Iraq’s Prime Minister Didn’t Need New Problems. Now He Has the Biggest One Yet
On July 28, the United States and Saudi Arabia launched a joint attack on Iran-backed militias in Iraq. Riyadh had accused the militias of launching drone strikes at Saudi oil installations in the country’s east. The U.S.-Saudi attacks targeted what is known as the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), hitting militia bases in seven provinces across Iraq and killing at least 20 of its fighters, according to the group. The militias, which are nominally part of the Iraqi armed forces, in fact operate independently of the government in Baghdad.
The Iraqi office wasted no time in condemning the strikes, which it called “a blatant violation of Iraq’s sovereignty, targeting its official institutions.” The government immediately canceled a scheduled meeting in Jeddah between Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi, who had returned from meeting Trump in the White House just days earlier, and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Al-Zaid, who has been striving to present himself as a strong leader, clearly couldn’t allow himself to be seen as permitting attacks on Iraqi territory.
Iraqi leaders have found themselves forced to maintain a difficult balance between the demands of Washington, which is crucial to Iraq’s economy and diplomatic position, and Tehran, which has now spent more than two decades building out its influence in this country.
Yet many questions about the strikes remain. A Fox News reporter reported that Trump had said the attacks were carried out in coordination with the Iraqi government. If this is true, then the U.S.-Saudi action would no longer count as a violation of Iraqi sovereignty – or, at least, could not be considered an act of over aggression against Iraq. It would also suggest that the Iraqi government approved the targeting of those sites that were struck. Since Trump has a history of making statements that are later contradicted or withdrawn, most observers and analysts were inclined to dismiss his alleged remark.
Yet there is reason to believe that Trump’s statement was not entirely wrong. A source familiar with developments in Washington and Baghdad told me that the Iraqi government was “informed” in advance about the attacks (a claim that still falls short of outright “coordination”). This should not come as a complete surprise. The U.S. president is keen to preserve his relationship with Al-Zaidi, whom he lavished with praise at their White House meeting. So it seems plausible that Washington might have gone to the trouble to inform Zaidi shortly before the attacks, to prevent the information from leaking to other parties. According to the same source, Zaidi did manage to inform one political leader before the strike. This suggests that Zaidi did not approve the strike, as Trump’s comment implied, but was merely notified of it.
The ruling coalition, known as the Coordination Framework, has been sending a clear message to Al-Zaidi even before the attacks: that they will withdraw their political support if he moves to disband the armed factions by force in the months to come. Indeed, such a move would likely mean outright war between government forces and the pro-Iranian militias. In May, Al-Zaidi threatened to resign over delays in forming his government, but he has softened his stance in his recent meetings with the Framework, telling them that the decision to disband the militias would be theirs, not his. Notably, both official statements issued after the strikes came from the National Security Council and the Coordination Framework. They condemned the aggression against Iraq and its people, and warned that Iraq’s sovereignty and security could not be violated. None were issued in the prime minister’s own name.
Ever since the U.S. overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003, Iraqi leaders have found themselves forced to maintain a difficult balance between the demands of Washington, which is crucial to Iraq’s economy and diplomatic position, and Tehran, which has now spent more than two decades building out its influence in this country. Even today, Iraq hosts both a small contingent of American troops as well as a wide array of pro-Iranian armed groups and individuals.
That period of restraint is now history. The war between the U.S. and Iran has become an existential, zero-sum fight, and because of that Al-Zaidi will soon face the old ultimatum posed by every president since Bush: ‘You’re either with us or you’re against us.’
But the outbreak of active war between the United States and Iran has placed Al-Zaidi in an especially difficult spot. The latest strikes have drawn Iraq and its neighbors directly into the long-running conflict between the Americans and Iranians – something Al-Zaidi’s predecessors in office worked to avoid. The latest phase of the war threatens to make military retaliation against the PMF a new norm. For years now, Iraq’s neighbors (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE, and Jordan) have repeatedly accused pro-Iranian militias in Iraq of attacks (including the one on Saudi Aramco facilities in 2024), but they have always refrained from responding militarily.
That period of restraint is now history. The war between the U.S. and Iran has become an existential, zero-sum fight, and because of that Al-Zaidi will soon face the old ultimatum posed by every president since Bush: “You’re either with us or you’re against us.” To make matters worse, that same question will now be put to him by the ruling coalition – the body constitutionally in charge of choosing the prime minister.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect MBN’s editorial stance.