100,000 worshipers perform Friday prayers at Al-Aqsa Mosque

TEHRAN, (MNA) – Around 100,000 Muslim worshipers performed Friday prayers at Al-Aqsa Mosque compound in the occupied Palestine despite tightened Israeli restrictions.

It said the Israeli forces prevented thousands of worshippers from reaching Al-Aqsa Mosque, turning many back thousands at the Qalandia checkpoint and Checkpoint 300, north and south of the city, WAFA news agency reported. 

Israeli forces have recently beefed up their military presence at the gates of Al-Aqsa Mosque, aiming to restrict access to the site.

Israeli officials have also issued orders barring over 300 Palestinian citizens from entering Al-Aqsa Mosque during the fasting month of Ramadan, the report added.

Why a potential aggression on Iran would be the end of Trump?

TEHRAN, (MNA) – US President Donald Trump repeatedly promised during his 2024 election campaign that he would end “endless wars” but war with Iran would certainly be a political suicide for him.

He positioned himself against the former politicians who dragged America into the quagmire of Iraq and Afghanistan, promising voters weary of the human and financial costs of war that his priority would be America’s national interests, not foreign adventures. Now, the same president, with the same social base, has threatened a military attack on Iran. The important point is that the demands of Trump’s war-mongering team are at odds with the main demands of public opinion in the United States. The latest polls in the United States show that the people of this country strongly oppose the option of war against Iran, and this opposition is so deep that it has even engulfed the traditional Republican base.

To understand the depth of the American public's opposition to a war against Iran, we need only look back. According to a Gallup poll, when then-President George W. Bush invaded Iraq in 2003, 72 percent of Americans supported that war. The Bush administration's extensive propaganda about weapons of mass destruction and the threat of Saddam Hussein was able to sway public opinion. Now, if Trump wants to start a war with Iran, he will have a very complicated situation at home. The latest poll by the SSRS Institute and the University of Maryland, conducted between February 5 and 9, 2026, shows that only 21 percent of Americans support a military attack on Iran, and 49 percent are clearly opposed. 30 percent have no clear opinion. These figures, compared to 72 percent support for the Iraq war, show an unprecedented drop in American public opinion and indicate that the bitter memory of past wars has not yet been erased from people's minds.

Even among Republicans, the backbone of Trump’s vote, there is no consensus for war. According to the same poll, only 40 percent of Republicans support attacking Iran, while 25 percent oppose and 35 percent are undecided. This means that Trump’s social base is deeply divided on the issue. This aversion to war among Republicans suggests that even Trump’s most loyal supporters are unwilling to pay the price for a new military adventure.

The results of the Associated Press-NORC Public Affairs Research Center (AP-NORC) poll conducted between February 19 and 23, 2026, show that about half of American adults, 48 ​​percent, are “very” or “extremely” concerned about Iran’s nuclear program as a direct threat to their country. This statistic shows that Iranophobia still exists among Americans and that they take Iran’s nuclear program seriously. But the important point here is that the same poll emphasizes that only about 30 percent of people trust Trump’s judgment in using military force. More than half of Americans trust him “only a little” or “not at all” in this area. This distrust is even seen among young Republicans under 45, where only about half of them trust Trump’s decision-making to use military force, while the figure is about two-thirds among older Republicans. These statistics show that the new generation of Republicans, like Democrats, are skeptical of the judgment of their leaders.

The Economist and YouGov poll, conducted between January 30 and February 2, found that 48 percent of Americans oppose military action against Iran, while only 28 percent support it. That is, 72 percent of Americans either oppose it or are undecided. The results of a Quinnipiac University poll conducted between January 8 and 12 also showed that 70 percent of Americans believe that the United States should not interfere in Iranian affairs, while only 18 percent support intervention. The poll was conducted a week after Trump said that the United States would be “ready and armed” if Iran killed peaceful protesters, but people did not agree even with the justification that the intervention was being carried out in support of the protesters.

