Alwaght- In the geopolitical conflicts of West Asia and North Africa, Iraq has always been one of the focal points of developments and the regional and international competitions due to its strategic geographical position. This special position played a highly decisive role in the recent war between Israeli regime and Iran.
Iraq is not only known as a geographical linking ring among Iran, Syria, and Lebanon, but also its vast airspace, on which in some cases it lacks effective control, has become a platform that has been repeatedly used by Israeli regime fighter jets to carry out airstrikes on Resistance camp's positions in Syria and sometimes even on Iraqi soil over the past years.
During the 12-day war Israel waged on Iran, Iraq once again became a vital passageway for the Israeli indirect military operations. Taking advantage of the air cover of the American coalition and Iraq’s security gaps, Tel Aviv tried to turn the country’s air routes into safe corridors for attacks against Iran and the Axis of Resistance.
In such circumstances, the positions of the Iraqi government, its sensitivity to Israeli violations of sovereignty, and how it manages its airspace have become key components in the war equations; in such a way that the way Baghdad faces this crisis can affect not only the fate of the current conflict but also the future of Iraq’s national security and the regional structure of the Resistance camp. This report examines different aspects of this issue in three areas.
Iraqi positions during 12-day war
During the Israeli aggression, Iraqi officials tried to stay out of the direct circle of conflict by adopting a cautious and neutral approach. While officially condemning the Israeli regime’s attacks on Iran, the Iraqi government limited its stance to calling for self-restraint and stressing on the need for an end to the conflict.
Iraq did not respond in a practical and decisive manner, even to the obvious air violations by Israeli warplanes that crossed its airspace, preferring to present its protest within the framework of diplomacy, without departing from a position of neutrality.
An Iraqi government adviser told the Cradle: “We decided to stay in the middle. Not because we like moderation, but because falling in any direction means burning the whole house down.”
Early in the war, Iraq, citing bilateral agreements and international law, called on the US to prevent Israeli aircraft from violating Iraqi airspace to carry out attacks on Iran.
“The Iraqi government calls on the United States to fulfill its responsibilities in accordance with the agreements signed between the two countries and to prevent the Israeli regime’s aircraft from violating Iraqi airspace again,” Iraqi army spokesman Sabah al-Numan said in a statement.
But the positions of the resistance groups were much harsher. Kata’ib Hezbollah, for example, declared: “We are closely monitoring the movements of the American enemy in the region, and if Washington intervenes in the war, we will immediately take action against its interests and bases without any hesitation.”
In the following days, Iraq’s UN ambassador, Abbas Kadhem Obaid al-Fatlawi, said that 50 Israeli warplanes had violated Iraqi airspace, shortly before a UN Security Council meeting on the Israel-Iran conflict on Friday. He told the UN Security Council that the planes had taken off from areas bordering Syria and Jordan.
The Iraqi government called for an immediate and binding cessation of all air violations that violate Iraqi sovereignty, along with international guarantees to protect its skies from any further aggression, regardless of its source. Baghdad also requested technical support to increase its defense capabilities commensurate with the scale of regional threats.
In the face of these flagrant and repeated violations of Iraqi territorial sovereignty, 55 members of parliament, mostly from factions close to the resistance factions, called for an emergency session of parliament. But instead of unity, the parliament descended into discord and confusion, resulting in more ineffective condemnations. Behind closed doors, factions split along ideological and geopolitical lines, with some clinging to neutrality as if it were a way out.
Although these positions ostensibly sought to preserve Iraq’s security and prevent the country from entering a wider conflict, in practice they exposed Iraq’s national sovereignty to systematic violations and failed to take effective action to maintain a coherent chain of security in the geography of the Axis of Resistance
Risk of Baghdad miscalculation
Iraqi positions and approaches show that some of the officials, especially in the foreign ministry, thought that with declaration of neutrality they can save their country from the aftershocks of war and regional crises. This miscalculation can impose irreversible consequences on the Iraqi national security.
The reality is that Tel Aviv and Benjamin Netanyahu personally are pursuing a strategy that goes beyond a limited war against Iran. The main goal of the Israeli regime is to expand the scope of the crisis and drag the entire geography of the Axis of Resistance into the conflict scene so that it can, with the support of Washington, undermine and ultimately destroy the regional resistance structure. This project is part of the “Greater Middle East” mega plan that falls within yet a broader plan called “Nile to Euphrates”, in which Iraq is defined as a strategic target.
If Baghdad continues to adopt policies of passive neutrality and does not respond effectively to violations of its airspace, this situation could lead to greater vulnerability of Iraq in the future, increased aggression and even direct attacks on its territory.
In such circumstances, Iraq needs to adopt an approach of active neutrality; This means that it must not only confront the Israeli regime’s air intrusion, but also, through diplomatic and military levers, pressure the Americans to end occupation and block Iraqi air routes for Israeli operations. Only with such an approach can Iraq’s sovereignty be preserved and the country be saved from the trap of imposed crises.
This issue must be followed very carefully, especially for the Kurdish forces in northern Iraq, because behind the so-called neutrality, Erbil has long concealed its strategic dependence on the US military presence and alignment with Western and Israeli plans for northern Iraq.
Vigilance of religious authority, the trump card of the Resistance camp in Iraq
One of the most important developments during the 12-day war was the key statement issued by grand Shiite authority Ayatollah Sayyed Ali al-Sistani. The statement brzanely condemned the Israeli aggression on Iran, warning that aggression on the religious authority and leadership in Iran would bring about very severe consequences for the region.
The importance of this statement lies in several points: First, Ayatollah al-Sistani is one of the few figures whose fatwa can transform the social, political, and military developments in Iraq. The historical experience of the fatwa against ISIS terrorist group, which led to public mobilization and the formation of the Popular Mobilization Forces, clearly demonstrated that religious authority can tip the scales on the ground.
Such statement during war was not only important for Iraqi public opinion, but also sent a strong message to Tel Aviv and Washington that the Iraqi religious authority is ready to engage in defense of the Axis of Resistance and confront aggression. This position can play an important role as a deterrent power in maintaining Iraqi stability and preventing the deepening of the crisis.
In other words, the vigilance of the religious authority and its power to mobilize public present a trump card in Iraq for the Resistance camp. This is a factor that if Iraq ignores in its strategic calculations, it will grow vulnerable to Israeli evil projects.
