Where the U.S. had not yet concluded its direct military engagement, there is now a risk that the front will reopen.
A difficult relationship
The potential reopening of the front arises in areas where the United States has not yet ended its direct military involvement.
The relationship between Iraq and Iran stands out as one of the Middle East’s most intricate and layered, shaped by centuries of rivalry, outright conflict, and pragmatic alliances. This history traces back to the competition between the Persian and Ottoman empires for control over Mesopotamia, which left a legacy of border disputes and contested territories.
During the 20th century, the control over the Shatt al-Arab waterway—vital for the export of oil—became a major source of friction. This tension culminated in clashes during the 1970s and the 1975 Algiers Agreement, aiming to settle border issues and ease tensions. Yet, this accord was fragile and soon faced challenges.
The Iran-Iraq War (1980–1988) marked the most significant rupture in their relations. Launched when Iraq invaded Iran in September 1980, the conflict resulted in massive casualties and injuries without a decisive victory. Both nations deployed massive military forces, and Iraq’s extensive use of chemical weapons left a lasting impact on mutual perceptions and collective memory.
Post-war, throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, interactions remained cool but fairly steady, largely due to Iraq’s isolation under Saddam Hussein. The landscape began to shift dramatically after the 2003 U.S. invasion toppled the Baathist regime, enabling Iran to expand its influence in Iraq—especially via Shiite political factions and militias.
Tehran has long supported Iraqi Shiite groups in exile, such as the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, which formed during the war within Iran. After 2003, many such factions returned, taking on significant roles in Iraq’s political and security arenas.
Militarily, Iran has built a network of alliances with Iraqi Shia militias that, while often formally integrated into official security forces, maintain strong ideological and operational connections to Tehran. These militias have been instrumental in combating ISIS but also serve as tools for extending Iranian influence and countering the U.S. military presence.
In recent years, the Iraq-Iran bond has blended cooperation with friction. While they collaborate over economic matters, security, and border management, Iraq strives to balance Iranian influence with maintaining ties to the U.S. and other global players. Agreements on border security and handling cross-border armed groups underscore this mutual dependence amidst ongoing distrust.
Uncontrolled instability
Iraq’s security landscape has grown considerably more volatile following the outbreak of war involving the U.S., Israel, and Iran. Armed groups under the banner of the Islamic Resistance in Iraq have stepped up assaults on U.S. military and logistical sites across multiple provinces.
This uptick appears to be an effort to connect Iraq’s internal strife with wider regional conflict dynamics, positioning Iraq as an active front capable of shaping the war’s progress rather than merely a victim. Recent days have seen frequent drone and rocket strikes targeting bases hosting American personnel, intensifying beyond the more sporadic and localized attacks of previous years.
Moreover, the nature of these attacks has encroached closer to core Iraqi government areas. Attempts involving drones and strikes have reached locations within Baghdad tied to U.S. logistical and diplomatic security—areas previously deemed off-limits. This reflects resistance factions’ increased readiness to challenge U.S. defenses while signaling that no segment of the American presence in Iraq is immune.
The factions claim to have downed several U.S. military drones, including those used for strategic surveillance. Their media portray these incidents as indicative of a shift from intermittent disruption to efforts aimed at degrading the U.S.’s operational and aerial reconnaissance capabilities.
The attack patterns suggest a concerted campaign maintaining relentless pressure on U.S. forces, linking the Iraqi front to concurrent conflicts in Lebanon, Syria, and the Persian Gulf.
Factions have reported a sharp rise in operations soon after escalation began. Statements mentioned 27 strikes within 24 hours in early March, followed by 29 in a single day. Such figures are presented as evidence of a move from isolated incidents toward coordinated drone and rocket offensives against U.S. sites throughout Iraq. These accounts describe a peak exceeding 290 attacks over about 12 days, targeting Baghdad, western Iraq, and parts of Kurdistan, especially near Erbil International Airport and Harir Air Base. Since the conflict’s onset on February 28, faction reports have stressed a swift shift toward direct confrontation, highlighting organized actions to demonstrate both capability and sustained pressure.
