The United States Central Command (CENTCOM) officially announced the start of transferring Islamic State (IS) group detainees from northeastern Syria into Iraqi territory this week, confirming that the operation is being coordinated with the Iraqi government and aims to reduce the risk of escapes.
The detainees had previously been held by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in Syria before the US coordinated with Baghdad to move them to facilities inside Iraq.
Although the US statement did not provide detailed mechanisms or detention locations, it represents the first practical step in implementing a move that has remained unresolved for years, since the collapse of IS in Iraq and Syria between 2017 and 2019, when thousands of fighters were left in insecure areas, creating a heavy administrative and security burden for the SDF and neighbouring countries.
The transfer was not entirely unexpected. Iraq has repeatedly demanded over recent years the return of Iraqi nationals involved in IS terrorism crimes, arguing that keeping them outside its judicial authority poses ongoing security risks and delays justice.
However, political complexities, international hesitation, and the refusal of many countries to repatriate their nationals has kept this issue pending, leaving northeastern Syrian prisons increasingly unstable due to overcrowding, lack of resources, and the potential for unrest or escapes.
President of Iraq’s Supreme Judicial Council Faik Zidan issued an official statement confirming that all the detainees entering Iraqi territory would be tried under existing Iraqi laws and within the approved constitutional frameworks.
The statement emphasised that Iraq’s judiciary possesses the legal powers and mechanisms to handle terrorism cases, ensuring the right of defence and due process, while rejecting any form of detention outside legal channels or without proper judicial procedures. This position sought to reassure public opinion and preempt fears of indefinite detention or political settlements, explicitly placing the issue under judicial authority.
Iraq also renewed its calls to the countries of origin of thousands of foreign detainees, particularly European states, to repatriate and prosecute their citizens on their own territory.
However, the response has remained extremely limited. These states often justify their inaction by claiming “insufficient evidence,” a rationale that raises serious questions, particularly as many of the detainees participated in documented crimes, appeared in IS propaganda, fought in territories under intense international intelligence scrutiny, and were captured in conflicts involving these very countries.
Despite this, the burden of prosecution, custody, and security risks falls entirely on Iraq, itself a country emerging from prolonged conflict, while other states deny their legal and political responsibilities.
Unofficial data indicate that the detainee population numbers approximately 7,000 individuals, including mid-level and potentially senior IS operatives such as “emirs,” while Iraqi nationals constitute only a small fraction compared to thousands of foreigners from Europe, North Africa, the Caucasus, and Central Asia.
The transfer is being conducted in batches of roughly 100 to 200 detainees each to minimise security risks and facilitate management within Iraqi prisons, with strict arrangements to prevent escapes or acts of violence. This reality raises the question of whether Iraq is becoming the world’s courtroom and prison simply because the crimes occurred on its soil.
The transfer decision cannot be separated from the visit of the US Central Command (CENTCOM) commander to Baghdad and his meeting with Prime Minister Mohamed Shia Al-Sudani, followed by an official statement.
The visit carried significant political and security implications, reflecting an advanced level of coordination between Baghdad and Washington. CENTCOM’s statement framed the transfer as a measure to reduce security risks in northeastern Syria, while also signalling an American intent to close one of the most complex post-IS issues and re-establish custody within a state that was the primary site of IS crimes.
As such, the decision is part of a broader regional and international framework for managing the legacy of the war on terror.
Recent diplomatic developments have also added new dimensions. Iraqi Foreign Minister Fuad Hussein has reportedly been in contact with European Union Foreign Policy Chief Kaja Kallas, urging technical, security, and financial cooperation from the EU to help Iraq manage the detainee issue.
Al-Sudani, in a direct call with French President Emmanuel Macron, has also requested that European countries repatriate their nationals held in Iraq for prosecution. Macron, while affirming France’s commitment to support Iraq technically and financially, did not agree to the immediate repatriation of French nationals.
US officials, in statements following consultations with Baghdad, indicated that non-Iraqi detainees will remain in Iraq temporarily until their countries take responsibility for their prosecution. These developments underscore both the international pressures on Iraq and the partial responses from European partners.
The Iraqi government and security and military institutions emphasised that Iraqi forces now possess operational capabilities and accumulated field experience enabling them to protect borders, secure critical facilities, and manage complex detention issues of this scale.
