Baghdad After Damascus: Questions About the Day After

 
US helicopters accompany Secretary Antony Blinken as he heads to the US Embassy in Baghdad on December 13, 2024 (Reuters)
US helicopters accompany Secretary Antony Blinken as he heads to the US Embassy in Baghdad on December 13, 2024 (Reuters)
TT
20

Baghdad After Damascus: Questions About the Day After

 
US helicopters accompany Secretary Antony Blinken as he heads to the US Embassy in Baghdad on December 13, 2024 (Reuters)
US helicopters accompany Secretary Antony Blinken as he heads to the US Embassy in Baghdad on December 13, 2024 (Reuters)

On November 24, 2024, the Islamic Resistance in Iraq claimed what seemed to be its final attack on Israel. The announcement came two weeks after Syrian President Bashar al-Assad fled to Russia, with armed groups declaring “Syria is free.”

The claim, shared on a Telegram channel, marked the end of the “Axis of Resistance” operations before a ceasefire took effect in Lebanon.

On November 27, 2024, Syrian factions advanced in western Aleppo, sparking political alarm in Baghdad.

Rumors spread that “Baghdad could be the next target” after Assad fled to Russia, prompting increased diplomatic talks with Western and Arab capitals.

Iraqi forces have mobilized along the Syrian border, citing concerns over the infiltration of “armed elements” and fears of a broader collapse.

This buildup began earlier, during the Syrian factions’ rapid advance toward Damascus in just 10 days.

Since November 27, Iraqi army and Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) leaders have visited the border more than six times, the latest on December 13, 2024.

Iraq faces uncertainty after the fall of Assad, Iran’s retreat, and the decline of Hezbollah’s power. Key questions now center on the “new rulers” in Damascus, the “future of Iranian influence,” and the “direction of Iraq’s political process.”

The urgency of these issues grew after UN envoy Mohammed Al-Hassan met with Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani in Najaf on December 12, 2024.

“I briefed Sayyed al-Sistani on recent UN discussions about Iraq,” Al-Hassan said.

“The region is changing rapidly, and Iraq needs bold, urgent decisions. We urge leaders to act quickly and take overdue steps toward reconciliation and unity,” he added.

Asharq Al-Awsat spoke to representatives of six Iraqi parties about Al-Hassan's remarks.

Many speculated about a “collapse of the political system” or a return to pre-2003 Iraq, with most concerns coming from traditional Shiite parties.

Recent events have revolved around Prime Minister Mohammed Shia Al-Sudani. On December 10, 2024, US CENTCOM chief Gen. Michael Kurilla met Kurdish SDF officials in Syria before heading to Baghdad to meet Sudani, who reaffirmed Iraq’s position on “respecting the Syrian people’s choices.”

The following day, Sudani visited Jordan to meet King Abdullah II, who later traveled to Abu Dhabi to meet UAE President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed. Sudani returned to Baghdad, received a call from Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, and met with a US delegation. Meanwhile, Germany’s defense minister visited Baghdad and Erbil.

Talks across the region have focused on “securing borders” with Syria. International discussions, involving US President Joe Biden and other Western officials, highlight a global push to bolster security in Syria’s neighboring states.

Despite these efforts, Shiite leaders in Baghdad remain unclear on Iraq’s future or how to handle mounting regional pressures.

A former government advisor described Iraq’s current situation as the most fragile in years, with Syria’s shifting dynamics raising serious questions for Iraq’s political stability.

Iraq Faces Rising Tensions After Assad’s Fall

Mutual fears are growing across the Iraq-Syria border. In Syria, concerns focus on Iraqi groups alarmed by the new regime, while in Iraq, fears center on potential unrest at the Sayyida Zainab shrine in Damascus, which could destabilize the region.

A senior Shiite figure told Asharq Al-Awsat that Assad had granted Iran full security control over the shrine, but this arrangement ended with his departure.

“Now, everyone is afraid,” the source said, though international assurances suggest Damascus will not unravel as quickly as Assad’s fall.

Since Assad fled to Moscow, Iraqi Shiite communities have voiced concerns over the safety of Shiite shrines in Syria, amplified by a flood of social media posts. However, Iraqi diplomats have engaged regional powers to prevent escalation, warning that even a minor misstep could ignite conflict.

Inside Iraq, fears are mounting among Shiite leaders about losing control over factions or being outmaneuvered by Sunni and Kurdish rivals. These groups might exploit Iran’s retreat, seen by some as a "tactical withdrawal," to shift Iraq’s political balance.

Shiite politicians also worry the Iraqi premier could distance himself from Iran-aligned factions and pursue a new political deal, using “protecting Baghdad” as his justification.

“Sudani holds a strong card,” one political adviser noted.

Publicly, Shiite leaders focus on warnings about Syria’s “extremist rule” and the risk of militants crossing into Iraq. Privately, they remain unsettled about Iraq’s next steps as regional dynamics shift.

