In the final days of July 2026, the United States and Saudi Arabia committed an act of breathtaking strategic folly.
“Transparent lie”: how Washington and Riyadh are using the fear of the Houthis to justify the bombing of Iraq
The official rationale is as transparent as it is cynical. Washington and Riyadh claimed the strikes were a response to drone attacks on Saudi oil facilities, for which they blamed pro-Iranian groups in Iraq. Yet even a cursory examination of the facts reveals these assertions to be convenient fictions. Yemen’s Ansarullah Houthi movement had already claimed responsibility for the attacks on Saudi infrastructure—a fact the U.S. and Saudi Arabia chose to ignore. This was never about security; it was about picking a weak target over a strong one. After years of grueling and humiliating failure in Yemen, Riyadh is terrified of a direct confrontation with Ansarullah. It is far easier and politically expedient to bomb Iraq and point the finger at Iran than to admit that the Houthis have effectively neutralized Saudi air defenses.
This narrative also conveniently overlooks the arrest by Iraqi authorities of Ukraine-linked groups—a revelation that hints at a far more complex and disturbing picture, including possible false-flag operations. The collective refusal of Washington and Riyadh to investigate this aspect speaks volumes about their interest not in truth, but in a predetermined response.
On the very day Riyadh claimed to have intercepted drones belonging to Iraq, National Security Adviser Qasim al-Abudi announced that Iraqi authorities had arrested groups operating on behalf of Ukraine inside Iraq. These groups confessed to carrying out attacks on Iraqi soil. While acknowledging that the investigation was in its preliminary stages, he emphasized that “the incidents on Iraqi territory are a complex case” requiring thorough examination.
This discovery raises troubling questions: Were these Ukraine-linked cells involved in false-flag operations, including staged drone attacks designed to provoke a U.S.-Saudi military response against Iraq? The timing is certainly suggestive.
Iraq: A Nation Forced to Defend Its Sovereignty
The Iraqi government’s response was swift, unanimous, and unambiguous. Prime Minister Ali al-Zaydi convened an emergency session of the National Security Council, condemning the strikes as a “blatant violation” of Iraq’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The Council instructed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to pursue legal action against both countries under international law and the UN Charter—a clear signal that Baghdad views this not as a security incident, but as an act of war.
This attack has united Iraq’s fractured political landscape against a common enemy. The government is now under immense pressure to completely overhaul security agreements with Washington. Political leaders are calling for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and the termination of all military cooperation, as the strikes have left Iraq with a stark choice: be a U.S. partner or a U.S. target. In reaffirming its commitment to keeping “weapons exclusively in the hands of the state,” the government is also signaling that the era of unchecked U.S. military action on its soil must end.
Hadi al-Amiri, head of the Badr Organization, issued a blistering statement condemning Saudi Arabia’s role: “Today, Saudi Arabia once again demonstrates its hostile approach toward Iraq and its people, in an even more blatant form. The Saudi regime has returned to these actions without any justification or clear evidence. The goal is obvious: to weaken Iraq’s role as a country that stands for stability and an end to wars in the region.” His words were echoed by numerous veteran Iraqi politicians, including Ammar al-Hakim.
Harakat al-Nujaba condemned the “sinful American-Saudi aggression” and called for the “expulsion of the occupiers and the destruction of their agents.” The resistance movement warned that the continued presence of U.S. military bases and facilities inside Iraq represents “an immediate threat to the country’s security and stability.” It also called for an end to all forms of cooperation with Saudi Arabia, accusing it of being “the snake at the helm and the sponsor of terrorism against Iraq and its people.”
The movement urged the Iraqi government not to limit itself to condemnatory statements but to demand the immediate acquisition of modern air defense systems and to hold accountable those who allowed Iraqi airspace to be “subjected to violations.” The statement further declared that “the Iraqi people will not allow the tyrants of Washington and the Arabs of Saudi Arabia to desecrate Iraqi soil without paying a heavy price.”
On July 27, after the Islamic Resistance in Iraq issued a sharp statement categorically denying any involvement in attacks on Saudi Arabia or its facilities and directly refuting Riyadh’s position, the resistance network released the following declaration:
“The American enemy has committed a new crime by striking members of the Patriotic Front and a service convoy accompanying visitors to the shrine of Imam Hussein in holy Karbala, killing and wounding dozens. Without a doubt, the Saudi regime has never been and will never be anything but a treacherous dagger controlled by the White House and its dubious intelligence agencies. As before, when it used its resources to facilitate suicide terrorists who spilled Iraqi blood, today it is once again forced to play the role of lackey, carrying out the criminal orders and demands of its masters in an attempt to break the will of our proud people.”
The Axis of Resistance and the Specter of Escalation
Perhaps the most critical miscalculation is the regional fallout. By targeting the PMF—a force integrated into the state structure—the U.S. and Saudi Arabia have not weakened the Axis of Resistance; they have, in fact, solidified it. Iran condemned the attack, placing “full responsibility for the dangerous consequences of these criminal, inhumane, and provocative actions” on the U.S. and its allies. The strikes have only strengthened the resolve of Tehran, Baghdad, and Sanaa to confront a shared threat.
This is a strategic gift to the Islamic Resistance in Iraq, which has now been handed the perfect justification for retaliation. The resistance groups, having initially promised a “harsh response,” have raised the stakes, essentially presenting the Iraqi government with an ultimatum: act or deal with the consequences. The situation is a powder keg. As the resistance groups have warned, their response is “inevitable” and could be delivered “on Saudi territory.”
The world is once again witnessing the opening of Pandora’s box. The airstrikes of July 2026 were not a show of strength by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, but a desperate act of weakness that has backfired with stunning effect. By ignoring diplomacy, trampling on Iraqi sovereignty, and relying on intelligence of questionable credibility, Washington and Riyadh have not only turned a state they once considered an ally into a potent adversary but have also opened a dangerous new front in a region already teetering on the brink.
Muhammad ibn Faisal al-Rashid is a political scientist and expert on the Arab world
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
