Iraq has evidence outside parties use its territory to attack neighbours: Foreign minister

A country is used as a “launchpad” when attacks on another country begin from its soil. The government may not be the attacker, but its territory, roads, bases, or airspace are used to send weapons or drones. The phrase signals a loss of control and a direct security concern for neighbours.

Here, Iraq’s prime minister told Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman that Iraq would not be used as a launchpad against the kingdom. That promise focuses on where attacks start, not only on who claims responsibility. An attack launched from Iraq can make Iraq part of the dispute, even if outside groups or factions carried it out.

Baghdad says it is investigating attacks against Gulf states and negotiating to bring Iran-aligned factions’ weapons under state control. It also wants frank dialogue with Saudi Arabia. These steps aim to prevent Iraqi territory from becoming a base for cross-border attacks and to protect Iraq’s relationships with its neighbours.

Iraq’s evidence concerns attacks launched from its territory against Gulf states. Foreign Minister Fuad Hussein said Baghdad was investigating these attacks. The statement does not list every piece of evidence or identify all the outside parties involved. It establishes Iraq’s claim that its territory has been used as an origin point for attacks on neighbours.

The clearest example is Saudi Arabia’s East-West pipeline. In September, Baghdad confirmed that drones which struck the kingdom’s pipeline had been launched from Iraqi territory. Saudi Arabia has also accused Iran-aligned groups in Iraq of targeting its oil infrastructure. Together, these details connect the broader investigation to a specific drone attack and a stated Saudi accusation.

The evidence has made control of Iraqi territory a diplomatic issue. Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi later assured Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman that Iraq would not be used against the kingdom. Baghdad is also negotiating over armed groups and their weapons, while seeking frank dialogue with Riyadh.

Iraq’s foreign minister said the country lost about $60bn when its oil exports through the Strait of Hormuz were suspended. That figure describes a major economic cost linked to disrupted oil shipments. For Iraq, the suspension affected a central source of export revenue and connected regional conflict directly to national finances.

The article places the disruption after the start of the US-Israeli war on Iran. It does not provide a detailed calculation or explain how the loss was divided across missed sales, transport, or other costs. The stated figure is therefore the overall amount Hussein attributed to the suspension of exports through the strait.

The loss adds an economic dimension to Iraq’s security and diplomatic concerns. Baghdad is dealing with attacks launched from its territory, pressure from Saudi Arabia, and negotiations with Iran-aligned factions. Continued regional tensions could keep threatening Iraq’s ability to move oil and protect its economic interests, although the article gives no forecast about future losses.

If attacks continue to be launched from Iraq, neighbouring countries could question Baghdad’s ability to control activity within its borders. That could worsen tensions with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states. It could also make Iraq’s territory part of wider regional disputes, even when the Iraqi government is not directing the attacks.

Saudi Arabia has accused Iran-aligned groups in Iraq of targeting its oil infrastructure. Baghdad confirmed that drones striking the kingdom’s East-West pipeline came from Iraqi territory. Iraq’s prime minister then assured Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman that Iraq would not be used to launch attacks. Further incidents would challenge that assurance and weaken confidence in Baghdad’s commitments.

The article points to dialogue as Iraq’s chosen response. Hussein said Baghdad wanted to resolve differences with Saudi Arabia through frank dialogue and was negotiating to bring faction weapons under state control. Success could improve trust and reduce cross-border risks. Continued attacks would make those diplomatic efforts harder.

The article does not name the Iran-aligned factions individually. It describes them as Iran-aligned groups or factions in Iraq. This wording identifies their political alignment and location, but it does not provide their names, membership, or structure. Any more specific identification would go beyond the source text.

Baghdad is negotiating with these factions to bring their weapons under state control. The immediate mechanism is political negotiation rather than a forceful seizure of arms. State control would place armed capabilities under the government’s authority instead of leaving them with groups that may act independently. The article links the talks to concerns about attacks launched from Iraqi territory.

This issue matters because Saudi Arabia has accused Iran-aligned Iraqi groups of targeting its oil infrastructure. Iraq also confirmed that drones hitting the kingdom’s East-West pipeline came from Iraqi territory. Controlling weapons could help Baghdad prevent its territory from being used against neighbours and support its wider effort to maintain friendly relations with Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Iraq may prefer dialogue because forcing powerful armed groups to surrender weapons could trigger confrontation inside the country. Negotiation offers a way to seek government control without immediately turning the dispute into armed conflict. The article does not give a fuller explanation, but Hussein clearly stated that the process must rely on dialogue, not force.

The mechanism is direct political engagement with Iran-aligned factions. Baghdad is negotiating to bring their weapons under state control. This is separate from simply asking them to stop one attack. It concerns who has authority over armed capabilities inside Iraq. A negotiated arrangement could make it easier for the government to prevent Iraqi territory from being used against neighbouring countries.

The choice also supports Iraq’s diplomatic aims. Baghdad told Tehran it welcomed friendship and an alliance but rejected interference in its internal affairs. It wants to resolve differences with Saudi Arabia through frank dialogue. Using dialogue with armed factions may help Iraq manage both internal security and its relationships with regional powers.

State sovereignty is a government’s authority to govern its territory and manage its internal affairs without outside control. It includes the practical ability to regulate armed activity within national borders. When groups or outside parties use a country’s soil for attacks, that authority is weakened, even if the government did not order the attacks.

Iraq’s situation shows why this matters internationally. Baghdad says outside parties have used Iraqi territory to attack Gulf states. It confirmed that drones striking Saudi Arabia’s East-West pipeline were launched from Iraqi territory. Saudi Arabia has also accused Iran-aligned groups in Iraq of targeting its oil infrastructure. These incidents make Iraqi territorial control a regional concern.

A government that cannot control armed activity may face mistrust from neighbours and pressure from outside powers. Iraq is responding by investigating attacks, negotiating to place faction weapons under state control, and seeking dialogue with Saudi Arabia and Iran. Stronger control could support Iraq’s sovereignty and reduce the risk that its territory becomes a source of conflict.