In addition to the polls, prominent figures in Donald Trump's base have also explicitly opposed any attack on Iran and any foreign military adventurism in general. Steve Bannon, Trump's former adviser and one of the main architects of the MAGA movement, has explicitly stated that one of MAGA's core principles is opposition to endless wars. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican representative and one of the popular figures in this movement, wrote on the social network X that foreign wars are putting America last, killing innocent people and bankrupting the country. She emphasized that millions of Americans voted on the promise of "America First" and that this is not our fight. Charlie Kirk, founder of the right-wing youth organization Turning Point, also warned that Trump voters, especially young people, supported him because he was the first president in their lifetime who did not start a new war and the last thing America needs is a new war.

On the other hand, Trump has also faced many challenges in the economic field. On February 21, 2026, the US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the extensive tariffs known as retaliatory tariffs against trading partners were illegal, ruling that the president had exceeded his authority. Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized that the president cannot unilaterally impose such tariffs. The ruling dealt a heavy blow to Trump's economic plan and his promises to revive American industry. Trump, who had promised to bring factories back to America by imposing tariffs, has now lost his trump card in the run-up to the midterm elections.

There are also midterm elections in November 2026. According to the latest polls, Democrats have a better chance of winning the House of Representatives than Republicans. A February 9 Economist-YouGov poll showed 39 percent of voters favoring Democrats and only 31 percent of voters favoring Republicans. Prediction platforms such as PlayMarket also put the Democrats’ chance of winning the House of Representatives at 83 percent. Trump himself has warned Republicans that if the party loses control of Congress, he could be impeached. The average poll shows Trump’s approval rating at 42 percent and disapproval at 55 percent.

If Trump, ignoring public opinion and the warnings of his base, starts a war against Iran, the wave of public anger will be uncontrollable with the first heavy casualties and the return home of the coffins of American soldiers. The experience of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has shown that Americans take a strong stance against the government when they see images of the returned coffins. In such circumstances, not only will the midterm elections turn into a complete disaster for the Republicans, but Trump will spend the last two years of his presidency with a Democratic Congress and repeated impeachment campaigns. Democrats will use the opportunity to weaken Trump and face him with endless investigations and corrosive hearings.

Trump's base (MAGA), which came to the polls with the slogan "No to War," will never forgive an adventure that results in the deaths of young Americans. Public opinion, which today in the polls has declared its opposition resolutely, will take to the streets if war breaks out, exposing Trump to a wave of protests that could lead to his overthrow.

In addition to this domestic situation in the US, Iran has issued a stark warning that this time any attack will lead to a regional war and the aggressors will receive severe blows. Iranian officials have emphasized that Iran’s defense strategy is based on a reciprocal and regrettable response and that any miscalculation by Trump will be met with a swift and painful response. Trump is now faced with a situation where, in the event of any miscalculation, he will be taking a losing gamble not only with his political future but also with the future of the Republican Party. 

Iran not to accept uranium enrichment suspension: cleric

TEHRAN, (MNA) – Tehran’s Provisional Friday Prayers Leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ahmad Khatami says that Iran will never give in to pressures to abandon enrichment, calling the US officials’ demands “irrelevant and impractical”.

Speaking at the sermons of this week's Friday prayers in Tehran held at Tehran's Imam Khomeini (RA) Mosalla, he emphasized that the Islamic Republic will never bow down to the US pressure on the suspension of uranium enrichment.

Turning to the indirect Iran-US nuclear talks held in the Swiss city of Geneva on Thursday, he stated, “As Iranian foreign minister stated, the negotiation between Iran and US is on nuclear issue and any negotiation with the country’s missile program is out of question.”

Turning to the presence of US navy fleet in the region, Ayatollah Khatami noted, “You (Americans) have navies and ships but according to Leader of the Islamic Revolution, more dangerous than your ships is the weapons that can be sunk at the sea.”

The third round of indirect Iran-US nuclear talks was held in the Swiss city of Geneva at the Embassy of Oman on Thursday.

Open Society and the Political Logic of Imam Ali (AS)

TEHRAN, (MNA) – In a time when the issue of "power" and its relationship with morality is still one of the main concerns of human societies, rereading intellectual traditions can open new horizons for us.

