Iraq’s initiative to receive some of the most dangerous ISIS detainees held in north-eastern Syria reflects bigger changes in how the region is approaching counter-terrorism.
The move goes beyond a technical transfer or a temporary solution. It signals a calculated political and security choice to address one of the most complex unresolved challenges of the post-conflict period, rather than allowing it to remain suspended in unstable grey zones.
For years, detention facilities and camps in north-eastern Syria have represented a clear point of imbalance in the regional security equation. These sites are inherently unstable, governed by temporary arrangements and populated by extremist elements of multiple nationalities, all within a fragile environment prone to sudden rupture. Long treated as an emergency solution, this reality has increasingly been viewed internationally as a persistent source of risk – one that cannot be contained indefinitely.
Against this backdrop, Iraq’s move emerges as a pre-emptive effort to avert a far more dangerous security scenario, particularly in light of recent changes on the ground in Syria and shifts among the forces exercising control there. Serious concerns over the possible breakdown of detention arrangements or the recycling of hardened militants into chaotic environments have accompanied these developments.
Iraq – having borne one of the highest costs in the fight against ISIS – now faces a qualitatively different threat: one that is no longer merely domestic, but transnational, and capable of reproducing the organisation in more complex and potentially more dangerous forms.
The logic of the Iraqi initiative, therefore, is not about transferring a security burden from one arena to another. It is about preventing the emergence of open security vacuums that would allow ISIS to reappear under new names or structures. The aim is to bring this file under the authority of the state, rather than leaving it hostage to provisional arrangements whose limitations have become increasingly apparent.
It is also important to note that these ISIS detainees had, for a considerable period, been held under arrangements that were assumed to be relatively containable. That assumption began to erode as recent developments – most notably tensions between Damascus and the autonomous administration in north-eastern Syria – reignited Washington’s concerns and raised urgent questions about the sustainability of the security environment.
Shifts in territorial control, coupled with weak institutional discipline within certain Syrian government military formations, have fuelled growing fears over the actual capacity to manage this highly sensitive file – or to prevent it from becoming a bargaining chip, or even a gateway for the release of extremely dangerous individuals – amid an acutely volatile political and security landscape.
The US response to Iraq’s move has been consistent with this assessment. The State Department described the Iraqi decision as a “bold and necessary” step to prevent a resurgence of ISIS activity, signalling that the issue is no longer seen as an internal Iraqi matter, but as part of a broader regional security approach. Notably, this position was expressed not through pressure or diktat, but through language that acknowledged Baghdad’s initiative as a sovereign decision.
US officials, including Special Envoy for Syria Tom Barrack, also conveyed the appreciation of President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio for the Iraqi government’s stance and its readiness to contribute to protecting the international community from the ongoing threat posed by ISIS detainees. They emphasised that Iraq’s role has become a key factor in promoting stability – not only in Syria, but across the region as a whole. At the same time, Washington underscored the responsibility of other countries to repatriate their own detained nationals, reflecting a notable shift in international sentiment on this issue.
This international engagement does not alter the nature of Iraq’s decision, but it does highlight its political dimension. The move combines a clear operational component with a carefully calibrated assertion of sovereignty. Rather than treating the detainee file as a postponable burden, Iraq has incorporated it into the state’s strategic calculus – accepting its complexities, while also asserting the capacity to control and manage it. This marks a transition from managing risk at a distance to actively reducing it within defined national frameworks.
At the same time, Iraq has been careful to maintain a delicate balance: international co-operation without tutelage, and contribution to regional security without assuming the burdens of others. Repeated US calls for countries to take responsibility for their detained citizens fall squarely within this framework, adding a political dimension to the Iraqi initiative that extends beyond its immediate security implications.
Most importantly, this step reflects a more advanced understanding of the nature of today’s confrontation with extremist organisations. The challenge is no longer defined solely by military control, but by states’ ability to manage the legacy of violence through judicial systems and institutions – and to prevent it from metastasising into future threats. In this sense, the Iraqi initiative is best understood as a test of state capacity rather than an exercise in power projection.
Ultimately, Iraq is reaffirming a trajectory it has pursued for years: moving from being a country shaped by the repercussions of conflict to one actively contributing to the architecture of what comes after it. In a region still struggling with unresolved files and fragile arrangements, this approach appears less exceptional than it is, indicative of a sober recognition of the complexities that lie ahead.
