More than two years after Iran's retaliation against the killing of Soleimani in a US air strike ordered by Donald Trump, the attack on the US consulate in Erbil may once again heighten the tensions between the two countries. Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) claimed responsibility for the strike, citing retaliation against the killing of two Iranian Revolutionary Guards during a recent Israeli attack in Syria as the reason. While this may be an immediate trigger, Iranian strike should obviously be looked at through the larger lens of longstanding rivalry between the US (along with its allies) and Iran on Iraqi soil. The presence of US troops in Iraq has been a contentious issue ever since the Bush-led US toppled the Saddam Hussain regime in Iraq by assassinating the dictator in 2003 under false pretexts. After eight years of deployment, the US troops had been withdrawn from Iraq in 2011 — but only to be called back by the Iraqi government to tackle the wild run of militant groups in the country. The Islamic State was defeated in 2017 but the US troops have continued to exist there to counter any further resurgence of IS groups. Notably, Iran-backed forces were one among the collaborators who supported the US troops in defeating the IS. The divergence in their paths after the ouster of IS could only be explained in terms of Iranian appetite for dominance in West Asia. Iraq would soon turn out to be a battleground of dominance between the US and Iran, as both the countries started looking for their 'interests' in a 'sovereign' nation. The killing of Soleimani during the Trump regime in 2020, apart from marking a boiling point in US-Iran rivalry in West Asia, proved to be a political blunder for the US as it forced Iraq to make a black-or-white choice between the US and Iran. For Iraq, to be siding with the neighboring Iran was as much a natural choice as an imperative. Iran's 'injected' forces in Iraq and a significant political support it commands over Shia groups in the country was something whose neglect could have spelt suicide for Iraq. Against the backdrop of political forces in Iraq going against the continuance of presence of US troops in the country, and in pursuance of Biden's look-inward policy, the US finally announced in July 2021 that it would move the troops to non-combat roles by the end of the year. The US, however, maintained that its troops will continue to be there for training up Iraq's counter-insurgency forces. Iran, on the other hand, is learnt to be pushing for a complete withdrawal of the US troops. The critical question in this backdrop is how prominent is the threat of resurgence of IS forces in the country. As a matter of fact, the IS — which was jointly fought against by the US as well as Iran-backed forces — is already decimated in the country. Can it bounce back as it did in the early years of the past decade? Chances, as several political experts opine, are very slim as the political standing of Iraq has evolved a great deal since then. Even larger question is that of the sovereignty of Iraq. Whatever gains Iraq may have made through US presence for over two decades, it certainly had to compromise with its sovereignty. It is an irony that while both the US and Iran are fighting in the name of maintaining sovereignty of Iraq, the same is being robbed of, covertly. Iran's attack on Erbil is a reminder to Iraq that its destiny is incumbent upon the fancies of Iran and the US, and that its political victory in forcing the US to move its troops to non-combat mode was only to suit the larger design that would benefit Iran. As far as speculations are concerned, Iranian attack is also being seen in the context of revival of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action that was struck down by the Trump regime. The deal that was nearing its conclusion after months of talks and negotiations between various stakeholders, has once again come to a halt due to extra conditions put forward by Russia. Is Iran's attack meant to drive any sort of bargain in this regard? It is not clear yet. It took Iran decades to be on its own, though partially. A chain of attack and counter-attacks at this juncture will only undo what has been achieved until now. It is hoped world leaders will respond responsibly.