Saudi Arabia and the United States just fired the first shots across a red line Iraq dared not cross. When warplanes struck Popular Mobilisation Forces bases in seven Iraqi provinces on Wednesday, they did more than kill fighters, they shattered the fiction that Baghdad can keep Iran-backed militias on a leash while hosting American troops. The strikes were not surgical probes; they were open surgical strikes on Iraqi soil, and they arrived with a message: sovereignty is negotiable when Washington and Riyadh decide the cost of restraint has become unbearable. The question now is whether Iraq's prime minister, Ali al-Zaidi, can still sell the fiction of Iraqi agency to a street that is already chanting for revenge.
Why these strikes could redefine the Gulf's security calculus
This was never just another tit-for-tat exchange between Iran's proxies and the Gulf monarchies. It was a direct challenge to the post-2003 order in Iraq, where militias tolerated by Tehran have operated with near-impunity under the umbrella of state institutions. The Saudi-US narrative, that the raids were retaliation for drone attacks on Saudi energy infrastructure, is less important than the fact that the raids happened inside Iraq without Baghdad's consent. That breach sets a precedent: if Washington and Riyadh can strike Iraqi territory once, they can do it again, and the next time the targets might be closer to Baghdad's political heart. The strikes also expose the hollowness of Iraq's claim to strategic autonomy. Since 2014, Baghdad has tried to position itself as a mediator between Tehran and Riyadh, but the moment the militias crossed a red line for Saudi Arabia, the fiction collapsed. The realignment now threatens to pull Iraq back into the vortex of regional proxy wars, with the added twist that Washington has now openly sided with Riyadh against groups it once fought alongside in the war against ISIS. For the Gulf, the strikes are a warning: the era of plausible deniability is over. For Iraq, they are a humiliation that could radicalise a new generation of fighters, and redirect their anger toward the very government that failed to protect them.
From Baghdad to Basra: How the strikes unravelled a decade of fragile balances
The Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF) emerged in 2014 as a coalition of mostly Shiite militias to fight ISIS, but they quickly became a parallel army with political wings, ministries, and budgets. Their integration into Iraq's state structure was never seamless, but it was tolerated because they filled security vacuums and answered to a chain of command that, however murky, still answered to Baghdad. That chain of command snapped on Wednesday. The strikes hit PMF bases in Kirkuk, Salahuddin, Diyala, Baghdad, Karbala, Muthanna, and Basra, every province where Iran-backed factions hold sway. At least 20 PMF members and four IRGC advisers were killed, according to Iraqi and Iranian media cited by Al Jazeera. The Saudi Ministry of Defence claimed the raids targeted "terrorist militias" responsible for drone attacks on Saudi energy facilities, but Baghdad insists no evidence has been provided. The Islamic Resistance in Iraq, a coalition of Iran-aligned groups, denied involvement in the Saudi attacks and warned that any "foolish action" would be met with a "harsh response." The tension is not new, but the scale of the response is. In 2020, after the US killed IRGC Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani and PMF deputy Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis in Baghdad, Iraq expelled US troops. This time, the US did not wait for an Iraqi invitation. It acted unilaterally, with Saudi Arabia as a partner. The sequence matters: first, the militias escalate; then, the US and Saudi escalate back; then, Iraq's government, already weak, is left holding the bag. The cancellation of Prime Minister al-Zaidi's first official trip to Riyadh is not just a diplomatic snub, it is a signal that Baghdad's balancing act has failed. The question now is whether al-Zaidi can still sell the idea of Iraqi sovereignty to a public that is already demanding the expulsion of the Saudi ambassador and vowing revenge. The Kataib Hezbollah ultimatum, giving the government until August 6 to prove it can defend Iraq's sovereignty, is not a negotiation tactic; it is a deadline for action or collapse.
What happened: A timeline of the strikes and the fallout
According to reporting by Al Jazeera, the strikes began in the early hours of Wednesday, targeting PMF positions across seven provinces. The Saudi Ministry of Defence described the operation as a "response to recent drone attacks" on Saudi petroleum facilities in the Eastern Province and Riyadh. Saudi air defences claimed to have intercepted several drones launched from Iraqi territory. The Islamic Resistance in Iraq denied any role in the Saudi attacks, calling the claims "fabrications." In Baghdad, the National Security Council, chaired by Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi, condemned the strikes as a "flagrant violation of Iraq's sovereignty," citing violations of international law and the UN Charter. The council warned that "any transgression or compromise of Iraq's security and sovereignty will not be tolerated under any circumstances." Funerals were held in Mosul for some of the PMF fighters, with mourners chanting slogans against the US and Saudi Arabia. In Baghdad, PMF supporters rallied near the Green Zone, demanding the expulsion of the Saudi ambassador. The Kataib Hezbollah statement, posted on social media, gave the Iraqi government until August 6 to demonstrate its ability to defend Iraq's sovereignty, warning that an "immediate response" to the US-Saudi attack is "inevitable." The strikes killed at least 20 PMF members and four IRGC advisers, according to Iraqi and Iranian media reports cited by Al Jazeera. The cancellation of al-Zaidi's trip to Riyadh, scheduled for Thursday, underscored the depth of the crisis. Baghdad has also complained that the US-Saudi "aggression has hindered investigation efforts regarding the alleged targeting of Saudi Arabia," demanding evidence that attacks were launched from Iraqi territory. No party has provided any evidence, according to the spokesperson for the commander-in-chief for Iraq's armed forces, speaking to the Iraqi News Agency.
Global and regional reactions: Who said what and why it matters
The strikes drew immediate condemnation from Iraq's National Security Council, which framed them as a violation of sovereignty and international law. The council's statement, shared on X, described the attacks as "an aggression" and warned that Iraq would not tolerate any compromise of its security. The Islamic Resistance in Iraq denied involvement in the Saudi attacks and threatened retaliation, framing the Saudi claims as "fabrications." Kataib Hezbollah, one of the most hardline PMF factions, issued an ultimatum to the Iraqi government, setting a deadline of August 6 for Baghdad to demonstrate its ability to protect Iraqi sovereignty. The strikes also drew reactions from regional capitals. Iran, which backs the PMF, has not yet issued an official statement, but the killing of IRGC advisers in the strikes is likely to trigger a response. The strikes also risk complicating US-Iraq relations further. Washington has long sought to maintain a military presence in Iraq to counter ISIS remnants and Iranian influence, but the unilateral nature of the strikes risks alienating Baghdad and strengthening anti-American sentiment. For Saudi Arabia, the strikes are a show of force against Iran-backed groups that have targeted its energy infrastructure, but they also risk escalating tensions with Iraq and complicating Riyadh's efforts to normalise relations with Baghdad. The strikes also raise questions about the future of the US-Saudi relationship. While the Biden administration has sought to distance itself from Saudi Arabia's regional interventions, the strikes suggest a renewed willingness to act jointly against Iran-backed groups. The question now is whether this coordination will continue or whether the strikes will deepen divisions between Washington and its Gulf allies over the pace and scope of confrontation with Iran.
South Asia impact: How the strikes could reroute energy flows and militant networks
For Pakistan, the strikes inside Iraq are a geopolitical earthquake. The PMF's networks stretch from Baghdad to the Iran-Pakistan border, and the group has long-standing ties with Pakistani militant outfits such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed. These groups have historically used Iraq as a transit hub for fighters and funds, and a surge in PMF retaliation could open a new front for attacks in Pakistan or against Pakistani interests in the Gulf. Islamabad's balancing act between Riyadh and Tehran has been a cornerstone of its foreign policy since the 1990s, but the strikes risk forcing Pakistan to take sides. The last time Pakistan faced a similar crossroads was during the 2019 Balakot crisis, when tensions with India escalated after a militant attack in Kashmir. This time, the stakes are higher: Pakistan's economy is more exposed to Gulf energy flows, and its military's counterterrorism operations in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa could be undermined if militant groups in Iraq retaliate. For India, the strikes threaten to destabilise Iraq's government, which has been a rare regional partner in countering Islamist extremism. India has invested heavily in Iraq's energy sector, particularly in the Basra region, and a collapse of Iraqi stability could disrupt oil supplies through the Strait of Hormuz. The strikes also risk reigniting sectarian tensions in South Asia, where Saudi-backed Sunni groups and Iranian-backed Shiite groups have clashed in countries like Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. The real question for South Asia is whether the strikes will force regional capitals to choose sides, or whether they will accelerate the search for a new regional security architecture that can contain the fallout.
What happens next: Three plausible paths and their consequences
Analysts see three likely trajectories for the crisis, each with distinct consequences for Iraq, the Gulf, and South Asia. The first scenario is a controlled escalation, where Kataib Hezbollah and its allies launch limited retaliatory strikes against Saudi targets in Iraq or Jordan, but avoid attacks on Gulf oil facilities or US bases. This would allow Baghdad to claim it has defended sovereignty without triggering a wider war. The second scenario is a rapid de-escalation, where Saudi Arabia and the US offer Iraq a face-saving formula, such as a joint investigation into the drone attacks, that allows al-Zaidi to save face and resume his trip to Riyadh. This would require Washington to distance itself from the strikes, a move that could strain US-Saudi relations. The third scenario is a full-blown escalation, where Iran orders a direct response against Saudi oil infrastructure or US forces in Iraq, triggering a cycle of retaliation that could draw in regional actors. The most likely outcome, analysts expect, is a mix of the first two scenarios: limited retaliation by the militias, followed by a Saudi-US offer of talks that allows Iraq to declare a partial victory. But the timeline is short. Kataib Hezbollah's ultimatum gives the Iraqi government until August 6 to demonstrate its ability to defend sovereignty. If Baghdad fails to act, the group has warned that an "immediate response" is inevitable. The question is whether al-Zaidi can still control the narrative, or whether the strikes have already radicalised a generation of fighters who see the government as complicit in the assault on their comrades. For South Asia, the stakes are high. If the crisis spirals, Pakistan could face renewed militant attacks, India could see energy supplies disrupted, and Bangladesh could see a resurgence of sectarian violence. The strikes have not just violated Iraq's sovereignty, they have exposed the fragility of the entire regional order, and South Asia is next in line.
Related Coverage
Middle East Conflict Analysis → — In-depth analysis, background context, and continuous updates on this developing story.
Key Takeaways
- Iraq's sovereignty illusion shattered: The Saudi-US strikes inside Iraq mark the end of Baghdad's balancing act between Tehran and Riyadh, leaving al-Zaidi's government exposed to both domestic outrage and regional pressure.
- South Asia's militant networks at risk: The PMF's ties to Pakistani and Kashmiri militant groups mean the strikes could reignite proxy wars in South Asia, forcing Islamabad to choose between Riyadh and Tehran.
- Energy flows and sectarian tensions in the crosshairs: A prolonged crisis could disrupt oil supplies through the Strait of Hormuz and reignite sectarian violence in Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, reshaping South Asia's security landscape.
