35,000 AMERICAN SOLDIERS SURROUND IRAQ: THEY WILL NOT HESITATE TO “TAKE CONTROL OF BAGHDAD” IF IT TAKES THIS STEP!
With rising tensions between Iran and the United States, and increasing talk of the possibility of the confrontation expanding from a war of mutual strikes to a wider clash, notable warnings emerged from Iraqi military expert Alaa al-Nashou , who warned that any use of long-range missiles by Iraqi factions against American forces or interests could open the door to a “new occupation of Iraq,” in light of a large American military buildup surrounding the region.
These warnings coincide with international press reports about the transfer of Iranian missiles to Iraqi factions, with the monitoring of an unprecedented American naval and air buildup near Iran and Iraq, and with parallel discussions about the possibility of Yemen becoming a new ground operations arena, which puts Iraq at the heart of a complex regional equation in which it could slip back into the forefront of confrontation if the scope of the clash widens.
Iranian long-range missiles on Iraqi soil?
Western newspapers reported intelligence indicating that Iran, for the first time, supplied Iraqi armed factions with long-range surface-to-surface missiles, in a move interpreted as part of an advanced deterrence strategy in case Tehran is subjected to a large-scale American or Israeli strike.
According to these leaks, some of these missiles were stored at sites inside Iraq and possibly in other countries in the region, with the aim of providing a rapid response capability against American and Israeli bases or targets, while reducing the need to launch missiles from Iranian territory itself. This scenario, if accurate, means that any decision to escalate missile attacks will not be isolated from Iraqi territory, but could be implemented from within Iraq or through factions politically and militarily affiliated with it.
The situation became even more complex and dangerous about a week ago when some factions announced the establishment of what they called an “underground missile city” inside Iraq, showcasing missile capabilities buried deep underground that are difficult to detect or target with a single strike. This announcement, regardless of the accuracy of its field details, adds a new layer of anxiety; it reinforces the image of Iraq in the eyes of the United States as a potential missile launchpad in any major confrontation, and simultaneously increases the likelihood of it becoming a direct target should a decision be made to respond to or curtail these capabilities militarily.
From here, Alaa Al-Nashou poses a critical question: If long-range missiles are launched from Iraqi territory towards American targets, will all of Iraq be treated as a “hostile platform” justifying a broader military intervention?
US military buildup encircles Iraq and Iran
The report speaks of a highly complex regional military landscape, including the presence of large US naval groups in the northern Arabian Sea, the Red Sea and the eastern Mediterranean, advanced fighters of various types stationed at air bases spread across the countries of the region, and ground forces ready to move.
The military expert adds that “approximately three Marine divisions have been brought in, meaning that about 35,000 American soldiers are now present in American bases surrounding Iraq and surrounding Iran,” as he put it, explaining that this size of deployment is not only aimed at directing air or missile strikes, but also creates the possibility of moving part of these forces to ground operations if the political and military doors are opened for that.
It is true that the public American political discourse focuses more on “deterrence and pressure” than on “full-scale invasion” as happened in 2003, but the reading of the escalation stems from experience with the Iraqi reality: whenever the country turns into a shooting range for Americans, Washington becomes more willing to exploit this reality to justify expanding the military presence and imposing new security realities on the ground.
Warning of a “new occupation” and rules of engagement
In the widely circulated intervention, Alaa Al-Nashou links three key elements:
Arming the factions with long-range missiles, as reported by Western press reports.
-The current US military buildup around Iraq and Iran, including naval and air forces and Marine Corps units.
-American control over the rules of engagement in the region, meaning that most air and sea fire lines today pass through an American decision or are under direct American supervision.
Al-Nashou concludes that “if what has been published is true, and Iraqi factions proceed to use these missiles against the United States, then this will be a recipe for a new occupation of Iraq,” expecting that Washington will use such an attack to justify the introduction of additional ground forces under titles such as “protecting American forces and interests” or “preventing Iraq from becoming an Iranian missile platform.”