 One of the concepts that has gained great importance in contemporary political philosophy is "open society"; a society in which power is not considered sacred, rulers are not immune from error, and criticism is not a threat, but a condition for reform. 

In the Islamic tradition, too, especially in the life and words of Amir al-Mu'minin Ali (AS), clear signs of such an approach to politics can be observed; an approach that considers government not as a sacred goal, but as a human tool to prevent oppression and reduce people's suffering. 

Government; Inherent Right or Conditional Responsibility?: In the view of Imam Ali (AS), government is not a spontaneous and sacred matter. He repeatedly emphasizes that accepting rule makes sense when the people want it and support it in establishing justice. This view removes power from the status of an “inherent right” and turns it into a “conditional responsibility.” 

In such a logic, the ruler is not the shadow of God on earth, but a fallible human being who must be accountable to the people. This approach is the foundation of any healthy society; a society in which no individual is above criticism. 

Denying historical determinism and emphasizing moral choice: One of the great dangers in politics is the belief in “historical determinism”; the idea that the path of history is predetermined and that humans are merely the executors of an inevitable plan. Such a belief often leads to the justification of tyranny, because any action in the name of “historical necessity” appears defensible. 

In Alavi’s logic, history is a field of testing and choice, not a scene of inevitable destiny. In his advice to his son, Imam Ali (AS) emphasizes that studying the past is for learning lessons, not surrendering to fate. This view places human moral responsibility at the center of politics. 

The danger of absolute truth in politics: Whenever an individual or group considers itself the sole possessor of truth, the way is paved for the exclusion of others. Historical experience has shown that claiming to “understand the ultimate truth” can lead to rejection and even violence against opponents. 

In confronting the Khawarij, despite their deep intellectual differences, Imam Ali (AS) did not restrict their freedom of expression and social presence as long as they did not resort to violence. This behavior shows that intellectual dissent—even if it is sharp and biting—is not in itself a license for repression. Such an approach is a sign of political maturity and acceptance of human plurality. 

Criticizing the ruler; not disrespect, but a duty: One of the most prominent passages in Nahj al-Balagha is Imam Ali’s (AS) explicit call to self-criticism. His Eminence urges people not to refrain from speaking the truth or giving fair advice and not to assume that the ruler is immune from error. 

In a society where criticizing the ruler is considered a crime, corruption inevitably grows. But in a society where criticism is institutionalized, the possibility of reform always remains. This view de-sanctifies power and places it within the framework of accountability. 

Justice; for real people, not ideal people: Another scourge of politics is the sacrifice of real people in the name of great ideals. Sometimes governments ignore the tangible suffering of the people under the pretext of building an ideal society. 

In the Alavi logic, justice, before being a grand slogan, is addressing the complaint of an oppressed person, preventing abuse by an agent, and supporting the needy. In the Malik Ashtar Treaty, instead of general slogans, emphasis is placed on monitoring officials, respecting people’s rights, and paying attention to vulnerable groups.

The ‘brinkmanship’ strategy with Iran: A calculated approach

by Dr Sania Faisal El-Husseini

A general view of a street shows daily life as the third round of nuclear negotiations between Iran and the United States mediated by Oman begins in Geneva, in Tehran, Iran, on February 26, 2026. [Fatemeh Bahrami – Anadolu Agency]

Over the past month, events in the region have escalated and expanded significantly, as Israel and the United States attempt to establish new control and balances after two and a half years of continuous wars and unrest. After calming the conflicts in Gaza, Lebanon, Iran and Yemen, attention has turned to reaping the benefits, and Iran has become the target. It remains a significant opposing force to Washington and Israel’s regional policies, without having been decisively defeated. The United States and Israel are threatening to launch a new war against it if it does not agree to their demands. These demands revolve around halting Iran’s nuclear program, ballistic missile development, and its support for armed regional groups.

