The strike on the “Hezbollah al-Nujaba” militia, the wing that is most unrelenting and audacious in its refusal to be tamed by the state, was a predictable reaction given the group’s leading role in attacks on US interests in Iraq. However, the ultimate question today is whether a critical reexamination of the ramifications of the American “fast food” strikes in the region. Although these strikes satisfy the short-term need to reestablish deterrence and offer a US show of force, they cannot solve the problem. On the contrary, they will increase the burdens on the Iraqi state’s shoulders, as is the case for all interventions that fall within this strategy of constantly reacting. It does not offer a radical and sustainable solution to this growing problem in the region, which is the rise of militias and their disregard for statehood.
To tell the truth, most of Iraq's bloody wounds since the US occupation and its aftermath are closely tied to the haste, negligence, and confusion of the approach that the West has taken since the fall of the Baathist regime. This approach must be critically reexamined and subjected to extensive inquiries.
Led by the United States, it presented the concept of a nominal state and addressed tensions by imposing a status quo and prolonging the crisis, seeking to end it with the least possible number of casualties, even if that leads to disasters that need decades to resolve. We can call this “Afghanistan Syndrome” - a perpetual return to pre-statehood.
Look into the support, endorsement, and backing of militias, as well as the denial and neglect, and you will realize that the region is unfortunately experiencing one of its worst-ever phases. Armed militias and extremist organizations, both Sunni and Shiite, are in control, giving rise to crises and using arms to directly influence decision-making and reactions. This applies to the international community's response to these developments from Iraq to Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Libya, and North Africa - and these are the places where their activity is vigorous and constant. Indeed, these militias also operate in other regions across the globe, whenever the logic of statehood collapses and is replaced by the logic of revolution, followed by the emergence of a parallel economy and the fragmentation of society.
The problem is deeper in Iraq because of the fundamental differences in the various armed groups’ relationship with the state, which have become a real obstacle to any genuine reform. Unlike all the factions listed as terrorist groups in Iraq (like the Hezbollah Brigades, Asaaib Ahl al-Haq, and Kataib Sayyid al-Shuhada), the Hezbollah al-Nujaba militia is not linked to the state, not even nominally. It is autonomous and completely independent from the state. It pays the state no particular consideration and has nothing to lose. That explains its fiery rhetoric. They accuse all other militias of being cowardly and acquiescing to the regime, as well as of being afraid of the United States, which continues to pursue limited and reactive deterrence with its targeting of Mushtaq Talib al-Saedi, who has been responsible for supplying the group with the latest and most advanced Iranian weapons, including drones, according to research reports.
This kind of attack, which I have often called “fast food” strikes, might temporarily weaken the militia. However, they also bolster its popularity and its capacity to mobilize support and dominate the militia box office because it looks like it is sacrificing more than others. It continues to pursue this competition with other militias until other groups follow suit as they seek to garner support among the supporters of armed organizations. That is the way to get ahead in the competitive market by symbolically fighting the American presence in Iraq and appeasing the center in Tehran.
In contrast to the overall conditions of this region teeming with militias, assassinations, and bloodshed, the moderate states led by Saudi Arabia, despite all the distortion, adhere to the logic of statehood, respecting sovereignty and seeking stability. They have warned, more than once, about the dangers of tolerating militias’ actions and their backers, which will contribute to destroying the region. Indeed, that becomes especially evident given the pattern of withdrawal and what happened in Kabul, which taught the countries of the region a crucial lesson about sovereignty, national security, strengthening domestic cohesion, and the concept of alliances.
Today, given that the region is riddled with highly charged rhetoric and is moving towards totalitarianism, not against revolutionizing peace but against militarization and mobilization. This state of affairs is being narrowly and pragmatically reconciled by two camps: a camp of voices resentful towards the previous US administration, which pressures the Biden administration to push for fragile negotiations. Another camp is seeking economic opportunities, even at the expense of the region's security, which are being pursued by certain European countries aiming for economic recovery, even if they undermine regional stability, and require reconciliation with this military doctrine and overlooking Iran's crimes against its people and the countries of the region.
Today, Iraq and the Gulf are paying heavily for the escalation of militarization in the region and the attempts to normalize this perverse state of affairs reality through accepting militias. Thus, redrawing the security architecture of the Gulf is crucial for preserving the gains of Vision 2030, whose impact extends beyond the Kingdom to reach the Middle East as a whole, presenting the outline for a prosperous future. The challenge today is to find a way to work with the wise in this world and support a project for stability founded on national security, the cornerstone of human well-being, especially for the people of the region, who are tired of this deteriorating situation that cannot be sustainable.
