At the 80th UN General Assembly, Benjamin Netanyahu gave a speech on accusations of Iran and regional resistance as world leaders denounced the regime for crimes in Gaza. He went further, stimulating direct threats to Iraqi resistance groups, and publicly declared them as targets.
The threat has been seen as a blatant violation of Iraqi sovereignty and prompted a response from Iraqi Foreign Minister Huad Hussein, who emphasized that strikes against Iraqi citizens would be treated as an attack on the whole country.
In an interview with Mehr’s press, political analyst Mohammad Bagher Heidari provided his perspective on the issue. Below is a transcription of the discussion:
Netanyahu’s remarks at the UN General Assembly are nothing new. I have heard these statements many times from various officials at different levels of the Israeli regime. It’s nothing new that they intend to strike Iraq’s resistance. This is nothing new.
The incident occurred about a year ago, and at that time, Iraq addressed issues with the United Nations and others. Either way, at that point we knew the attack had been prevented.
There are two aspects of the development currently taking place in Iraq. In any case, there are two dimensions of the Israeli regime’s doctrine regarding Iraq. One dimension is the region and the other is inside Iraq. The regional dimension is that Israel’s views on Iraq and Iraq’s resistance are in no way separate from the perspective of the region as a whole. Israel’s attitude towards Iraq is the same attitude it holds to the region. It is seeking to expand its influence across the region, implement the “Great Middle East” project, and realize the so-called David Corridor. You know David’s Hallway – Israeli officials are at the highest level and are openly talking about it. That corridor covers a significant portion of Syria and a substantial portion from Erbil and Suleimaniya to Western Iraq. It’s not a small problem at all. They are openly talking about David’s hallways.
The local situation is like openly debating, for example, David Coridor. Another point about the regional dimension is what I’ve heard from Israeli officials (both military and political) from the beginning. Of these seven aspects, Israel has already carried out military operations on six. One front remains: Iraq. Listing the seven fronts of Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and Iran, there are military action taking place in these arenas. In some places, they achieved certain successes and made progress in Syria and other areas. In others, they failed like the Iranian front. But in reality, they entered six fronts. One person remained, but it was Iraq. They announced from the start that they would enter the Iraqi front.
As to whether Iraqi resistance is cornered or isolated by these threats: Realistically, Iraqi resistance groups are not a single organisation. They are multiple groups. If they are one of a unified group like Hezbollah, the calculations are different. But there are several groups, which change things military and strategically. Realistically, Iraq is not permitted by the US to own meaningful air defenses. Neither the S-300 nor the S-400 are important air-prevention systems. And there is no general boundary with the Israeli regime, so if an attack occurs, it almost certainly will be an attack. There was no protection and the radar system was degraded. A year ago, a 12-day war secretly targeted Baghdad’s radar – in fact, Iraq’s airspace is open to Israel.
The withdrawal of the US troops in itself is a remarkable point. This raises the question: why did Americans withdraw from Iraq at this time? They did not retreat completely. They opened up bases like Victoria and Ain al-Assad and moved to Khalil, northern Iraq, in the Kurdistan region. The decision was planned years ago and was intended to be made in 2025, but the timing suggests that predictable security incidents tend to continue in places where Americans retreat. Similar dynamics were found in Afghanistan and elsewhere. There are often designed plans that will lead to instability when the US pulls back. Perhaps a new chapter of anxiety is opening in Iraq.
This American pullback combines the Israeli threat and actions by groups similar to ISIL, and is now spreading throughout Iraq. The only difference between ISIL and it is that it hasn’t taken up weapons yet. It suggests that there may be programs for the future of Iraq. For example, two weeks ago, they killed a clergyman in Baghdad. On the one hand, Americans may retreat, and on the other hand, these kinds of events may continue. All this indicates that the world may witness a new season of mayhem in Iraq.
So, what is the role of the Iraqi resistance group? About a year ago there was an agreement between these groups and Prime Minister Sudani. At the height of the attack on Gaza a year ago, Iraqi resistance was unified under the “Iraqi Islamic Resistance” and targeted the Israeli regime daily with drones and missiles. One day they carried out strikes of up to eight drones or missiles. Some were intercepted by air defense, never reaching Israel, while some were penetrated and causing damage. At the time, the threat to Iraq became very serious. Iraq filed a complaint with the United Nations when these threats were made. However, there was then an agreement between the group and the prime minister – a gentle agreement: they did not attack for the time being. Also, a statement from Ayatollah Sistani at the time caused a temporary calm.
What is the basis for that contract? Basically, it states: Resistance is standing for now. As a resistance group, we refrain from acting. If Iraq itself is attacked by the Israeli regime, the government should move forward – protests, strong condemnation, issuing strong words, leaving a response to resistance. They then attack, targeting American interests to Iraq if necessary, and once again clashes with the Israeli regime. So will the resistance be separated? I don’t think the outcome is likely. I don’t think they will be isolated.
What was the official status of the Iraqi government? The Iraqi Foreign Minister has issued a statement denounced these remarks. They have achieved a standard protocol position. As elections approach in Iraq, political tensions are high and party clashes are on the rise. As election fever rises, there are contradictory messages from the political world and the public as different actors push different narratives.
Why are these threats emerging now? Again, it is related to elections. The chances of winning in the upcoming election are the Coordination Framework Alliance. They will probably win. The threat is currently being issued as this poses a potential danger to Israel. Analysts believe they aim to disrupt the election. If elections become confused, the al-Sudani government will effectively be the leader of a limited authority administration until the new election is resolved. Existing governments no longer have the same privileges. That power is constrained. Existing sectors in Iraq could turn into new chapters of chaos. These threats are timed right in the preliminary stages of elections, indicating attempts to derail the vote.
All of this suggests a new season of instability in Iraq. Additionally, Baharthists – yes, Saddam’s supporters are also supported, and are entering the electoral system and government. All of this indicates that Iraqi resistance groups are not the only targets. The whole of Iraq – Iraq’s security, Iraq’s stability, all of Iraq’s resources – are being targeted.
Until recently, over the past year or two, Iraq has experienced an unprecedented level of calm. But now it appears that this calmness should be confusing.
MNA/