Over the past month, the protagonists and negotiating parties have been pressing hard, each trying to secure the best possible outcome in what appears to be a decisive battle. Analyses vary on the likelihood of a powerful US military strike against Iran that would completely dismantle the Islamic Republic, thus eliminating the Iranian opposition front at its roots, or an agreement with Iran that would neutralise its threat for years to come. Israel makes no secret of its desire to eradicate the Iranian regime and favours a devastating US war against Iran. Israel is not in favour of the diplomatic and negotiating track initiated earlier this month between Washington and Tehran. It insists on decisive results on the three issues related to the nuclear program, ballistic missiles, and Iran’s support for its allies, a demand that seems difficult to fulfil. Disarming Tehran of its conventional missile arsenal, which it has been developing since its war with Iraq, is a daunting prospect, especially in a region surrounded by traditional rivals. While Trump made no secret of his desire to overthrow the Iranian regime and supported the protests that intensified last month against it, the regime’s resilience, its survival, and the results that reflect the failure of relying on that approach have paved the way for Washington’s next attempt.

The cost of the devastating wars waged by Washington on Afghanistan and Iraq continues to burden the American economy, reaching an estimated $8 trillion.

The US military buildup in the region began at the end of last month, with the deployment of a larger arsenal than during the 12-day war last year. In a deliberate move, Washington indicated that it has amassed an air force arsenal superior to that of the 2003 Iraq War. The United States periodically announces the evacuation of its personnel or urges its citizens to leave countries in the region. American reports have also recently indicated Washington’s readiness to withdraw its forces from Syria, although this is not linked to any upcoming war in the region. Washington recently contacted Iraq, demanding the need to control the presence of weapons and armed groups in the country. This comes amidst negotiations between Washington and Tehran, which began immediately following the US military buildup in the region. The first round of negotiations began in Muscat at the beginning of this month, followed by another round in Geneva approximately two weeks later, without any of them achieving tangible progress. During the second round, Trump threatened, that Iran had two weeks to decide during the negotiations whether to reach an understanding or pay the price.

Conversely, Iran is also using its leverage to strengthen its negotiating position, but it makes no secret of its reluctance to engage in another war with the United States. Iran chose the day the second round of negotiations with the United States began to announce a temporary closure of the Strait of Hormuz, under the pretext of military exercises. This raised concerns about the possibility of such a scenario unfolding in the event of war, especially given the strait’s importance as a transit point for a fifth of the world’s oil and a significant amount of its gas. The announcement of a deal to purchase advanced missiles from China at this time does not appear to be a coincidence, just as the recent talk of another arms deal with Russia. Iran, too, is invoking elements of its power as a deterrent or obstacle to war, even as it affirms its readiness to wage war and respond forcefully to any aggression.

Despite all these developments, three factors make a full-scale war with Iran unlikely. First, diplomacy appears to be Washington’s preferred path, and even the limited war it threatens is merely another pressure tactic to force an agreement with Iran. Second, Tehran is facing a number of vulnerabilities, particularly at this time, following the damage to its nuclear capabilities in the last war, internal unrest due to recent protests, economic difficulties stemming from the tightening of US and Western sanctions, the effects of its recent involvement in the war, and the weakening of its regional allies.

Perhaps the first and most important reason is the exorbitant cost of war, especially since estimates of the cost of the devastating wars waged by Washington on Afghanistan and Iraq continue to burden the American economy, reaching an estimated $8 trillion. This factor is compounded by the inability to decisively win the war and topple the regime through air power alone, necessitating an invasion similar to that of Iraq, which is extremely complicated for Washington, particularly after a previous experience that was not generally viewed favourably.

A full-blown war could cause a shock to oil prices, and US stock prices would be subject to sharp fluctuations, inflation, and a negative impact on economic growth.

The second factor is no less important than the first: the widespread and multifaceted rejection of war, but not by Israel which desires and supports it. The American front, represented by major think tanks, public opinion, and the legislative branch of government that influences decision-making, rejects Washington’s involvement in a comprehensive and decisive war against Iran, especially due to the huge economic cost. Think tanks tend to emphasise the price of such a war for Washington and the lack of any Iranian threat to the United States. These centers see this as an opportunity to urge Washington to implement its strategy of military withdrawal from the region. These centers are of particular importance to American policymakers, who rely on their reports and research in developing plans and formulating policies. American legislative bodies also listen to reports from these centers in specialised hearings. The majority of the American public does not hesitate to reject war with Iran, as recent opinion polls indicate. Outside of the American sphere, key regional countries reject an American war on Iran, and even Washington’s attempts to overthrow its regime. This stance unites different fronts, as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, and Turkey all reject the war and intervene with Washington to persuade it to avoid it.

