Report on Regional Instability and its Detrimental Effects on Sustainable Development Goals

Undermining Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions (SDG 16)

A recent meeting in Baghdad between Esmail Ghaani, the commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards-Quds Force (IRGC-QF), and affiliated Iraqi proxy militias underscores a significant threat to regional stability. The commander’s warning of an “imminent” Israeli attack highlights the volatile security situation, which directly contravenes the objectives of SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions. The activities of these non-state armed groups undermine the rule of law and challenge the sovereignty of national institutions.

The political and economic influence wielded by these militias within Iraq’s governing coalition, the Coordination Framework, compromises the integrity and impartiality of the state. This erosion of institutional strength impedes progress towards building a peaceful and inclusive society. Prominent militias contributing to this instability include:

• Asaib Ahl al Haq
• Harakat Hezbollah al Nujaba
• Kataib Hezbollah
• Kataib Sayyid al Shuhada

These groups, sometimes operating under the banner of the Islamic Resistance in Iraq (IRI), have previously launched hundreds of attacks against Israeli and American targets, perpetuating a cycle of violence that is fundamentally at odds with sustainable development.

Economic Disruption and Illicit Financial Flows (SDG 8 & SDG 16)

The regional conflict is sustained by economic activities that obstruct SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth. Reports indicate that Iraq serves as a crucial economic lifeline for Iran, facilitating an estimated $1 billion in illicit oil profits. This constitutes a major illicit financial flow, directly undermining Target 16.4 of the SDGs, which calls for a significant reduction in such flows. The militias’ entrenched influence within Iraq’s oil sector enables this shadow economy, diverting critical resources away from public services and sustainable economic development, thereby limiting opportunities for decent work and legitimate growth.

Threats to Critical Infrastructure and Energy Security (SDG 7 & SDG 9)

Recent military actions have directly targeted essential infrastructure, jeopardizing progress on SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy) and SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure). The development of resilient and reliable infrastructure is a prerequisite for sustainable development, yet it is actively being undermined. Documented attacks include:

1. Drone strikes on U.S. forces at Ain al Asad base in western Iraq.
2. Attacks on three American bases in northeast Syria and the U.S. consulate in Erbil.
3. Strikes against four Iraqi military bases, which damaged radar equipment and limited Iraq’s capacity to monitor its own airspace.
4. A series of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) attacks targeting energy infrastructure in Iraqi Kurdistan, striking half a dozen oil fields, including sites operated by American companies.

The Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) has accused the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), an Iraqi state security institution largely composed of Iran-backed militias, of conducting these attacks on energy facilities. Such actions disrupt energy supplies, deter foreign investment, and destroy capital essential for long-term development.

Escalating Tensions and the Deterioration of Regional Partnerships (SDG 17)

The rhetoric of confrontation from senior Iranian officials signals a readiness for further escalation, which erodes the potential for SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals. Statements from the commanders of the Islamic Republic Army and the IRGC affirming their readiness “to strike the enemy again” undermine diplomatic efforts and regional cooperation. Furthermore, claims from Iranian officials that they perceive U.S. diplomatic talks as a prelude to war, not peace, illustrate a profound lack of trust that is prohibitive to forming partnerships for peace and development.

Persistent concerns over Iran’s nuclear program and the potential for further military conflict create an environment where security imperatives overshadow development objectives. This ongoing state of hostility and the potential for wider war are fundamentally incompatible with the spirit of global partnership and cooperation required to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article discusses issues of conflict, political instability, illicit economic activities, and attacks on infrastructure, which are directly and indirectly connected to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The most relevant SDGs are:

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: This is the most prominent SDG related to the article. The text is centered on armed conflict, military strikes, the influence of non-state militias, political instability, and the weakening of state institutions in Iraq due to the influence of these groups and foreign powers.
• SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy: The article explicitly mentions attacks on energy infrastructure. These actions directly undermine the goal of ensuring access to reliable energy.
• SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure: The deliberate targeting and damage of critical infrastructure, such as energy facilities and military radar equipment, are a direct setback to this goal, which aims to build resilient infrastructure.
• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth: The article touches upon the economic dimension of the conflict, particularly through illicit financial activities. The mention of a vast illicit oil trade run by militias highlights how conflict undermines legitimate economic growth and promotes illicit economies.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the specific issues discussed in the article, the following targets can be identified:

1. Under SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere. The article is replete with descriptions of violence, including “unclaimed drone and missile strikes,” attacks on US forces and military bases, the “12-Day War,” and the anticipation of “another round of escalations.” This shows a clear failure to reduce violence in the region.
   • Target 16.4: By 2030, significantly reduce illicit financial and arms flows… and combat all forms of organized crime. The article directly points to this target by mentioning that Iraq is a crucial economic lifeline for Iran, “generating roughly $1 billion in illicit oil profits” through a smuggling network. This is a clear example of illicit financial flows linked to organized, armed groups (militias).
   • Target 16.a: Strengthen relevant national institutions… to prevent violence and combat terrorism and crime. The article implies the weakening of national institutions. It notes that Iran-backed militias hold “prominent positions in the Coordination Framework, Iraq’s governing coalition,” and that the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) accuses the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), an “Iraqi security institution,” of launching attacks. This demonstrates how state institutions are compromised and unable to prevent violence.
2. Under SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy
   • Target 7.1: By 2030, ensure universal access to affordable, reliable and modern energy services. The article describes how “UAV attacks have targeted energy infrastructure in Iraqi Kurdistan” and “struck half a dozen oil fields.” These attacks directly threaten the reliability and availability of energy, working against this target.
3. Under SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure
   • Target 9.1: Develop quality, reliable, sustainable and resilient infrastructure… to support economic development and human well-being. The article provides direct evidence of infrastructure being undermined. It states that “radar equipment at two bases was damaged” and that drones targeted “energy infrastructure” and “oil fields.” This destruction of critical infrastructure is the antithesis of developing resilient systems.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article contains several specific pieces of information that can serve as indicators to measure the lack of progress towards these targets.

• Indicators for Target 16.1 (Reduce violence):
  • The number and frequency of armed attacks are mentioned: “three drones targeted US forces,” attacks on “three American bases,” “Four Iraqi military bases were again struck,” and “hundreds of attacks” launched by the Islamic Resistance in Iraq (IRI).
• Indicators for Target 16.4 (Reduce illicit financial flows):
  • A specific monetary value for illicit financial flows is provided: “roughly $1 billion in illicit oil profits.” This serves as a direct quantitative indicator of the scale of the problem.
• Indicators for Target 7.1 (Ensure energy access) and Target 9.1 (Develop resilient infrastructure):
  • The number of infrastructure sites attacked is specified: “drones struck half a dozen oil fields.”
  • The type of infrastructure damaged is described: “energy infrastructure,” “oil fields,” and “radar equipment.” These serve as qualitative and quantitative indicators of damage to critical infrastructure.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: longwarjournal.org