Observers have raised doubt over the “seriousness” of statements issued by armed Iraqi factions, which claim “Islamic resistance,” over attacks on American interests and bases in the country.
They first questioned whether it was in Iraq’s interest to strain relations with Washington given the good ties Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani enjoys with it. The PM is backed by the pro-Iran Coordination Framework, which includes the majority of the armed Shiite factions.
The observers then noted the “deep divisions” between those factions about dragging Iraq in yet another war given the relative security and stability the country is enjoying.
The factions have so far carried out a number of attacks against American interests and bases in Iraq since Israel declared its war on Gaza earlier in October. The observers doubted, however, that these attacks will continue.
They cited the attack carried out by the “Islamic resistance” in Iraq against an American base in Syria on Saturday, viewing it as perhaps an attempt to turn to targets beyond Iraqi borders given the pressure the factions have come under.
In a brief statement, the faction claimed responsibility for the attack on the al-Tanf base in Syria, saying it was targeted by two drones that carried out direct hits. On Monday, the group also claimed responsibility for three previous attacks in Syria.
Head of the Center for Political Thinking in Iraq, Dr. Ihssan Shmary told Asharq Al-Awsat that the war on Gaza has created deep divisions between the armed factions.
Among the contested issues is whether the government should be the sole authority in handling the war. Some factions have advocated that it should, while others refuse because they believe that it undermines them, especially since the government will support diplomatic solutions to the conflict, which goes against the very foundations of these factions.
The greatest divide, however, emerged over whether to attack American interests, Shmary said.
Some factions, such as the al-Nujaba movement, Kataib Hezbollah and Kataib Sayyid al-Shuhada, have adopted a more extreme position and backed the attacks. While others, such as the Badr Organization and Asaib Ahl al-Haq, believe that the attacks will harm the Iraqi government.
They believe that a clear vision should be adopted or specific steps carried out in advance before a direct attack is carried out against American interests, he explained, stressing that these factions are ultimately a major element of the government.
These divisions have not stopped some factions from carrying out the attacks, which, in the end, will not hide the disputes between the groups, he went on to say.
Political analyst Nizar Haidar made light of the divisions, telling Asharq Al-Awsat that they are not important since all these factions “receive their orders from one source” - Iran.
The truth is that the main leaders of the Coordination Framework have not commented on the statements that have urged an end to the attacks on American interests, he noted.
They have remained silent to avoid further embarrassing the government and Framework or because they are actually secretly encouraging the attacks, he remarked.
Meanwhile, the more pragmatic leaders, such as Ammar al-Hakim and Haidar al-Abadi, have clearly spoken of the need to respect Iraq’s commitments in protecting foreign military forces deployed in the country.
