Iraqi Factions Gear Up for ‘Major Clash’ Amid Concerns Over Tensions with Washington

The funeral procession for members of the Kataeb Hezbollah killed in a US airstrike on “Jurf Al-Sakhr” in Baghdad last November (Reuters)
The funeral procession for members of the Kataeb Hezbollah killed in a US airstrike on “Jurf Al-Sakhr” in Baghdad last November (Reuters)
TT

Iraqi Factions Gear Up for ‘Major Clash’ Amid Concerns Over Tensions with Washington

The funeral procession for members of the Kataeb Hezbollah killed in a US airstrike on “Jurf Al-Sakhr” in Baghdad last November (Reuters)
The funeral procession for members of the Kataeb Hezbollah killed in a US airstrike on “Jurf Al-Sakhr” in Baghdad last November (Reuters)

Tensions are escalating in Iraq after the US military struck two sites belonging to the Kataeb Hezbollah paramilitary group. Experts predict Baghdad could turn unfriendly to Washington if forces withdraw due to the rising tensions.

Following the airstrike, the Iraqi government vowed to “protect the Iraqi people” and labeled the attack on the army and Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) as “aggressive.”

Sources reveal that Iraqi armed factions are gearing up for a significant confrontation with US forces.

On Wednesday, US forces targeted Kataeb Hezbollah sites in response to attacks by the Iranian-backed militia, including the assault on the Ain Al-Asad Air Base on January 20.

US Central Command (CENTCOM) reported conducting airstrikes on three facilities used by Iran-affiliated militias in Iraq.

Last Saturday, the US military disclosed that Iran-backed factions launched “multiple ballistic missiles” at Ain Al-Asad, causing one Iraqi casualty and potential injuries among US forces.

The situation is rapidly evolving, heightening tensions between the US and factions in the region.

While factions didn’t disclose their losses from the recent US attack on two locations, sources confirmed injuries in Najaf.

In Al-Qaim, one member of the PMF was reported dead.

There are unverified reports on Iraqi and Arab militants’ deaths in the US strike on Jurf Al-Sakhr.

Significant material and human losses have been reported, confirmed an Iraqi officer, who requested anonymity.

The factions in Jurf Al-Sakhr, previously a battleground against ISIS, keep their activities secret and restrict journalist access.

The US views Jurf Al-Sakhr as a hub for Iranian-backed Iraqi factions, housing training centers, weapon depots, and missile facilities.

As Shiite forces push for the removal of US troops from Iraq, experts worry about the potential consequences if this decision is made amid escalating tensions.

Ihsan Faily, a political science professor at Mustansiriya University, believes it’s too early to talk about a quick US withdrawal from Iraq.

Faily notes that there is no national political consensus for the US withdrawal, despite a past recommendation from the parliament.

The professor argues that what might happen after the withdrawal, especially regarding the economic impact due to the dollar crisis, is concerning.

With Washington controlling oil revenue and potential political fallout, Iraq risks losing its ties with the West.

Faily explains, “If the Americans leave, Arab and foreign embassies might also depart, along with NATO forces, and Iraq could face sanctions as a country diverging from the international order.”



Three Scenarios for Russia’s Military Presence in Syria

Russian President Vladimir Putin inspecting his troops at Hmeimim Airbase in Latakia on December 12, 2017 (Sputnik/AP)
Russian President Vladimir Putin inspecting his troops at Hmeimim Airbase in Latakia on December 12, 2017 (Sputnik/AP)
TT

Three Scenarios for Russia’s Military Presence in Syria

Russian President Vladimir Putin inspecting his troops at Hmeimim Airbase in Latakia on December 12, 2017 (Sputnik/AP)
Russian President Vladimir Putin inspecting his troops at Hmeimim Airbase in Latakia on December 12, 2017 (Sputnik/AP)

Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday he would meet former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who fled to Russia after his regime fell in Damascus. But what will Putin say to his former ally? And how might their first exchange unfold, given Russia’s role in helping Assad escape on a chaotic night?

The Kremlin, known for staging Putin’s meetings with precision, might opt to limit media coverage this time. Putin could be seen sitting at a small table with Assad, now on asylum

in Moscow, in a soundless scene—one that leaves little room for formal pleasantries.

Why has Putin announced plans to meet Assad? Is it to reprimand him? Many in Russia believe Assad’s stubbornness has hurt Moscow’s efforts, threatened its gains in Syria, and could eventually risk its key military presence there.

As details remain unclear, Russian experts are racing to analyze developments in Syria and outline scenarios for the next phase.

Some Russian experts have painted grim scenarios. A member of the prestigious Russian Council on Foreign and Defense Policy warned of potential risks, including a prolonged conflict with civil war elements, a humanitarian catastrophe with millions of refugees, escalating migration in Europe, and rising tensions among nations like Israel, the US, and Iran.

He also predicted a new wave of international terrorism that could reach far beyond the region.

Other experts echoed this pessimism. One posted an image of a Syrian dissident stepping on a statue of Assad’s father, warning that “this is just the beginning.” Another blamed the crisis on the “Obama curse,” citing the West’s interference, while a third shared a bleak analysis titled, “We Must Pray for Syria.”

So far, Russian media and think tanks have avoided any optimistic outlooks for Syria’s future.

Experts, who spoke to Asharq Al-Awsat, believe Moscow may be preparing to handle one of three possible scenarios in Syria.

The first, most favorable for Russia’s interests, involves Moscow reaching an agreement with the new Syrian authorities to maintain its military presence for a limited period.

This could mean replacing the current 49-year agreements with a five-year deal to facilitate a gradual Russian withdrawal. Such an arrangement could help the new leadership in Syria manage Western pressure to cut ties with Moscow.

The second scenario envisions Russia giving up its airbase in Hmeimim while retaining a significant presence in Tartus. This would mirror agreements from 1972, which allowed Russian naval vessels to use the Tartus logistics center in the Mediterranean. This compromise would preserve Russia’s interests while reducing Western pressure on Damascus.

The third scenario involves a full Russian withdrawal from both bases, with Moscow later seeking agreements for shared use of air and sea ports. Such agreements, similar to those Russia has signed with other countries, are less likely to provoke Western opposition.

Regardless of the outcome, the Kremlin has yet to develop a clear strategy for dealing with the emerging situation in Syria.

Key questions remain, including how to curb Iran’s regional influence, manage Türkiye and Israel’s growing roles in Syria, and establish a new regional balance that secures Moscow’s minimum interests.