Follow us on social

US strikes in Baghdad wipe out  militia leader

US strikes in Baghdad wipe out  militia leader

Regardless, American troops in the country are more vulnerable by the day

Analysis | QiOSK

A U.S. airstrike Thursday in the Iraqi capital city of Baghdad killed Abu Taqwa, a commander of Harakat Hizballah al-Nujaba, along with an unranked individual, according to reports .

Harakat Hezbollah al-Nujaba and Kataib Hezbollah are two of the Iran-aligned militias that have most frequently targeted U.S. forces in Iraq, both before and notably after the start of the Gaza conflict on Oct. 7.

Abu Taqwa also served as the Deputy Commander of Baghdad Belt Operations in the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF). While formally part of a chain of command led by the prime minister, certain factions within the PMF, particularly Shi’a paramilitary units, operate outside of this structure.

The airstrike targeted a vehicle carrying Taqwa at a logistics center near Iraq’s Interior Ministry in Baghdad. Significantly, this strike occurred shortly after a meeting between Akram Al-Kaabi, Secretary-General of the al-Nujaba militia, and the commander of the Iranian Quds Force, Ismail Qaani. Considering the location, timing, and Taqwa’s role within the PMF, this event represents a notable escalation and a clear message to both Iran-aligned militias and the Iraqi government.

The targeted killing occurred against a backdrop of tense relations between Washington and Baghdad. Widely interpreted as a preliminary warning to the Iraqi state, U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin specifically addressed attacks by Kataib Hezbollah and Harakat al-Nujaba against U.S. forces when he spoke with Iraqi Prime Minister Sudani on Dec. 8. Furthermore, during a press conference with the Spanish Prime Minister at the end of December, Sudani mentioned that his government was reassessing the presence of the international coalition in Iraq.

In the near term, it is unlikely that U.S. troops will receive orders to leave Iraq or that Iran and its affiliated militias will launch a significant retaliation within Iraq. However, with each tit for tat escalation, sometimes without formal claims of responsibility, the risk of a broader regional conflict looms larger. If, especially during an election year, a U.S. soldier were to be killed by an Iran-aligned militia, the pressure on the Biden administration to escalate forcefully would be substantial.

The reality is that the United States has limited capacity to deter attacks by Iran-aligned militias in Iraq without diplomatic efforts or a notable increase in kinetic strikes, which would pose the risk of triggering a broader war.

U.S. troops in Iraq and Syria may contribute to strengthening partner forces against ISIS, but they neither contain Iran nor significantly protect the security of the homeland. They are deeply vulnerable to the aftershocks of other conflicts in the Middle East, raising the question of whether the advantages of their force presence outweigh the risks. Disturbingly, it is a war being conducted in the shadows with little Congressional oversight.


Analysis | QiOSK
Mark Levin
Top photo credit: Erick Stakelbeck on TBN/Screengrab

The great fade out: Neocon influencers rage as they diminish

Media

Mark Levin appears to be having a meltdown.

The veteran neoconservative talk host is repulsed by reports that President Donald Trump might be inching closer to an Iranian nuclear deal, reducing the likelihood of war. In addition to his rants on how this would hurt Israel, Levin has been howling to anyone who will listen that any deal with Iran needs approval from Congress (funny he doesn’t have the same attitude for waging war, only for making peace).

keep readingShow less
american military missiles
Top photo credit: Fogcatcher/Shutterstock

5 ways the military industrial complex is a killer

Latest

Congress is on track to finish work on the fiscal year 2025 Pentagon budget this week, and odds are that it will add $150 billion to its funding for the next few years beyond what the department even asked for. Meanwhile, President Trump has announced a goal of over $1 trillion for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2026.

With these immense sums flying out the door, it’s a good time to take a critical look at the Pentagon budget, from the rationales given to justify near record levels of spending to the impact of that spending in the real world. Here are five things you should know about the Pentagon budget and the military-industrial complex that keeps the churn going.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Africa

Recent weeks events have dramatically cast the Sudanese civil war back into the international spotlight, drawing renewed scrutiny to the role of external actors, particularly the United Arab Emirates.

This shift has been driven by Sudan's accusations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the UAE concerning violations of the Genocide Convention, alongside drone strikes on Port Sudan that Khartoum vociferously attributes to direct Emirati participation. Concurrently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly reaffirmed the UAE's deep entanglement in the conflict at a Senate hearing last week.

From Washington, another significant and sudden development also surfaced last week: the imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) for alleged chemical weapons use. This dramatic accusation was met by an immediate denial from Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which vehemently dismissed the claims as "unfounded" and criticized the U.S. for bypassing the proper international mechanisms, specifically the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, despite Sudan's active membership on its Executive Council.

Despite the gravity of such an accusation, corroboration for the use of chemical agents in Sudan’s war remains conspicuously absent from public debate or reporting, save for a January 2025 New York Times article citing unnamed U.S. officials. That report itself contained a curious disclaimer: "Officials briefed on the intelligence said the information did not come from the United Arab Emirates, an American ally that is also a staunch supporter of the R.S.F."

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.