In northern Iraq, tensions have particularly focused around Erbil Airport and nearby military bases, targeted repeatedly by drones and Katyusha rockets, underlining Kurdistan’s logistical significance.
The Islamic Resistance in Iraq reportedly shot down around six drones nationwide, including MQ-9 Reaper drones critical for U.S. surveillance and strikes. Video footage purportedly captures debris from these drones after interception by enhanced air defense systems.
A notably impactful incident involved the alleged downing of a KC-135 tanker in Anbar province, killing its crew and dealing a significant blow to U.S. air support capabilities.
Following escalated claims of attacks by groups such as Kataib Hezbollah, Harakat al-Nujaba, and Kataib Sayyid al-Shuhada, the U.S. retaliated with targeted airstrikes at militia-affiliated positions.
These strikes hit locations historically tied to militias, including Jurf al-Sakhar south of Baghdad, Al-Qaim near Syria’s border, and the Akashat area in western Anbar.
One of the most delicate incidents involved an assassination attempt on Kataib Hezbollah’s secretary-general, Abu Hussein al-Hamidawi. Sources linked to resistance report U.S. air raids in central Baghdad targeting high-ranking commanders. Initial news of his death was later denied. On March 16, Kataib Hezbollah announced the passing of Abu Ali al-Askari, a key security figure. Hours afterward, drone and rocket strikes appeared near the U.S. embassy in Baghdad.
Collectively, these developments reveal clear trends: the conflict’s intensity is increasing, its geographic range expanding to cover Baghdad and strategic zones, and established limits are being tested by attacks on air assets, leadership, and logistics.
Alongside military actions, resistance factions have framed the internal conflict as part of larger regional flashpoints. In a March 6 statement, the Iraqi Resistance Coordination Committee linked security in southern Beirut to the regional equilibrium, cautioning that attacks there would threaten U.S. diplomatic and economic interests throughout the Middle East. This outlook portrays Iraq as a node in an interconnected front network, not a standalone battlefield.
Faction communications have also issued threats toward diplomatic missions and energy infrastructures associated with Western Gulf interests, aiming to broaden the conflict’s scope and underscore its potential repercussions on global markets.
Special focus has targeted Iraqi Kurdistan, with warnings about consequences for any support given to Kurdish groups deemed hostile and tied to outside powers, especially concerning Iran.
Syria’s silent but powerful role
On March 11, amid reports of Syrian military movements near the Lebanese border, the armed Iraqi resistance rhetoric grew particularly fierce. A statement declared that any military actions targeting Lebanon, particularly if coordinated with the U.S. and Israel, would amount to a declaration of war on the entire resistance axis. This serves as a form of preventative deterrence, suggesting that Iraq’s front might activate in retaliation to threats against Hezbollah. The factions also referenced their prior battles against U.S. forces and ISIS to reinforce their operational and ideological credentials.
The combination of active operations and strategic messaging signals a shift in Iraq’s role within the regional conflict. Previously seen as a battle ground for proxy rivalries fought by local groups, Iraq is increasingly positioned as a pressure point that can shape foreign powers’ strategic decisions.
This transformation depends on various elements: the continued U.S. military presence, Iraqi governmental stance, internal political currents, and developments in the Iran-Israel war. The recent escalation highlights how quickly Iraq’s internal dynamics can intertwine with broader regional strife, affecting security calculations in neighboring states. Within a context of ongoing tensions and shrinking diplomatic avenues, Iraq’s function could be pivotal in determining whether the conflict stabilizes or escalates across multiple fronts.
Iraq’s evolving role underscores that it is no longer merely a secondary theater but an essential player within a wider struggle involving military presence, strategic depth, and power balance across the region.
About the Author
