Iraq's initiative to accept a number of the most dangerous ISIS members detained in northeastern Syria cannot be separated from the deeper transformations taking place in the counter-terrorism file in the region. This step is not merely a technical procedure or a temporary solution, but a calculated political and security initiative that reflects Baghdad's desire to deal directly with one of the most complex post-conflict issues, rather than leaving it stranded in ungoverned gray areas.
For years, detention centers and camps in northeastern Syria have been a clear point of imbalance in the regional security equation. They are unstable spaces governed by temporary arrangements, housing extremists from various countries in a fragile, potentially explosive environment. This reality, long treated as a stopgap solution, is now seen internationally as a continuous source of danger that cannot be contained indefinitely.
In this context, the Iraqi move stands out as a proactive attempt to prevent a more dangerous security scenario, given the changes in the Syrian arena in terms of the forces controlling the territory, and the serious concerns associated with the possibility of these detainees escaping or becoming active in chaotic environments. Iraq, which fought one of the costliest battles against ISIS, now faces a different level of the threat, no longer solely internal, but cross-border, and capable of reproducing the organization in more complex and dangerous forms.
Therefore, the logic of the Iraqi initiative is not based on transferring a security burden from one arena to another, but on preventing the formation of vacuums that allow the organization to return under new names or structures. It is an attempt to bring this file under state control, rather than leaving it hostage to temporary arrangements that have proven limited.
It is important to note that these ISIS elements have long been held in arrangements intended to be containable, until recent developments – particularly the escalating tensions between Damascus and the Kurdish Autonomous Administration in northeastern Syria – re-ignited Washington's concerns and raised the question of security sustainability with greater urgency. The change in the balance of power on the ground, along with the fragility of institutional discipline within some Syrian government military formations, has raised increasing concerns about the actual ability to manage this sensitive file, or to ensure that it does not become a political bargaining chip, or a possible outlet for the release of extremely dangerous members, in a highly volatile security and political environment.
The American welcome of the move was consistent with this understanding. The US State Department described the Iraqi decision as a "bold and necessary" step within efforts to prevent the resurgence of the organization, in a clear indication that addressing this file is no longer an internal Iraqi matter, but part of a broader approach to regional security. What is remarkable about this position is that it was not presented in the form of dictation or pressure, but in a language of appreciation for a role initiated by Baghdad from its sovereign position.
American officials, including Special Envoy to Syria Tom Barrack, also expressed deep appreciation from US President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio to the Iraqi government, and to Iraq's position and willingness to contribute to protecting the international community from the continuing threat posed by ISIS detainees. They pointed out that the Iraqi role has become a key element in promoting stability, not only in Syria, but throughout the region. Washington further stressed the need for other countries to assume their responsibilities towards their detained citizens, in a message reflecting a shift in the international mood in this file.
This international interaction does not change the nature of the Iraqi decision, but it highlights its political aspect. The step combines a clear executive dimension and a calculated sovereign dimension. Instead of dealing with the detainees file as a burden that can be postponed, it has been incorporated into the state’s concerns, with all the complexities that this entails, but also the ability to control and contain. It is a clear transition from the logic of managing risk from a distance to the logic of reducing it within specific national frameworks.
At the same time, Iraq is keen to keep this path within a delicate balance: international cooperation without guardianship, and contribution to regional security without bearing the burdens of others. The repeated American emphasis on countries repatriating their detained citizens falls within this framework, and gives the Iraqi initiative an additional political dimension, beyond its direct security aspect.
Most importantly, this step reflects an advanced understanding of the nature of the confrontation with extremist organizations in its current stage. The issue is no longer limited to military control, but to the ability of countries to manage the legacy of violence within justice systems and institutions, and to prevent it from turning into a future threat. This is what puts the Iraqi initiative in its broader context: testing the state's ability, not showcasing its power.
Iraq is consolidating a path it began years ago, based on moving from being affected by the repercussions of the conflict to being a party that contributes to shaping its features afterwards. In a regional scene that still suffers from the results of unresolved files, this approach seems less of an exception, and more of an expression of a calm understanding of the complexities of the next stage.