Recent developments underscore these tensions. Sudani reportedly sent a message to Syrian authorities, pledging non-interference while seeking assurances about the safety of Shiite communities.

Iraq’s stance toward Syria shifted after airstrikes hit convoys carrying Shiite fighters and Syria’s army collapsed. These events freed Sudani from earlier obligations to Iran-backed factions, allowing him to adopt a more flexible position.

Iraq's Political Crossroads: Regional Pressures and US Strategy

A Western diplomat in Baghdad, who spoke anonymously, said that “stability in Iraq is now a top priority for the international community,” but regional pressures are pushing to dismantle the militias that have fueled instability.

This comes as political discussions focus on a question raised by many: Is the fall of regimes in the Resistance Axis moving toward Iraq? Some consider it an unlikely scenario without solid evidence.

An Iraqi politician, who claimed insight into US-Iraq talks, suggested that the US has engaged Israel, which wants to “finish the job of removing the Resistance Axis, with Iraq as the last standing member.”

The theory suggests that Israel sees Baghdad as “Iran's most important asset,” and Tehran might use Iraq’s resources to revive the collapsing axis, meaning the crisis won’t end with Assad.

To counter Israel’s objectives, the US reportedly proposed an “alternative plan” with similar goals.

An Iraqi adviser explained that the new approach involves disarming militias, integrating the PMF into the state, and removing militia offices from Sunni areas.

This adviser also said that the US wants to hold new elections in Iraq and believes “Iran will have to accept this new reality.”

However, figures from Iraq’s Coordination Framework dismissed this as “fantasy,” although they acknowledge that messages reaching Baghdad indicate that “cutting Iraq’s ties to Iran is now seen as essential.”

Sidelining entrenched groups in Iraq’s government is difficult, and some believe this could only be achieved through negotiations with Iran.

A political adviser noted, “It’s hard to remove Iranian influence so easily. They are involved in ongoing discussions in the region, and if Iraq’s political situation changes, Iran will be a part of it.”

The Middle East’s Shifting Landscape and Sudani’s Challenge

In political circles, a simple question is being raised: “Why should Baghdad be targeted when it stayed out of the support war and didn’t intervene to prevent Assad’s fall?” This reflects a desire to avoid the consequences of the post-conflict situation.

But this is not the regional reality. A series of events suggests that Iraq must change to avoid difficult choices ahead.

A Western diplomat told Asharq Al-Awsat, “The region has changed... it’s clear that the dynamics have shifted, and players must adapt.”

For the first time since 2003, excluding the threat from ISIS in 2014, Iraq’s Shiite forces face mounting pressures, forcing them to decide how to adapt politically.

During his visit to Baghdad on December 13, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken didn't wear a bulletproof vest, unlike his November 2023 trip, symbolizing a more relaxed approach.

He joked with Sudani, saying, “It’s wonderful to fly in from the airport and see the vitality of the city.”

However, Blinken’s reassuring words—calling it the right moment for Iraq to strengthen its sovereignty—are met with skepticism in Iraq.

Officials fear these may be just the comments of a diplomat in his final month, with a Republican administration likely to take a harder line on Iran, and Iraq possibly being the last target of “maximum pressure.”

Iraqi politicians are convinced that “something will happen,” but opinions differ on what that might be. There's speculation about a possible Israeli strike, or if Washington plans to protect Iraq through a new deal aimed at limiting Iranian influence.

Sudani’s aides downplay the likelihood of military strikes but hint at necessary political changes, which could soften the impact of a future US administration under Donald Trump.

However, these changes could create risks, as Sudani’s opponents in both Baghdad and Tehran fear unforeseen consequences.



Israel Wary of Egypt's 'Military Infrastructure' in Sinai: Peace Treaty at Risk?

Egyptian army chief Ahmed Khalifa inspects troops near Israel's border late last year. (Military spokesman)
Egyptian army chief Ahmed Khalifa inspects troops near Israel's border late last year. (Military spokesman)
TT
20

Israel Wary of Egypt's 'Military Infrastructure' in Sinai: Peace Treaty at Risk?

Egyptian army chief Ahmed Khalifa inspects troops near Israel's border late last year. (Military spokesman)
Egyptian army chief Ahmed Khalifa inspects troops near Israel's border late last year. (Military spokesman)

Israel has voiced growing concerns over Egypt’s military presence in the Sinai Peninsula, fearing a potential escalation between the two sides amid the ongoing Gaza war.

Israeli media reports said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government has asked both Washington and Cairo to dismantle what it describes as a “military infrastructure” established by the Egyptian army in Sinai.

However, an informed Egyptian source and experts cited by Asharq Al-Awsat insisted that Egypt has not violated its peace treaty with Israel. They argued that Cairo’s military movements are a response to Israeli breaches of the agreement.

Israel’s Israel Hayom newspaper, citing a senior Israeli security official, reported that Egypt’s military buildup in Sinai constitutes a “major violation” of the security annex of the peace treaty.

