Saudi Arabia’s invocation of Article 51 of the UN Charter to justify Wednesday’s precision strikes against militia targets inside Iraq marks the formal breakdown of a months-long diplomatic process, one that began with quiet bilateral protests and ended with coordinated military action alongside US Central Command. The strikes represent the most direct accountability test yet for Baghdad’s stated commitment to preventing its territory from being used as a launch pad against neighboring states.
The diplomatic record, documented in a survey by Asharq Al-Awsat, shows that Gulf governments pursued official channels extensively before escalating. Kuwait was among the first to act through institutional mechanisms. On March 9, Kuwait’s ambassador formally informed the Iraqi government that attacks on Kuwaiti territory had originated from inside Iraq, urging Baghdad to intervene to preserve bilateral relations. That overture produced no measurable result. By April 24, Kuwait’s military announced that two drones launched from Iraq had struck two northern border posts, causing material damage. By July 23, Kuwait’s Defense Ministry spokesman, Col. Saud Al-Otaibi, reported a further drone attack on the Abdali border crossing with Iraq.
Additional reference context is available at https://english.aawsat.com/gulf/5301538-asharq-al-awsat-survey-iran-backed-iraqi-militias-targeted-six-regional-countries.
Saudi Arabia’s Defense Ministry built a parallel record of incidents and warnings. On May 17, Riyadh announced that its air defenses had intercepted and destroyed three drones entering the Kingdom’s airspace from Iraq, and issued an explicit reservation of the right to respond at a time and place of its choosing. That warning went unheeded. On Monday, Defense Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Turki Al-Maliki announced that air defenses had intercepted and destroyed several drones targeting oil facilities in the Eastern Province and the Riyadh region, attributing the attacks to “Iran-backed terrorist militias” operating from Iraqi territory. On Tuesday, Al-Maliki announced a further interception of drones targeting oil facilities in the Eastern Province, again launched from Iraqi territory, and reiterated Saudi Arabia’s inherent right to defend its critical infrastructure.
The UAE faced a particularly serious accountability question on May 17. The UAE Ministry of Defense announced that its air defenses had intercepted two of three drones that entered the country’s airspace from its western border. The third struck an electricity generator outside the inner security perimeter of the Barakah Nuclear Energy Plant, causing no damage inside the facility. Abu Dhabi formally called on the Iraqi government to immediately and unconditionally prevent all hostile acts originating from Iraqi territory, framing the demand as an obligation on Baghdad rather than a request.
Jordan’s Royal Jordanian Air Force intercepted two drones targeting the country’s territory. Sources told Asharq Al-Awsat that Iran-aligned Iraqi militias were likely responsible. Amman had also conducted its own airstrikes inside Iraq earlier in the conflict against military movements it said threatened Jordan’s national security.
The affected governments moved to coordinate their institutional response. On March 25, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, and Jordan issued a joint statement calling on Baghdad to take immediate action to stop armed factions from using Iraqi territory to launch attacks against neighboring countries, characterizing compliance as necessary to preserve fraternal relations and prevent further escalation. The Gulf Cooperation Council issued more than seven statements condemning the attacks, including strikes targeting Gulf consulates in Iraq, while reaffirming bloc solidarity.
Diplomatic pressure escalated through formal summoning procedures. Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE each summoned Iraq’s ambassadors to protest attacks launched from Iraqi territory. Kuwait summoned the Iraqi ambassador repeatedly across the conflict period. Gulf governments presented documentary evidence and aerial imagery confirming the attacks’ origin inside Iraq. Iraqi armed factions, for their part, claimed responsibility in official statements, explicitly describing the strikes as part of the ongoing war.
What changed the calculus was Baghdad’s failure to act on its own assurances. Just days before Wednesday’s Saudi-US strikes, Iraq had reaffirmed during talks in Riyadh its commitment not to allow its territory or airspace to be used as a launch pad against Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Cooperation Council states, or other countries in the region. The timing of the strikes, coming so shortly after that pledge, underscored the gap between diplomatic commitments and conditions on the ground.
The central governance question now is whether Baghdad possesses the institutional capacity, or the political will, to enforce the commitments it has made to its neighbors, and what accountability mechanisms the affected states will demand before treating those assurances as credible again.