Iran’s Hadid-110 Accusation Puts Iraqi Parliament on Collision Course With Tehran
More than 90 Iraqi lawmakers have called for an emergency session in Erbil after Kurdish counterterrorism forces said two Iranian-made Hadid‑110 missiles were launched at Prime Minister Masrour Barzani’s office. The demand signals Baghdad’s political class is feeling pressure to answer cross‑border strikes that turn Iraqi Kurdish cities into testing grounds for Iran’s regional deterrence.
A move by over 90 Iraqi lawmakers to demand an emergency parliamentary session in Erbil has turned a disputed missile strike on the Kurdistan Region into a national political test of how far Iraq is willing — or able — to confront Iran over cross‑border attacks.
Iraqi MP Mustafa al‑Kubaisi said on 17 August that he and more than 90 members of the Council of Representatives had signed a request to convene an emergency session in Erbil, the capital of the Kurdistan Region. He framed the gathering as an act of solidarity with the people of Kurdistan and a response to aggression against Iraqi territory. The initiative followed a claim by the Kurdistan Region’s Counter‑Terrorism Service that two Iranian‑made Hadid‑110 missiles were used in a recent strike targeting the office of Kurdistan Regional Government Prime Minister Masrour Barzani.
The Hadid‑110 allegation, which has not been independently verified, carries weight because it directly links the attack’s hardware to Iran’s missile inventory, rather than to an opaque non‑state actor. In parallel, Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araghchi publicly condemned what he called a reckless attack on Barzani’s office and urged Kurdish leaders to be wary of “fabricated conspiracies” aimed at sowing discord between neighbors. Tehran’s line signals that while Iran rejects responsibility, it wants to limit the fallout and keep political space open with Erbil and Baghdad.
For residents of Erbil and other Kurdish cities, the dispute is more than a technical argument over missile models. It speaks to a recurring fear that their homes and offices can be hit in proxy exchanges that have little to do with local politics. Each cross‑border strike, whether claimed or denied, pushes families, businesses and foreign consulates to reassess their sense of safety, evacuation plans and investment timelines. The fact that the latest alleged target is the office of the KRG prime minister makes the symbolism even sharper: top‑tier government sites are not guaranteed immunity from incoming fire.
Operationally, if Iraqi security bodies conclude that Iranian‑origin missiles were fired into the Kurdistan Region, it would underscore the limitations on Baghdad’s ability to control its own airspace and borders against more powerful neighbors and their proxies. The call to meet in Erbil, rather than in Baghdad, is a political signal: lawmakers want to be seen physically standing with a region that has often accused the federal government of failing to defend it from external attacks.
Strategically, the episode sits at the intersection of Iraq’s internal balancing act and regional power competition. Baghdad relies on Iranian‑linked militias for parts of its security architecture while also courting Western support and investment, particularly in energy. The Kurdistan Region hosts foreign energy companies and Western diplomatic missions whose continued presence depends on a baseline of security. Repeated strikes framed as Iranian or Iran‑linked put those relationships under stress and complicate Iraq’s attempts to present itself as a stable corridor between the Gulf and the Mediterranean.
The public contradiction between Kurdish security services and Iran’s top diplomat also fits a broader pattern in the Middle East, where missile and drone strikes are often followed by competing narratives about attribution and intent. For regional capitals, the question is not only who fired, but how much domestic political capital they are willing to spend to challenge or downplay that answer.
The memorable takeaway is this: when missiles cross a border and hit a prime minister’s office, the issue stops being technical and becomes a referendum on whose sovereignty matters in practice.
What comes next will hinge on whether the parliamentary leadership accepts the request to convene in Erbil, what language that session uses to describe the attacker, and whether any follow‑on resolutions call for legal or diplomatic steps against Iran or its allied groups in Iraq. International responses from key partners such as the United States, European states and neighboring Turkey will also be critical signals of how much external backing Erbil and Baghdad have if they choose to push back more openly against cross‑border strikes.
Sources
- OSINT