The third factor is related to the economic aspect, which US President Donald Trump is particularly focused on, and which may also explain the current US actions. The current calculated escalation, which has been ongoing throughout the negotiations, coupled with the accumulation of pressure factors, ensures a continuous rise in oil prices. This automatically leads to a rise in the dollar’s value, an increase in the share prices of energy and arms companies, and a calculated, fluctuating decline in other stock prices. However, a full-blown war could cause a shock to oil prices, and US stock prices would be subject to sharp fluctuations, inflation, and a negative impact on economic growth. If we connect this to Trump’s rhetoric, which bases the success of his policies on a rising dollar, strong growth in US stock prices, and a reduction in costly wars, the rationale behind prolonging the current tension in the region becomes clear.

Maintaining a calculated state of tension with Iran in the region ensures increased political pressure and maximizes the number of military and political concessions extracted from Tehran. While negotiations initially focused on concessions regarding the nuclear issue, Trump now speaks of the threat posed by Iranian ballistic missiles to Washington, a claim far removed from reality. Furthermore, this state of tension provides immediate gains for the American economy.

Obliterating Palestinian identity

by Ramona Wadi

Boys play football at the sports field built in 2020 in the Aida refugee camp, located in Bethlehem, West Bank, on December 09, 2025. [Saeed Qaq – Anadolu Agency]

Earlier this month, Palestinian footballers, clubs and rights groups submitted a 120-page file to the International Criminal Court accusing FIFA President Gianni Infantino and UEFA President Aleksander Čeferin of “aiding and abetting war crimes … and crimes against humanity.” The complaint cites both organisation’s inclusion of Israeli clubs based in settlements and the legitimisation of settlement expansion which is also linked to the forced transfer of Palestinians. The document states that Infantino and Čeferin are acting with full knowledge of how Israel’s practices amount to war crimes and also of having cooperated with Israel and the US in granting continued participation of Israel’s settlement clubs. 

FIFA’s next step was to announce its collaboration with the Board of Peace “to actively source investment from international leaders and institutions harnessing the power of football to support recovery, stability and long-term development in conflict-affected regions.” The agreement, to the tune of $75 million, was signed by Infantino, Gaza Executive Board of Peace member Yakir Gaby, the High Representative for Gaza Nickolay Mladenov and Chief Commissioner of the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza Dr Ali Shaath. 

With Gaza completely in the hands of a foreign agenda led by the US, Phase IV of the FIFA plan which details the construction of a national stadium with 20,000 seat capacity “reinforcing national identity, generating commercial revenues and serving as a long-term anchor for community cohesion” makes one wonder what Infantino, FIFA and the Board of Peace know of Palestinian national identity. For example, the existence of Palestinian national identity prior to Zionism and colonialism, and how identity was part of the anti-colonial struggle against Zionism. How much does Infantino know of how Gaza represents the entirety of Palestine, and not the image imposed upon the area and its people by all who want it destroyed to accelerate Israel’s colonial expansion?

Out of 808 athletes killed by Israel during the genocide in Gaza, 421 were football players. During Operation Protective Edge in 2014, Israel killed 344 football players. Despite this, FIFA has repeatedly refused to take action against Israel.

Israel has a seat on the Board of Peace. Palestinians do not. 

In 2025 in Zurich, Infantino stated, “FIFA cannot solve geopolitical problems, but it can and must promote football around the world by harnessing its unifying, educational, cultural and humanitarian values.” The Board of Peace is prioritising none of these values, Palestinians are absent, and FIFA’s collaboration merely centres the organisation within the existing political power structure. Collaborating with the Board of Peace does not support Gaza’s reconstruction for Palestinians. It supports Gaza’s reconstruction for Israel’s benefit.

