Baghdad’s Green Zone; from safe-haven to battleground

Dilan Sirwan

ERBIL, Kurdistan Region - All it took was one retirement announcement on Monday afternoon for what was once considered the “safest place” in Iraq, Baghdad’s fortified Green Zone, to become a deadly lawless battleground, revealing the reality of what Iraq has turned into; a country where religious figures and militias have more authority than the government.

Iraqi Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr on Monday afternoon announced his “definitive” retirement from politics, shortly after a close aide to his father and uncle retired from his role as a marja (Shiite religious authority) in Iran’s religious epicenter of Qom.

The retirement letter submitted by Grand Ayatollah Kadhim al-Haeri was perceived by Sadr as a move forced upon him by Iran.

Haeri’s call on his followers to now follow the rulings of Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was the final nail in the coffin for Sadr, expressing his complete loss of hope in the Iraqi political system.

Sadr had suddenly set loose thousands of his supporters in Baghdad’s fortified Green Zone, the country’s once safe haven where government buildings and international missions have resided since the US invasion of Iraq 19 years ago.

By late afternoon, thousands of his supporters had already stormed into different government buildings, including the one where the Iraqi Council of Ministers were holding their meeting.

Sadrist protests soon spread to other provinces. People by the thousands flocked onto the streets of Basra, Dhi Qar, and Maysan, blocking roads and taking over government buildings.

The Iraqi government announced a curfew across all Iraqi provinces in a bid to contain them, but their decision was to no avail.

With no Sadr to hold them down, protestors were chanting to topple the state.

“I swear to Abbas, we will not back down,” one young Sadrist follower said, swearing on the son of Imam Ali, Prophet Mohammed’s son-in-law and a central figure to Shiite Muslims.

Reports of clashes spread all over the internet on Monday evening, and soon it had become clear that Iran-backed militias had taken matter into their own hands, using live ammunition against the Sadrists.

Sadrists had to respond. 

On Monday night, Saraya al-Salam militia, a militia founded by Sadr himself in 2014 and considered as a revived version of Sadr’s Mahdi army, militants who fought the Americans following their invasion in 2003, flowed into the capital.

The once fortified Green Zone was no longer fortified, nor safe.

The sound of heavy machine guns, RPGs, and sub-machine guns filled the air. It was a deadly showdown between Saraya al-Salam and Iran-backed militants.

What happened in Baghdad showed the world Iraq’s fragility. It became evident that in Iraq, the government and security forces lack authority. Instead, it was religious and tribal leaders who had thousands of militants ready to take orders.

By 2am on Tuesday, the death toll had reached at least 15 people, with dozens of others injured in the conflict, and it was still not clear when the clashes were going to end. Iraq had entered the first dangerous stages of what could swiftly descend into a civil war, except this time, it was an intra-Shiite war.

A senior member of the Sadrist Movement on Monday announced that Sadr had commenced a hunger strike following the violent escalations, but hell had already been unleashed on the capital, what a strike would achieve remained questionable.

For over a year, Sadr had reiterated his calls against the existence of militant groups outside the Iraqi army, preaching for the “returning of arms into the hand of the state” as part of his election campaign, but willingly or not, he had already unleashed hundreds of his loyalists into the streets of Iraq, engaging in a heavy armed conflict with the Iran-backed militants.

Typically viewed as a supporter of the people and a public favorite, his sudden resort to violence that had only been seen when fighting the Americans following 2003, is perceived as a sign of weakness by some. 

“This is the extent of weakness both in the eyes of the Iraqi people and in the eyes of his opponents,” Wagner Fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy Bilal Wahab told Rudaw.

But despite the violent outcomes of his retirement, Sadr remains a master of withdrawals.

Master of withdrawals

On July 15, 2021, Sadr announced that he would withdraw from the election race. Sadr went on to win the October elections with 73 seats.

On June 6, 2022, he told his MPs to prepare their resignation letters as he had booked his party a one-way ticket out of the Iraqi parliament.

Sadr later ordered all of his MPs to resign, offering the pro-Iran Coordination Framework the chance to form a government. He then summoned his followers to the streets, halting the government formation process for yet another two months.

Sadr’s retirement, like every other of his withdrawals from the political scene, seems to be part of a bigger plan as well.

“When Muqtada Al-Sadr claimed he is resigning from politics, he’s merely distancing himself from the responsibility of chaos and also trying to allow the Sadrist protests to transition from political to popular protests,” Hamzeh Hadad, Visiting Fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, told Rudaw English via Whatsapp.

When Iraqis from across the country took to the streets in October 2019, which later became more popular as the Tishreen (Arabic for October) protests, Sadr chose to play on the ropes. One minute he would support the protestors, the next he would withdraw his support, leaving him as an unreliable ally of the movement.

“They are not the same as Tishreen, but Sadr would like to market them as such,” Hadad said, while adding that “Iraqis are well aware who is protesting and what is driving them to protest.”

The record low turnout of the October elections made one thing clear, and it was that neither Sadr, nor the Coordination Framework have the support of the Iraqi public, but rather only a group of their loyalists.

However with the people supporting neither side, a violent conflict of such scale will perhaps only end with the mediation of one man.

The wise man in black

Since protests started to escalate earlier on Monday, several politicians and diplomatic missions called on both parties to de-escalate.

The United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) urged maximum restraint and called on protestors to leave the Green Zone and governmental building.

Stephane Dujarric, spokesperson for UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, said in a statement late Monday that Guterres urges all Iraqi relevant actors "to take immediate steps to de-escalate the situation and avoid any violence."

Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi even took to Sadr himself, urging him to call on protestors to withdraw from government institutions in a statement after suspending cabinet sessions, but none seem to work.

This leaves Iraq’s highest Shiite authority, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, as the last resort.



"The only person who can really speak with authority at the moment is Grand Ayatollah Sistani, and he will step in for instance if these protests move to Najaf,” Michael Knights, an analyst and fellow at The Washington Institute told Rudaw.

Hadad also echoed similar remarks stating that Sistani intervening in the conflict as mediator is the best case scenario.

“Grand Ayatollah Sistani historically has intervened during instability and the prospect of blood being spilt. This has already happened with reports of many falling in today’s clashes,” Hadad said, defining the worst case scenario as an escalation into civil war.

However, while the pro-Iran factions do listen to Sistani, Sadr does not have the reputation of always doing so. Sadrists have for years not considered the Iraqi marja as their spiritual leader and have often criticized him and his predecessors for often being quiet in times of conflict.

Sistani, who is yet to say anything about the conflict, also has a lot at stake in case he intervenes.

“There is a big uncertainty with the Sadrists if Sistani did intervene, as it would hurt his credibility if any side does not listen, even if it is the Sadrists who do not follow him as their spiritual leader, as ignoring a Grand Ayatollah like Sistani would be a bold move, especially if it were an unbiased call to all sides and depending on how he would phrase it,” Hadad said.

With clashes ongoing in the Iraqi capital for hours without a break, not much seems to be certain for Iraq’s political future, but the one thing that is clear is the fact that in Iraq, the government has no control over loyalist militias, and in such decisive moments, it is tribal and religious loyalty that runs the country, not a democratic government.