Last Saturday, March 7, Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al‑Sudani was visiting the president of Iraq’s Supreme Judicial Council, Faiq Zaidan.
While the two men were meeting at Zaidan’s home — located behind the Embassy of the United States in Baghdad’s heavily fortified Green Zone — they discussed accelerating the formation of the government, the ongoing war, and the importance of restricting weapons to state control. During the meeting, the U.S. Embassy was targeted by rockets and drones, according to a source who spoke to Alhurra.
The attack embarrassed the Iraqi government. It came roughly 10 days after a series of strikes targeting facilities linked to the International Coalition Against ISIS, as well as hotels, Iraqi and international military sites, airports and oil facilities in Baghdad, Basra and Erbil. Iran-aligned armed factions claimed responsibility for those attacks, describing them as acts of “solidarity” with Tehran’s war against the United States and Israel.
The Iraqi government described the shelling of the U.S. Embassy as a “terrorist act,” vowing to pursue those responsible for launching the rockets and drones and bring them to justice.
On March 10, the Supreme Judicial Council issued a statement following talks between its president and Foreign Minister Fuad Hussein addressing legal procedures related to the targeting of diplomatic missions, institutions and citizens inside the country.
The statement said that targeting diplomatic missions and civilian facilities constitutes “terrorist crimes” requiring prosecution under applicable laws. It confirmed that legal measures would be taken against those involved in the attacks.
Using this legal designation reflects a judicial approach to handling such attacks within the framework of Iraq’s anti-terrorism legislation, rather than treating them as isolated security incidents or politically motivated acts.
This classification relies on Iraq’s Anti-Terrorism Law No. 13 of 2005. Article 4 of the law stipulates severe penalties, including the death sentence, for perpetrators of acts classified as terrorism or those who participate in them.
The statement linked three categories it said were targeted in the attacks: foreign diplomatic missions, official institutions and civilian citizens. The connection highlights that attacks on diplomatic sites often occur in populated areas or near civilian facilities, increasing the likelihood of harm to residents and public property.
Legal experts say activating this provision could open the door to broader prosecutions that include both perpetrators and accomplices involved in carrying out or planning such attacks.
In remarks to Alhurra, Iraqi legal expert and television host Hossam al‑Hajj said the judiciary would be “at the forefront of the coming confrontation with the factions.” He added that the judiciary’s recent action would strengthen the government’s role in pursuing these groups.
The Iraqi judiciary’s statement came amid an escalation in security incidents across the country this month, with several attacks targeting diplomatic sites and facilities linked to foreign missions.
On March 10, the Diplomatic Support Center near Baghdad International Airport was attacked by drones, according to security reports. The strike damaged one of the guard towers and prompted security warnings for personnel working at the site.
A day earlier, debris from a drone fell near the building housing the Consulate General of the United Arab Emirates in Erbil, an incident that drew official condemnations from several countries in the region.
The Diplomatic Support Center near Baghdad International Airport has been subjected to daily attacks, in addition to Harir Air Base, which hosts forces from the international coalition in the northern city of Erbil.
Political analyst Aa’ed al‑Hilali said firing rockets at diplomatic missions, military headquarters or even civilian targets cannot be viewed as political or protest activity, but rather as acts that threaten national security and social stability.
Speaking to Alhurra, he added that subjecting such acts to the provisions of Iraq’s anti-terrorism law sends a clear message that the state will not tolerate any armed activity outside the framework of official institutions.
The attacks come amid rising regional tensions following the military strike carried out by the United States and Israel against Iran in late February 2026 — a development that has affected regional security and once again placed Iraq at the center of tensions linked to the conflict between regional and international powers.
This is not the first time Iraqi authorities have attempted to address attacks targeting diplomatic missions through judicial means. In June 2020, Iraq’s Counter-Terrorism Service conducted a raid in Baghdad’s Dora district that resulted in the arrest of several suspects accused of preparing to launch rockets toward the Green Zone, where government headquarters and diplomatic missions are located.
In 2020, the Iraqi government also formed an investigative committee including officials from security and intelligence agencies. The committee reached preliminary findings about parties suspected of being behind some attacks, though those results did not develop into fully formed judicial cases.
In 2023, the Iraqi judiciary sentenced an officer in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to life in prison after convicting him of the murder of American citizen Stephen Edward Troell. Troell was killed in November 2022 while in the Iraqi capital. The ruling was officially welcomed by the United States.
But the Troell case was an individual instance. The real development today lies in classifying these armed groups as “terrorist,” despite their strength, influence and weapons that threaten Iraqi state institutions.
Political analyst Nabil al‑Azzawi told Alhurra that measures taken against those launching rockets would be strict. He said the Iraqi judiciary’s position has ended the phase of half-measures in dealing with these groups.
In 2025, there were signs of a shift in the positions of some armed factions. Militias such as Asaib Ahl al‑Haq and Harakat Ansar Allah al‑Awfiya indicated readiness to cooperate with efforts to restrict weapons to the state and transition to political activity.
Other factions, however, including Kataib Hezbollah, have maintained their refusal to disarm before the withdrawal of foreign forces from Iraq — a reference to the U.S.-led international coalition.
Iraq’s judiciary has now entered a serious and consequential test: whether it can enforce anti-terrorism laws against all parties involved in the attacks, regardless of their affiliations or political cover. For years, it has often been said that no one has the power to hold Iran-aligned armed factions accountable.
The article is a translation of the original Arabic.
Mustafa Saadoon
Mustafa Saadoon is an Iraqi journalist who has worked for several international and Arab media organizations. He covers politics and human rights.