This is not meant to justify the burden but to counter narratives portraying Iraq as incapable of maintaining security. After years of direct confrontation with IS, Iraq has developed intelligence infrastructure and combat experience sufficient to mitigate risks of escape or rebellion within prisons.
At the same time, its acknowledgement of this capacity raises the question of whether Iraq’s security capability is being used as a form of balanced partnership or as a pretext to assign the majority of the burden to it without any genuine sharing of responsibility.
Head of the Iraqi Popular Mobilisation Forces Falih Al-Fayyadh stated that the decision to transfer IS members was primarily driven by Iraqi security interests. He warned that keeping thousands of detainees in facilities outside Iraqi control posed greater risks than taking responsibility for them inside the country.
He noted that leaving them in unstable environments without clear judicial oversight could open the door to potential escapes, while affirming that Iraq possesses the necessary security capacity and expertise to manage the issue. He emphasised that the issue should not be understood solely as an Iraqi problem, but rather as part of an international responsibility in combating terrorism that requires practical cooperation beyond political statements.
Beyond the security dimension, the judicial timeline is one of the most complex challenges. Trying nearly 7,000 defendants for cross-border terrorism cannot be a rapid or short-term process. Even under optimal conditions, with specialised courts and experienced judges, practical estimates suggest that this volume of cases could take many years, possibly extending up to a decade, due to the complexity of the files, multiple sources of evidence and witnesses, translation needs, defence rights, and appellate procedures.
This means that Iraq faces not a temporary challenge but a long-term judicial and institutional commitment with direct implications for its legal, security, and financial systems.
Political analyst Najm Al-Qassab said that transferring the detainees to Iraq, despite its obvious risks, remains a lesser evil compared to leaving them in politically unstable regions. He added that trying IS members within a state directly affected by their crimes ensures greater oversight and legal sovereignty but warned that the success of this process depends on genuine international support, including financial, technical, and intelligence assistance, rather than leaving Iraq to shoulder the burden alone.
On the international level, a clear legal and political paradox emerges. European countries, despite their nominal acknowledgement of the legitimacy of trials conducted under Iraqi law, provided they meet minimum procedural standards, remain hesitant to repatriate their nationals or share in the burdens of prosecution and detention.
This hesitation is often justified by domestic political calculations or legal constraints, while Iraq bears the full burden of evidence collection and implementation. This gap reflects a persistent discrepancy between international rhetoric about “shared responsibility” and actual practice in counter-terrorism cases.
The Iraqi government’s rapid approval to commence transfers, even before extensive parliamentary debate, is understood as a combination of urgent security considerations and international pressure. Baghdad perceives that keeping thousands of detainees in unstable northeastern Syrian facilities presents a direct threat greater than assuming responsibility for their transfer, while the swift action reflects high-level coordination with international partners, particularly the United States.
Yet, this approach, while justified in terms of security, raises legitimate questions regarding parliamentary oversight, transparency levels, and decision-making mechanisms in matters of sovereignty with long-term impacts.
After the arrival of the first batch of detainees, US Special Envoy to Syria Tom Barrett visited Baghdad to discuss security and counter-terrorism matters, emphasising the importance of Syria’s stability and its direct effects on Iraq, while also acknowledging Baghdad’s role in mitigating IS threats.
Observers interpreted the visit as an attempt to stabilise post-transfer arrangements, prevent internal political or security tensions, and explore avenues for financial and technical support in managing this complex issue.
Beyond the official statements, public opinion in Iraq reflects widespread concern and anger over the ability of prisons to accommodate the detainees, the cost of detention, trial outcomes, and the possibility of IS regrouping within prisons. People have raised questions about international justice and why Iraq is asked to bear the burden of global security while other countries evade their responsibilities.
Iraq faces a complex test, a long-term judicial commitment, uneven international acknowledgement of responsibilities, and urgent security pressures requiring rapid decisions in a sensitive political environment. The IS issue illustrates a broader challenge in managing the international justice of post-conflict terrorism, where operational burdens continue to fall disproportionately on the countries directly affected.
The overarching question remains who ultimately bears responsibility for cross-border terrorism when the time for accountability arrives?
* A version of this article appears in print in the 29 January, 2026 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: