What will the closure of the US embassy in Iraq achieve?

Washington's move highlights the importance of shielding diplomats from violence, but there is more on the line

Since October 2019, Iraqi demonstrators have protested against corruption, a lack of job opportunities, poor living conditions and the influence of Iran. AFP

The US has warned it will shut down its largest diplomatic mission, if the lives of its diplomats and staff are not better protected.

The American embassy in Baghdad has been shelled on a near-weekly basis for months, by rogue militias backed by Iran. These groups, deemed "outlaws" by the Iraqi government, have increasingly threatened US targets, including diplomats and troops stationed in the country, since the killing of Qassem Suleimani in a US strike near Baghdad airport. Suleimani headed the Al Quds force, an elite branch of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps that co-ordinates overseas operations conducted by its proxies.

These militias have terrorised and killed innocent Iraqi civilians for years. Just yesterday, a rocket that landed near Baghdad airport killed five civilians and wounded two more. Some factions within the Popular Mobilisation Forces, an umbrella group of mostly Iranian-backed militias that are officially part of the Iraqi state's security apparatus, are also believed to be behind a deadly crackdown on peaceful protesters.

These militias have access to the Green Zone, which houses the Iraqi parliament, the US embassy, and other diplomatic missions. The heavily fortified compound was partially opened to the public last year, by former prime minister Adel Abdel Mahdi, who also invited the PMF to establish offices in the area. Numerous diplomatic missions have voiced their concerns about the presence of these groups in the Green Zone.

Washington has a right to demand that the safety of its diplomats is ensured, particularly with tensions expected to rise as the one-year anniversary of popular protests in Iraq is upon us and the date for the US presidential election draws near.

The US move has initiated a much-needed conversation about the importance of shielding diplomats, who can facilitate peaceful talks and co-operation, from violence. Anti-American populist cleric Moqtada Al Sadr, who heads the largest bloc in parliament, has said that attacks on diplomats must stop. Other groups have heeded his call. It is crucial for the state to clamp down on militias and provide better protection for diplomats as well as ordinary Iraqis. This feat, however, is impossible to achieve without the support of Iraq's closest allies, chief among them the US.

Closing the US embassy could harm American and Iraqi interests. It would send the wrong message to militias threatening innocent lives. These groups would be quick to claim such a move as a victory, boosting their influence in the country, to the detriment of the Iraqi state. A propaganda win is what they seek, as they frame any withdrawal from the US as a victory for them.

The US is an ally of Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa Al Kadhimi, a reformer who has attempted to reign in the militias, one of the main demands of Iraq’s peaceful protest movement. Mr Al Kadhimi needs international support to achieve this goal. The departure of American diplomats from the capital could be a blow to his efforts, and it could leave a void that Iran would be all too happy to fill, even as mass protests against Tehran’s influence have been ongoing for almost a year.

The US warning should serve as a wake-up call for Iraqi politicians. For the country to move forward and its people to thrive, state institutions must regain the power they lost to paramilitary groups. Various militia groupings, meanwhile, have a decision to make – and they are already divided. They can either continue to harm innocents, in a proxy war that only undermines Iraqi interests and security, or they can choose to respect the authority of the state, which they are supposed to serve, granting Iraq a new chance to flourish.