Iraq’s warning on Wednesday that it is not an arena in which to “settle scores” following militia attacks from its territory and subsequent US and Saudi retaliation should resonate far beyond its borders. The exchange of fire is also a clear indication of the serious challenges facing Iraqi Prime Minister Ali Al Zaidi and his government.
In a region already strained by armed proxies and the steady erosion of the conventions that govern interstate conflict, Baghdad’s message is far from rhetorical and should remind us of what is at stake when national sovereignty is compromised.
Respect for sovereignty is often discussed as a somewhat academic or legal abstraction. In reality, it is a measurable quality that should underpin a state’s ability to govern, to maintain order and to have a monopoly over the use of force. When sovereignty is weakened, so, too, is the coherence of the wider region. If the rules and understandings that restrain escalation begin to fray, then conflict spreads – something that many countries in the Middle East and beyond are experiencing right now.
This week’s strikes and counter-strikes are proof of this troubling shift. Iran’s network of affiliated groups in Iraq has, over time, normalised a pattern of destabilisation and belligerence that invites retaliation. With Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commanders killed in the strikes on Iraq, there is evidence once again of Iran orchestrating violence from other nation's territories. For Saudi Arabia, at least, deterrence has given way to direct action. History suggests that so-called limited strikes have a way of not staying limited for long.
Iraq finds itself in a precarious position. While a comparison with the Lebanese state’s troubles with Hezbollah is instructive, it is not exact. Whereas Beirut has to contend with one powerful non-state actor in the shape of Hezbollah, Baghdad faces a patchwork of paramilitaries and splinter groups, some loosely aligned and others acting independently. This makes attribution difficult and constraint even harder.
Given Iraq’s recent history, this places the country in a particularly dangerous situation. Decades of conflict, internal tensions and external interference have taken their toll on the country’s institutions, its communities and the state’s ability to maintain order. The perception that Iraqi territory can be used as a launchpad for regional confrontation risks reopening these old fractures.
This is the stark reality facing Mr Al Zaidi. He has made a purposeful start since taking office in May and the Prime Minister’s recent engagement with Washington, Tehran and Ankara signalled an intent to balance Iraq’s relationships and reassert the primacy of the state. If his administration is to succeed, however, he must stay the course. Preventing attacks from Iraqi soil while managing ties with both Tehran and Washington is an arduous task. As well as requiring consistency and resolve, it will also require support from partners who have a stake in a stable Iraq. Baghdad’s warning should be heeded.