The official said the issue is a top priority for Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz, stressing that Israel “will not accept this situation” amid what it views as Egypt’s growing military footprint in the peninsula.

The official added that the issue goes beyond the deployment of Egyptian forces in Sinai exceeding the quotas set under the military annex of the Camp David Accords.

The real concern, he said, lies in Egypt’s continued military buildup in the peninsula, which Israel views as an irreversible step.

Moreover, he stressed that while Israel is not seeking to amend its peace treaty with Egypt or redeploy troops along the border, it believes the current situation requires urgent action to prevent a potential escalation.

Egypt-Israel relations have not seen such tensions since the outbreak of the Gaza war, particularly after Israel violated a ceasefire agreement with Hamas brokered primarily by Egypt. Israeli forces resumed airstrikes on Gaza last month and failed to fulfill their commitments to withdraw from the Philadelphi Corridor and Palestinian border crossings.

A senior Egyptian source dismissed Israel’s accusations, telling Asharq Al-Awsat that “these repeated Israeli pretexts ignore the fact that Israeli forces have violated the peace treaty, seizing control of areas where Egypt objects to their presence without the necessary coordination with Cairo.”

Egypt has the right to take all necessary measures to safeguard its national security against any threats, emphasized the source.

“Nevertheless, Cairo remains fully committed to the peace treaty and has no intention of aggression against any party,” it added.

Israeli forces seized control of the Gaza-Egypt border, including the Philadelphi Corridor and the Rafah crossing, in May 2024. Israel has accused Egypt of not doing enough to stop weapons smuggling into Gaza through border tunnels—an allegation Cairo has denied.

Under the terms of the ceasefire agreement with Hamas, which Israel later broke, Israeli forces were supposed to begin withdrawing from the Philadelphi Corridor on March 1, completing the pullout within eight days. However, Israel failed to do so and instead resumed airstrikes on Gaza.

Israel also announced the creation of an administration aimed at facilitating the “voluntary departure” of Gaza residents, a move Cairo strongly rejected and formally condemned.

Egypt has insisted that Palestinians must remain in their homeland and has put forward a reconstruction plan for Gaza and called for the implementation of the two-state solution. The plan was endorsed at an emergency Arab summit three weeks ago.

Media reports have indicated that Egypt responded to Israel’s control of the Gaza border by increasing its military presence near the frontier—an act that some Israeli officials claim violates the peace treaty and threatens Israel’s security.

Former Egyptian intelligence official Gen. Mohammed Rashad told Asharq Al-Awsat that Israel itself violated the peace treaty by seizing the Philadelphi Corridor, controlling border crossings, and blocking aid to Gaza while seeking to forcibly displace Palestinians into Egypt.

“Every Israeli action along Gaza’s border with Egypt constitutes hostile behavior against Egypt’s national security,” said Rashad, who previously headed the Israeli military affairs division in Egypt’s intelligence service.

“Egypt cannot sit idly by in the face of such threats and must prepare for all possible scenarios.”

The Philadelphi Corridor is a strategically sensitive buffer zone, serving as a narrow 14-kilometer passage between Egypt, Israel, and Gaza, stretching from the Mediterranean Sea in the north to the Kerem Shalom crossing in the south.

Military expert General Samir Farag insisted that Egypt has not violated the peace treaty or its security annex in over 40 years, arguing that Israel has repeatedly breached the agreement and is attempting to shift blame onto Cairo.

“Israel is doing this to distract from its internal problems, including public discontent over its ballooning defense budget,” Farag told Asharq Al-Awsat.

“It also wants to deflect attention from Egypt’s reconstruction plan for Gaza and leverage its claims to pressure the United States for more military aid by portraying Egypt as a threat.”

Farag emphasized that Egypt’s actions are solely aimed at protecting its national security, adding: “There is no clause in the peace treaty that prevents a country from defending itself.”

“The so-called ‘military infrastructure’ Israel refers to consists of roads and development projects in Sinai.”

“The US has satellite surveillance over the region—if Egypt had violated the treaty, Washington would have flagged it. Moreover, security coordination between Egypt and Israel continues daily,” he explained.

Egypt and Israel signed their landmark peace treaty on March 25, 1979, committing to resolving disputes peacefully and prohibiting the use or threat of force. The agreement also established military deployment guidelines and a joint security coordination committee.

Meanwhile, US Republican Party member Tom Harb told Asharq Al-Awsat that Washington has received intelligence from multiple sources indicating that Egypt has amassed a significant military force in Sinai.

Israel considers this a breach of the peace treaty, which designates Sinai as a demilitarized zone to prevent surprises like the 1973 war, Harb said.

While the US fully supports Israel’s concerns, it also wants to prevent further escalation, as that would destabilize the region, he added.

Ultimately, Egypt must clarify whether its troop movements are aimed at threatening Israel or preventing Palestinians from crossing into Egyptian territory, he stated.