At no point did FIFA seek to penalise Israel during the genocide. As much as the US tries to portray Gaza as barren land after the genocide, the land is replete with dead bodies of Palestinians that have yet to be retrieved. Building over a territory that resembles one large mass grave obliterates a considerable part of Palestinian identity, but FIFA is trying to convince the world that building a stadium over obliteration can actually enhanc Palestinian identity. 

Barrack’s Three Missions in Baghdad: Iraqis Rigid, Americans Frustrated

Alwaght- At a time the Iraqi political factions are struggling to get the country out of a state of uncertainty and manage it politically and administratively in the best possible form with picking a new prime minister, the US has once again intervened in Iraq's political dynamics to make sure its interests are secured in any political move. 

In this relation, the US President Donald Trump has recently sent his special envoy to Iraq Tom Barrack to discuss with Iraqi officials the political and security matters. 

Barrack met Iraqi Foreign Minister Fuad Hussein on Monday and discussed with him bilateral ties and regional developments. In the meeting, the two sides held extensive talks on the process of forming the Iraqi government and the challenges surrounding the candidates for prime minister and president.

They also talked about an agreement signed between Syria's interim government and Kurdish-majority Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). They vowed support for this agreement and on the need for Damascus and the Kurdish militias to adhere by the deal that is positive for enhancing Syrian security and stability.

The meeting also addressed the escalation of tensions between Tehran and Washington. The Iraqi Foreign Minister pointed to the danger of any potential war and its consequences for the entire region, declaring Iraq's support for peaceful means and the new round of negotiations that was held on Geneva on Thursday between representatives of the US and Iranian governments with Omani mediation.

Separately, in an official post on X, Barrack stated that he had a productive meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani, during which they reviewed ways to expand cooperation between Baghdad and Washington and the objectives for the upcoming phase.

Barrack then traveled to the Kurdistan Region, where he met with leaders in Erbil, including Masoud Barzani, head of the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), and Bafel Talabani, head of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan( PUK). The discussions in these meetings focused on issues related to the selection of Iraq's prime minister and internal developments in Syria.

"The US desire is for Iraq to be a country enjoying sovereignty, and the US cooperation with Baghdad and the Kurdistan Region is important within this framework," Barrack told Barzani. 

Given the particular importance Washington places on the premiership, Barzani emphasized on this matter: "It is the Shiite Coordination Framework that will decide who is nominated for prime minister. What matters to us is the prime minister's commitment to the constitution, the principles of agreement, balance, and partnership."

Barrack who has recently been put in charge of Iraq case has already had honed his experience in Lebanon and Syria cases. That is why he is seen as a seasoned politician, with Trump hoping that his policies and talks with Iraqi officials will bear results in line with Washington’s interests. 

Pushing to remove al-Maliki from candidacy 

Barrack's visit to Iraq can be analyzed as part of Washington's intensive push to realign Baghdad's political equations. The trip came at a critical juncture in the process to select a new prime minister. The primary objective was to pressure influential Shiite factions, particularly the ruling SDF to drop Nouri al-Maliki from the list of final candidates for the premiership.

In controversial remarks, Barrack held that "Iraq must have an active and powerful leadership capable of maintaining the country's stability and moving in coordination with the US policies in the upcoming phase." Washington's message was clear: Baghdad must choose a candidate who can align with American policy in Iraq and the region.

The US has reportedly gone beyond standard diplomacy to prevent al-Maliki's return to power. According to a report by the Saudi news network Al-Hadath, Washington has given Iraq until Friday to form a government free from Iranian influence or face sanctions. Given Iraq's financial and banking dependence on the international financial system, such a threat could have serious repercussions. This has prompted some political factions, including the Nasr Coalition, to try and convince the SDF to withdraw al-Maliki's candidacy and introduce an alternative, driven by fears of US economic retaliation.

Washington views a return to power for al-Maliki, given his history of close ties with Iran and alignment with the resistance discourse in Iraq's political sphere, as a move that would strengthen Tehran's influence in Iraq and threaten Washington’s strategic interests in the region.