In his view, “America today controls the rules of engagement,” and there is virtually “no major front line in the region outside of American will,” meaning that any ill-considered decision from within Iraq could once again plunge it into the heart of a battle whose rules are drawn outside its borders.
Yemen as a parallel front in American calculations
The scenario is not limited to Iraq, but indicates that part of these forces could be used in ground operations in Yemen, following waves of airstrikes targeting sites belonging to the Ansar Allah group, and repeated talk about the need to “secure navigation” in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden.
According to this interpretation, Yemen may become the first testing ground for broader ground operations, supported by allied local forces, while the possibility of expanding operations to other countries – including Iraq – remains, if the fronts overlap and different Arab territories are used to put pressure on the United States or to target its interests.
Modern US weapons and the “post-Maduro” scenario
In addition, warnings are increasing in military and strategic circles about the qualitative development in the modern American weapons system, especially those that have been tested or brandished in sensitive cases such as Venezuela during the Nicolas Maduro crisis, where Washington sought to establish a new model in conflict management based on a combination of crippling sanctions, naval blockade, intelligence pressure, and the threat of using long-range precision strikes without the need for a full-scale ground invasion.
This pattern of thinking makes the “occupation” in its new form less dependent on tanks entering the capital, and more based on paralyzing command and control centers, targeting vital infrastructure, and supporting loyal local forces on the ground, thus turning the targeted state into an open space for foreign influence without a formal declaration of occupation.
Hence the danger of repeating this scenario in Iraq if its territory turns into a platform for factions’ missiles against the United States; as Washington could find in that an opportunity to employ its technological superiority and its air, naval and electronic weapons to impose new security realities, under the slogan of “protecting forces and interests” or “preventing the repetition of the Maduro model in the Middle East,” while the Iraqis pay the price for a battle whose tools are moved from outside their borders.
Between “full occupation” and “expanding the military presence”
Alaa Al-Nashou’s warnings do not necessarily mean that Washington is heading towards repeating a carbon copy of the 2003 invasion, but they highlight a wider range of options, starting with expanding existing military bases and tightening their procedures, passing through deploying special forces and rapid response forces in larger numbers, imposing closed military zones or “safe corridors” in some provinces, and ending with imposing a kind of “undeclared security tutelage” over the Iraqi decision, through political and economic pressure.
In this case, armed action from within Iraq – especially if long-range missiles are used – becomes a decisive factor in pushing Washington towards more aggressive options, even if it does not reach the level of a full-scale invasion in the traditional sense of the word.
What does all this mean for Iraq today?
Reading the current situation places Iraq at a clear crossroads: either it maintains a reasonable distance from the missiles of a “major war” and prevents its territory from becoming a platform for strategic clashes between America and Iran, or it slips—intentionally or through miscalculation—into the arena once again, with all the risks this entails for its sovereignty, the unity of its institutions, and its economic and security situation.
The essential message in these warnings is that whoever decides to exert missile pressure on the United States may not be the same person who bears the cost of the reaction on the ground. The real cost will be paid by the state, society, economy, and ordinary Iraqis if the door is opened to a broader military presence, under any name.
Then yet another article titled “DOLLARS, POLITICS, AND FACTIONS: PRESSURE POINTS SURROUND THE ANTICIPATED CABINET” we learn that according to sources contacted by Al-Masalla news, “the coordination framework must act today under the pressure of a delicate political equation that seeks to spare Iraq American anger that could quickly turn into economic and political sanctions, in exchange for showing a higher degree of rationality in the process of forming the next government, at a time when unannounced signals are intensifying regarding red lines related to the shape of the cabinet and its balances.”
So, what happens next? Of course, the controversy is expanded and the GOI is made out to be the bad guy. We read in the article titled “IRAQI TRADERS’ ASSOCIATION ANNOUNCES MARKET CLOSURES IN PROTEST AGAINST CUSTOMS DUTIES”. But what are the trading? Folks these are the money exchangers protesting this move using ASYCUDA. Of course they don’t want it. It is shutting down their illegal dollar operations. 