace led to a deadly firefight in the Green Zone which soon spread to Iraq's southern provinces. Against this backdrop of violence and turmoil, the Sudani government came to power in October 2022 fully understanding the need to remain sensitive to public opinion and well armed political opponents. The Sudani government also remains under pressure from militias, a delicate balancing act for a country beholden to the accomplishments of these groups in the fight against Daesh, or ISIS. These militias enjoy quasi-political influence on the Iraqi body politic and are closely tied to Iran. Sudani's political opponents have been closely watching for a misstep (common to all opposition parties worldwide), not least Sadr, who has already called on his supporters to join "peaceful" demonstrations in protest of Israel's war on Gaza. Rarely are Sadrist demonstrations peaceful as shown by the sit-ins in 2021 and the violent attacks into the protected Green Zone in 2022.Against this backdrop, Sudani maintains a careful reading of internal politics. While he may not be ousted by demonstrations like Abdul-Mahdi or fend off assassination attempts as did Khadimi, participating in internal politics remains a risky business in Iraq; so is international diplomacy.External relations While Prime Minister Sudani has demonstrated strong skills in managing Iraq's internal politics, external relations with Iran and the United States could provide the missteps his opponents seek. Despite strong condemnation of the attacks into Gaza, Iran-backed militias have significantly ramped up their drone and rocket attacks on U.S. military bases in Iraq and Syria.In response, a parade of U.S. officials from CIA Director William Burns to Secretary of State Antony Blinken (adorned in body armor) have visited Iraq since October 7 persuading, cajoling, and warning Sudani of the consequences of continued attacks on U.S. personnel. Sudani issued stern warnings that Iraqi territory should not be used as a proxy battlefield, and that continued attacks by these groups may provoke U.S. action against Iran even in the absence of proof that these attacks were "explicitly ordered" by Tehran. Arresting a small number of suspects in the attacks has, for the moment, kept the diplomatic situation somewhat calm. Sudani seems to have found a way to acquiesce to Washington's demands while placating Iran and the militias. Keen on maintaining positive relations with both Iran and the U.S., while remaining attentive and in tune to sentiments on the street, Sudani cannot risk being perceived as cowering to Western pressures at a time when public opinion is overwhelmingly in support of Gaza. But that balancing act will require continued statesmanship to uphold Iraq's sovereignty without being labeled by detractors as a puppet of any hegemon, whether Iran or the U.S. A tipping point, however, may be if the war in Gaza continues. The recent outcry against the December 25 airstrikes by the U.S. military in response to a rocket attack which seriously injured an American soldier is the most recent example. Not only did Sudani call the rocket attack an act of terrorism, but also condemned the American strike as a serious violation of Iraqi sovereignty and announced that "the Iraqi government is heading towards ending the presence of international coalition forces."Economic effectsWhile Iraq's economy has shown some signs of recovery in recent months — 25 percent of Iraqis reportedly live below the poverty line — unemployment is forecasted to reach 40 percent, and climate change has contributed to water scarcity. There is little appetite for yet another war in Iraq when average Iraqis are battling to get by.In the event the Gaza conflict expands, Iraqis could be affected by events such as the Houthi attacks in the Red Sea. Blocking maritime traffic through the Suez Canal and rerouting traffic around the Cape of Good Hope in Africa could affect the relatively modest inflation rate in Iraq at a time when the Iraqi dinar has also gone through a significant depreciation. While the economic situation in Iraq is far better than regional neighbors such as Iran, Turkey, and Egypt, expectations from consumers used to relatively stable prices are high and even a small amount of economic turbulence on top of anger at the situation in Gaza could challenge the Sudani government. As former Iraqi Energy Minister Luay Al Khateeb puts it, "If the Gaza war engulfs Iran, this will lead to major consequences on Iraq's political and economic stability. The ramifications will force Iran to prioritize its needs to meet local demand on power sector and gas supplies and cut natural gas electricity exports to Iraq."Iraq currently imports electricity and gas from Iran that total close to 40 percent of its power supply. "Iran's force majeure cuts will compromise Iraq's national grid to disable 50 percent of Iraq's service sectors and investment projects, affecting the country's revenue; [it will have a] negative impact on GDP and will most certainly ignite unprecedented populous protests against the government and the political system at large," says Al Khateeb. "For Iraq to avoid such a situation, a quick short term resolution will come at a major cost to compensate for the losses by importing expensive diesel and securing more financial allocation for power generation maintenance that will eventually increase the budget deficit beyond control."Iraq's former Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Dr Ali Allawi concurs."A war certainly would lead to Iranian cutbacks of gas supplied to Iraq," he says, adding, "It would also be used to pressure Iraq to drop its public neutrality between the U.S. and Iran. The Iraqi public is decidedly in favor of Palestine, and the Gaza war has made the Iranian connection less contentious than before."While international actors seek to contain the violence inside of Israel and Gaza, regional actors seem intent on expanding the war well beyond those borders. Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen and Iran-backed militias seem hell-bent on spreading the flames. The United States blames Iran as the source of regional provocations and even if inaccurate, the U.S. has put its forces on war footing, sending aircraft carriers and increased intelligence and other combat capabilities into the region, ostensibly to deter and contain the conflict — moves that inadvertently increase the dangers.of that very conflagration either by mistake, miscalculation, or misstep. The recent American-led maritime mission, Operation Prosperity Guardian, will increase the number of international warships in the Red Sea and should a Houthi missile sink a commercial tanker or a U.S. warship, the responses and counter-responses may make the war in Gaza seem minor.The Middle East has not seen this level of instability in decades and Iraq is not immune from that instability. Even if, to date, it has not been directly affected by the Gaza war or a wider regional conflict, Iraq it is already feeling its indirect effects through increased tensions between the U.S. and Iran, large scale street protests in support of Palestine, Iranian -backed militias attacking U.S. personnel, domestic political opponents, and impacts on the Iraqi economy. While Prime Minister Sudani has deftly managed those challenges to date, it remains problematic whether he, or Iraq, can weather the storms blowing in from Gaza for much longer.