However, the SDF, which holds a majority of parliament seats, has so far resisted this pressure. Leaders of the coalition maintain that the selection of a prime minister is a purely internal affair and that no foreign actor, including Washington, has the right to interfere. They insist that al-Maliki remains their final, consensus candidate and that backing down at this stage would mean accepting foreign interference in Iraq's national sovereignty. 

This issue was raised during Hussein’s meeting with Barrack. Hussein poured cold water on Washington, saying that "formation of an Iraqi government is an internal issue and we consider the opinions of our international partners, especially the United States as a allied country in accordance with the need of the new Iraqi government for positive interaction with the policies of other countries." 

So, the current dispute between Baghdad and Washington should be considered a confrontation of the foreign pressure logic and the will of home actors. Although the US holds substantial economic and political pressure levers, the SCF's insistence shows that the power equation in Baghdad is not merely determined by foreign pressure and sovereignty reservations and power of political factions plays a decisive role in the destiny of the prime minister post in Iraq. 

Countering resistance factions' influence in the political structures

After years of applying economic and political pressure in an attempt to limit the influence of resistance groups in Iraq's political and security structures, the US is now making another push. It is once again testing its chances of achieving what has so far been an elusive goal. Barrack's visit to Baghdad is part of this diplomatic pressure campaign, aimed at reducing the sway of Shiite factions within the country's governance framework.

These efforts come despite the fact that in the recent parliamentary elections, Iraqi voters once again placed their trust in resistance factions, effectively pushing back against foreign attempts to destabilize the country. Washington is well aware that as long as these groups remain embedded in state institutions, its broader regional agenda will continue to face setbacks. That dynamic is driving the current pressure campaign, which includes threats of sanctions aimed at Iraqi officials to curb the power of these factions, a topic that was almost certainly on the agenda during Barrack's closed-door meetings with PM al-Sudani.

However, track record suggests the US threats, sanctions, and political interference in Iraq rarely yield tangible results. The Iraqi people and resistance groups continue to play the primary role in shaping their own political destiny. This reality once again highlights the clear limitations of foreign influence in a complex and sensitive environment like Iraq.

Distancing Iraq's resistance factions from equation of potential US war with Iran

Barrack visited Iraq at a time tensions between Iran and the US have run high and each moment a full-scale war can break out between the two sides. In such conditions, the stances taken by the Iraqi resistance factions who like other branches of the Axis of Resistance voiced their backing to Tehran in the face of Washington, have caused serious worries inside Trump's administration.

These groups have made it clear they would not stay neutral in any future conflict and would jump in on Iran's side if war is waged on Tehran. The message was driven home once again by Harakat al-Nujaba during Barrack's visit to Baghdad, with the group stressing that the US envoy's trip would not sway resistance front decisions.

"If Iran comes under attack, the resistance factions in Iraq, Lebanon, and will join the fight and throw everything they have got into defending themselves," a Nujaba spokesperson declared.

That threat helps explain what Barrack's visit was really about: leaning hard on the Iraqi government to warn the resistance groups of any support to Iran shoupd war breaks out. Washington is fretting that if tensions boil over, these groups might go after US bases in the Kurdistan Region and elsewhere, just as they did when they launched missile strikes at American positions right after the Gaza war erupted.

There's also the very real possibility that Iraqi resistance forces could unleash drone and missile attacks on Israeli territory, a nightmare scenario for Israeli security hawks and a major headache for US regional planners.

Against this backdrop, Washington is scrambling to box out Iraqi resistance factions before any military conflict with Iran gets underway. The strategy combines diplomatic arm-twisting with threats of economic sanctions and political isolation, all aimed at keeping American troops and assets in Iraq safe.

Finally, Barrack's trip is indicative of Washington’s high sensitivity to Iraq's developments and the role of resistance groups in regional dynamics. Remarks by Baghdad's officials and warnings by resistance groups to the Americans made it clear that the Iraqis pay no least attention to the American threats and if Washington chooses further confrontation and intervention in Iraq's internal affairs, its military forces will face increasing threats, and in a war with Iran, they will sustain irreversible and heavy damages.