Israel’s hidden war bases in Iraq

The most important element is that this was not an improvised action during one phase of escalation. According to the reporting, Israel had been preparing at least one of these sites since late 2024, which means that the objective was long-term operational readiness against Iran. Iraq offered what Israel needed: distance reduction, air support, possible refuelling, medical assistance and logistical flexibility for operations that could not be conducted only from Israeli territory.

For Baghdad, this is a serious political problem. Iraq has no diplomatic relations with Israel, and Israeli military activity on Iraqi territory directly undermines the authority of the Iraqi state. The question is not only whether the government knew. The more difficult issue is whether the Iraqi security system is capable of controlling its own territory, especially in remote regions where foreign actors, militias and external powers operate more freely than the state itself.

The reported killing of the shepherd who discovered one of the sites gives the story a much darker dimension. Secret military infrastructure is never only about aircraft, tents, helicopters and special forces. It also affects civilians, local communities and the credibility of the state. If an Iraqi citizen can find a foreign military position inside Iraq and then die in unclear circumstances, this becomes a question of sovereignty and public trust, not only military operations.

The American role is unavoidable in this discussion. Given the scale of U.S.–Israeli military cooperation and the American presence in Iraq, it is difficult to assume that Washington had no awareness of such activity. If the United States knew and did not inform Baghdad, Iraqi sovereignty becomes conditional. If selected Iraqi commanders knew and kept the matter hidden, the problem is even deeper, because it would show fragmentation inside Iraq’s own security architecture.

Israel’s military logic is clear. In a confrontation with Iran, it will seek every possible way to shorten distances, expand operational flexibility and maintain options outside its own territory. Even if one base is no longer active, Israel will most likely look for ways to preserve similar access, infrastructure or temporary operating points in the future. This does not mean permanent bases in the formal sense. It means maintaining the ability to appear, operate and disappear before the political cost becomes too high.

This creates a direct problem for the United States. Washington wants to weaken Iranian influence in Iraq and push Baghdad to act against Iran-aligned militias. However, revelations about Israeli activity on Iraqi soil give those militias a strong argument: cooperation with the United States can be presented as indirect cooperation with Israel. That strengthens anti-American narratives and gives Tehran additional room to influence Iraqi politics.

For Israel, the operational benefits may be real, but the strategic cost is not small. Iraq is fragile, divided and highly sensitive to anything connected with Israel. Using Iraqi territory against Iran may provide temporary military depth, but it also risks destabilising Baghdad, strengthening pro-Iranian actors and increasing pressure on U.S. forces in the country.

Israel can use Iraqi territory operationally, but it cannot easily hold such positions politically. This is the main limitation. Israel has very restricted possibilities when it comes to maintaining military bases outside its own territory, especially in a state like Iraq, where any Israeli presence immediately becomes a sovereignty crisis. These outposts may help in operations against Iran, but they are not a stable long-term solution.