Damascus–Baghdad relations under threat from “Popular Mobilization” rhetoric

Enab Baladi – Amir Hakouk

Amid rising regional tensions alongside the Israeli-Iranian war, an escalatory tone has recently emerged from Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces toward Syria.

This escalation was preceded by Syrian military movements along the borders with Iraq and Lebanon aimed at securing its frontiers, as well as intensive political contacts conducted by President Ahmad al-Sharaa with regional leaders, including the Iraqi president, to contain the war’s repercussions.

As some figures and leaders within the Popular Mobilization adopted sharp rhetoric toward the new Syrian authorities, which have chosen neutrality regarding the Israeli-Iranian escalation, the Iraqi government has been careful not to adopt this tone officially.

This escalation, intersecting with deep political and security shifts in the region, raises questions about its underlying causes, its impact on relations between Baghdad and Damascus, and the extent to which it may influence trajectories of de-escalation or further escalation.

Following the launch of Israel’s “Roar of the Lion” operation against Iran on February 28, US President Donald Trump announced the start of “major combat operations” in parallel.

Iran responded militarily, targeting Israeli military sites and US bases in Gulf countries. This coincided with Iran-aligned factions in Baghdad launching attacks on facilities linked to Washington in Iraq, most notably the US embassy in Baghdad.

Syria exits Iran’s strategic depth

The roots of the escalation lie in shifts within Syria. “Iran’s arms in the region have begun to view Syria as a state opposed to its project. The new Syria has exited Iran’s strategic depth and has therefore moved to the opposite camp,” according to political writer Darwish Khalifa.

In an interview with Enab Baladi, Khalifa said this shift has been accompanied by a growing conviction within this coalition that Syria has moved closer to the Western camp, particularly the United States, which has intensified pressure on Iran since Trump took office in an attempt to limit its regional influence and confine it within its geographic borders.

“These arms, including the Popular Mobilization, act according to Iranian strategies rather than those of their own states. They are functional projects serving other powers,” Khalifa added.

“Some Iran-linked forces are attempting to shift tensions to land borders after the militarization of maritime routes, by trying to heat up the Iraqi-Syrian border, which could lead to unintended clashes.”

Darwish Khalifa
Political writer

In contrast, Iraqi political analyst and researcher Mohammed Nasser Turki offered a different reading focused on the security dimension. He said Iraq, following recent changes, seeks to protect its territory and secure its borders with Syria, which extend over more than 600 kilometers.

“Iraq has suffered greatly from terrorism, especially from the Islamic State group. It has therefore deployed forces and established barriers to prevent infiltration or smuggling from the Syrian side. This explains the recent movements,” Turki said.

Border concerns over escalation

The escalation by the Popular Mobilization Forces raises questions about whether it could lead to real political tension between Baghdad and Damascus, or remain within the bounds of unofficial positions.

Darwish Khalifa warned of the trajectory, stating that “there are attempts to heat up the border between the two sides, which could push matters to the brink between the two countries.”

He added that opening new fronts could reflect on Syria’s الداخل and reignite conflict once again.

Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa receives Iraqi intelligence chief Hamid al-Shatri, August 28, 2025 (Syrian Presidency)

Ongoing relations between Damascus and Baghdad

Analyst Mohammed Turki does not see a real escalation at the state level. He stressed that the rhetoric of some Popular Mobilization members cannot be considered an escalation between Iraq and Syria, and that relations remain “long-standing and deeply rooted.”

Responding to Khalifa’s concerns, Turki said that border control lies with the border police and the Ministry of Defense, not the Popular Mobilization. He added that Iraq today is more committed to consolidating a security and stability equation through strict border control and preventing any breaches that could return the country to cycles of violence.

The Syrian-Iraqi border has recently seen military reinforcements from both sides following the outbreak of the Israeli-Iranian war, with these moves interpreted as security-driven.

Contacts to reassure Iraq

The escalation was preceded by direct communication between President Ahmad al-Sharaa and the Iraqi government in a clear attempt to contain tensions and prevent further deterioration.

President al-Sharaa and Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia’ al-Sudani discussed regional developments, particularly the escalation between the United States and Israel on one side and Iran on the other, and their implications for regional security and stability.

Both sides emphasized the importance of strengthening joint security coordination and cooperation, stressing the need to prioritize dialogue and political solutions. They also highlighted the depth of fraternal relations between Syria and Iraq and their commitment to continued consultation and coordination in a way that serves shared interests and supports regional stability.

Khalifa interpreted these contacts as part of de-escalation efforts, saying that al-Sharaa’s call aimed to reassure Iraq that Syria would not be a launching point for attacks against it, as well as to regulate the border and prevent clashes.

“This call was necessary because the region is now on fire, and Syria is trying to remain neutral, neither aligned with this axis nor that,” he said.

However, the scene remains clearly divided, according to Khalifa, who explained, “There is no unified Iraqi position. Factions such as the Popular Mobilization view Syria as a hostile state, while the government deals with it as a reality that must be managed.”

For his part, Turki linked these contacts to the nature of relations between the two countries, stating that “Iraq respects the choices of the Syrian people, even with the presence of a transitional government. There must be diplomatic relations and an exchange of interests with any existing government.”

He added that the official framework remains decisive, explaining that the Popular Mobilization is a security institution affiliated with the prime minister and cannot act without his approval, operating within official channels. Therefore, the rhetoric of some members cannot affect relations between the two countries.

De-escalation, possible but difficult

Amid regional tensions and the rising tone of the Popular Mobilization toward the Syrian authorities, there is a growing need for practical mechanisms to prevent a deterioration in political relations between the two countries.

Khalifa believes de-escalation is possible but difficult, noting that “calming the situation is not easy amid the significant escalation in the region, but it is possible through direct communication lines and preventing any slide toward confrontation.”

He warned of “a return to sectarian fighting in the region if matters spiral out of control.”

Meanwhile, Turki outlined a more stable path, stating that “there must be diplomatic relations and an exchange of interests, and Iraq will open avenues for cooperation with Syria once stability is achieved.”

He concluded that relations between the two countries are likely to develop in the future, especially as conditions stabilize in Syria, opening the door to broader economic and security cooperation.

The post Damascus–Baghdad relations under threat from “Popular Mobilization” rhetoric appeared first on Enab Baladi.