Iraq's initiative to receive a number of the most dangerous ISIS members detained in north-eastern Syria could not be separated from the deeper transformations taking place in the fight against terrorism in the region. This step is not a technical procedure or a temporary solution, but rather a political and security initiative reflecting Baghdad's desire to deal directly with one of the most complex post-conflict issues, instead of leaving it beyond its control.
For years, detention centres and camps in north-eastern Syria have represented a real point of vulnerability in the regional security equation. These are unstable spaces, governed by temporary arrangements, and housing extremist elements of various nationalities, in a fragile environment that could explode at any moment. This reality, long treated as a temporary solution, is now viewed internationally as a persistent threat that cannot be contained indefinitely.
In this context, the Iraqi move stands out as an attempt to prevent a more dangerous security scenario, given the changes on the Syrian scene regarding the forces controlling the territory, and the serious concerns about the possibility of these detainees escaping or being reintegrated into chaotic environments. Therefore, the logic of the Iraqi initiative is not based on transferring the security burden from one arena to another, but rather on preventing the formation of open security vacuums that would allow ISIS to return under new names or structures.
It is important to note that these ISIS members remained, for a long time, in arrangements intended to be manageable, until recent developments, particularly the escalating tensions between Damascus and the Kurdish Autonomous Administration in north-eastern Syria. The shifting balance of power on the ground, coupled with the fragility of institutional discipline within some Syrian government military formations, has fuelled growing fears about the actual ability to manage this sensitive issue, or to ensure that it does not become a political bargaining.
The US State Department described the Iraqi decision as a “bold and necessary” step in efforts to prevent the resurgence of the terrorist organization, clearly indicating that addressing this issue was no longer a purely internal Iraqi matter, but rather part of a broader approach to regional security. American officials noted that Iraq's role has become essential to promoting stability, not only in Syria but also across the region. In the same context, Washington stressed the need for other countries to assume their responsibilities toward their detained citizens, a message reflecting a shift in the international mood regarding this issue.
This international reaction does not alter the nature of the Iraqi decision, but it does highlight its political dimension. The move combines a clear executive aspect with a calculated sovereign one. Instead of treating the detainees' file as a burden that could be postponed, it has been incorporated into the state's equations, with all the complexities that entails, but also with the capacity for control and management.
Furthermore, this step reflects a new understanding of the nature of confronting extremist organizations in their current phase. The issue is no longer simply a matter of military control, but rather a matter of states' ability to manage the legacy of violence within their justice systems and institutions, and to prevent it from becoming a future threat. This places the Iraqi initiative in its broader context: a test of the state's capabilities, not a display of its power.
In conclusion, Iraq is affirming an original path, based on transitioning from being a victim of the conflict's repercussions to an active participant in shaping the post-conflict landscape. In a regional scene still tackling with the consequences of unresolved issues, this approach appears more indicative of a measured understanding of the complexities of the challenging future.