Miqdad Muhamad – Activists
Earlier today, reports emerged confirming that the Islamic Republic of Iran launched a missile attack targeting the Ain al-Assad military base located in Iraq’s Anbar province. This act marks a perilous and destabilizing escalation in the regional security environment. It raises serious concerns about the potential for retaliatory strikes by the United States on Iraqi soil, particularly against Shiite militia groups. Any such developments would undoubtedly result in further civilian suffering and deepen Iraq’s political and humanitarian crises.
The pursuit of peace remains an existential priority for the people of Iraq—both Kurds and Arabs alike. The collective memory of war is still vivid, and the population is overwhelmingly unwilling to endure yet another cycle of sectarian, ethnic, or geopolitical conflict. The Iraqi public has no appetite for renewed hostilities, whether among domestic factions or between regional and international powers acting through proxies within its borders.
Iraq’s modern history is replete with devastating wars that have left enduring scars on its people and infrastructure:
- The prolonged internal conflict against the Kurdish population, particularly from 1975 to 1991;
- The Iran–Iraq War (1980–1988), which drained national resources and claimed over a million lives;
- The Gulf War and subsequent sanctions (1990–1991), which crippled Iraq’s economy;
- The internal sectarian strife between Shiite and Sunni factions throughout the late 1990s and beyond;
- The U.S.-led invasion and occupation (2003–2007), which dismantled state institutions and unleashed a wave of insurgencies.
At this juncture, both Iraq and the Kurdistan Region remain deeply fragile, politically fragmented, and economically strained. Their respective populations have endured prolonged instability and trauma, and neither can afford to be drawn into another armed conflict.
Nevertheless, concerning developments persist. Some Shiite political factions and Kurdish actors—particularly those operating within the Green Zone—continue to exhibit loyalty to Tehran’s strategic objectives. These groups appear willing to entangle Iraq in broader regional confrontations that do not reflect the will or interests of the Iraqi people.
Although there remains hope that the Iraqi and Kurdish publics will reject the path of war, there is a real danger that certain actors will exploit this moment to escalate conflict, masking it as national resistance or ideological obligation. These efforts often aim to justify foreign-aligned agendas by portraying neutrality as cowardice or dishonor.
This manipulation must be rejected. Iraq’s sovereignty should not be used as a bargaining chip in transnational rivalries. The state must assert its independence from all foreign spheres of influence—be it Iranian, American, or otherwise—and commit to a vision of national dignity and internal stability.
Moreover, the country faces a multitude of severe internal challenges that require urgent attention:
- The Federal Supreme Court—the highest judicial authority in Iraq—is increasingly dysfunctional, paralyzed by power struggles among Kurdish, Sunni, and Shiite factions.
- In the Kurdistan Region, unresolved public sector salary disputes have deepened public disillusionment.
- Within Shiite-majority areas, political disintegration and governance deficits are on the rise.
- Among some Sunni Islamist factions, support for Syria’s Islamic regime has triggered brutal repression, including arbitrary arrests, torture, and extrajudicial killings.
Iraq is currently navigating a perilous crossroads. What the nation needs is not another war, but a transformative shift toward rule of law, transparency, and state-building. Only through a renewed commitment to democratic governance, sovereignty, and intercommunal reconciliation can Iraq hope to escape its cycle of violence and build a sustainable and peaceful future.
