West Asia is marked today by heightened instability, with Iraq once again drawn into the center of regional turbulence. At the United Nations podium, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu directed explicit threats toward the resistance factions in Iraq, raising questions about “Israel’s” objective and the nature of the message.

These developments unfold against the backdrop of Iraq’s internal debate over the weapons of its resistance factions, the upcoming elections, and persistent threats emanating from its Syrian border. This convergence of pressures has positioned Iraq at a critical juncture. Is Baghdad on the verge of becoming the next front in the Israeli occupation’s wars, or has it carved out a fragile but sustainable role as a stabilizing player in the region? 

Netanyahu’s speech on September 26 at the UN General Assembly explicitly named Iraq among the states where resistance factions would face Israeli consequences. In response, Iraqi Foreign Minister Fuad Hussein condemned the threats as “unacceptable,” affirming that any attack on an Iraqi citizen would be treated as an attack on the entire nation.

Speaking to Al Mayadeen Iraq, independent politician Abu Miithaq al-Masar dismissed Netanyahu’s threats as nonsensical, born of weakness, pointing out that Netanyahu has failed to achieve decisive victories in Gaza or secure the release of captives. “From where does he claim the power to act with impunity?” According to Al-Masar, any aggression against Iraq would only mire the occupation in another costly quagmire. 

Without Western and US backing, Netanyahu wouldn’t dare, according to Ammar al-Azzawi of the Sovereignty Alliance party in Iraq, “If he had not found support, including from the US, to back his crimes, he would not have dared to speak.” To back up his statement, he added that Netanyahu is currently at his weakest, underscored by the empty UN hall during his speech, and is desperately trying to deflect attention from his failures. Al-Azzawi further stressed that Iraq has become a foundational pillar of the resistance axis, with factions deeply rooted in Iraqi society and politics. Far from weakening them, Netanyahu’s threats have strengthened their electoral prospects. In his words: “The entity cannot remain silent in the face of Iraq, but it also cannot withstand the consequences.” 

Analysts agree that while Israeli rhetoric is reckless, an actual military confrontation with Iraq remains unlikely. As political analyst A’ed al-Hilali explains to Al Mayadeen Iraq, the relative calm has been preserved by agreements between Baghdad, the resistance factions, and Washington, agreements underpinned by international concerns over oil stability and global investments in Iraq. 

Disarming the resistance: A futile endeavor? 

The question of disarming Iraq’s resistance factions has long been a central issue in the country’s politics. Amid rising regional tensions and efforts to weaken the axis of resistance, the US has intensified pressure on Baghdad to “disengage from Iran”. In line with this strategy, the US Department of State recently announced putting four Iraqi resistance groups, al-Nujaba Movement, Kata’ib Sayyed al-Shohada, Ansarullah al-Awfiya, and Kata’ib Imam Ali, on its so-called terror list.

Al-Azzawi argued that weakening Iraqi factions has been a consistent Israeli objective since 1948, pursued through wars, terrorism, and political infiltration. But disarmament, he insisted, is little more than media rhetoric: “Disarming on fraction or ten would not change the reality that all Iraqis reject Israel and if pushed, would arm themselves against it.” Iraq serves as the strategic depth for the axis of resistance in its stance toward the Israeli occupation, and together, they represent a constant source of concern for the occupation. Consequently, any attempt to weaken Iraq is closely tied to efforts to undermine the broader resistance. 

Read next: The 'militia' label: How Western media delegitimizes Iraq’s PMF

Speaking to Al Mayadeen Iraq, political analyst Hussein al-Kinani emphasized that the US has been forced to coexist with the Iraqi reality: “The key was that US interests themselves were at risk. The agreement that stopped resistance operations against US bases in Iraq played the decisive role.” For many Iraqis, the idea of “disarmament” is not even an option. The resistance factions are not armies with tanks and fighter jets, but groups that carry the will to fight for their national dignity and the readiness to confront the occupation. Any forced attempt to strip these weapons, like previous US operations in Iraqi cities, risks plunging the country into internal conflict.

Syrian front: Spillover threats and border dilemmas

Beyond direct Israeli threats and domestic debates, Iraq also faces persistent security concerns from Syria, where armed groups backed by both the US and “Israel” operate near its borders, creating not only a risk of spillover violence but also a potential pretext for Israeli escalation against Baghdad. 

Baghdad has responded with a careful diplomatic posture, positioning itself as a mediator between Iran and the US, allowing Iraq to de-escalate tensions while preserving strategic autonomy, maintaining internal and local calm while calculating external actions. According to al-Kinani, “There is a clear international will for Iraq to remain stable, especially on the Iraqi-Syrian border. This is not because Washington suddenly sided with the resistance, but because Israel is already facing multiple fronts.” 

Moving to the al-Hawl camp in northeastern Syria, he emphasized that it underscores the aforementioned vulnerabilities. Housing thousands of former ISIS fighters and their families, the camp remains a breeding ground for extremist ideologies that threaten Iraq’s security. The camp is under the control of the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and its civilian arm, the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES). 

After the latest CENTCOM meeting on Saturday, Admiral Brad Cooper, head of the US Central Command, stressed that the repatriation of foreign nationals detained and displaced in Syria’s al-Hawl camp is a critical strategic measure to counter ISIS and prevent its resurgence. While Baghdad has sought to dismantle the camp, analysts highlight the logistical and political obstacles, particularly the refusal of foreign governments to repatriate their citizens. The issue encapsulates Iraq’s broader challenge: managing security threats that are simultaneously domestic, regional, and international in scope. 

Today, Iraq’s position is precarious, and Netanyahu’s threats, while reckless, are unlikely to translate into direct Israeli aggression, constrained by Iraq’s strategic importance to global oil flows and a fragile balance maintained through US mediation. Attempts to disarm resistance factions remain impractical, not only because of their integration into Iraqi society but also because of their role as a national deterrent against both occupation and extremism. Meanwhile, the Syrian border continues to pose risks that Iraq can only manage, not eliminate, through diplomacy and cautious security policy. 

At this crossroads, Iraq is both vulnerable and indispensable. Its stability rests on a delicate interplay of domestic resilience, resistance legitimacy, and global acknowledgment. Whether Baghdad emerges as a new front in the regional confrontation or a stabilizing player will depend not only on its own decisions but also on the calculations of its allies and adversaries.