In a serious development, the Israeli outlet JFeed reported on the evening of October 3 that Israel’s security establishment is increasing intelligence collection and operational readiness regarding Iraq, while considering sites belonging to Iraqi armed factions as a potential new front.
The report goes further, arguing that the withdrawal of U.S. forces has removed one of the practical constraints that had previously made Israel more cautious: the risk of accidentally hitting American troops stationed inside Iraq.
This comes after the United States completed the withdrawal of its remaining forces from Iraq on September 30, 2026, ending its military mission under Operation Inherent Resolve. Baghdad described the move as an important step toward restoring Iraqi sovereignty. But the military withdrawal does not mean that the security relationship has completely ended; training and intelligence cooperation arrangements continue, while command of the regional mission has shifted to Jordan.
Militarily, what has changed?
Israel appears to view the absence of U.S. troops on Iraqi soil as reducing one of the biggest risks associated with any strike: hitting American personnel and dragging Washington into an immediate crisis.
That is why the Israeli report speaks of expanded intelligence activity, closer monitoring of supply routes between Iraq and Syria, and preparations to strike convoys or positions that Tel Aviv considers linked to Iran.
But turning Iraq into an open arena for Israeli air operations would not be simple. The distances are long, the air routes are politically sensitive, and any large-scale operation could require long-range munitions, aerial refueling, or access to the airspace of other states.
More importantly, any Israeli strike inside Iraq could trigger retaliation from Iraqi factions and transform Iraq from an arena of indirect pressure into a direct front of confrontation.
From the standpoint of Iraqi sovereignty, the issue is even more serious: the departure of one foreign military force cannot become an opportunity for another state to begin striking Iraqi territory whenever it chooses.
Sovereignty is indivisible. Rejecting the American occupation does not mean accepting Israeli aggression.
It should also be noted that the JFeed report reflects an Israeli media and security perspective, and so far there has been no official announcement confirming that a decision has been made to launch a broad military campaign inside Iraq.
Still, the report reveals how Tel Aviv is thinking: the vacuum left by the U.S. military presence is being viewed as an opportunity to expand what Israel calls its “freedom of operational action.”
If Israel does move from threats to actual strikes, the result could be the exact opposite of what it intends: unifying a larger segment of Iraqi forces against foreign intervention, increasing pressure to strengthen Iraqi air defenses, and pulling Baghdad deeper into the regional confrontation.
Iraq has emerged from more than two decades of American military presence. The last thing it needs is to replace one form of foreign intervention with another.