Iraq’s armed groups face global scrutiny as calls for a new Middle East security order loud

Shafaq News/ Efforts to disarm non-state actors in Iraq have intensified as international and regional players push for a Middle East free from armed groups outside state control. UN Special Representative Mohammed al-Hassan’s diplomatic engagements, including consultations with Najaf’s religious authority and Tehran, signal an urgent drive to resolve this contentious issue.

Observers highlighted that US demands include the dissolution of armed factions and the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) or reforming the latter by placing it under a military commander linked to the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, rather than political entities. The expected resolution involves transforming the PMF from a military entity into a security institution and reimagining its internal structure, balancing its brigades with factions affiliated with armed groups under its umbrella.

Impact on Iraqi State Security

Security and military expert Dr. Alaa Al-Nashua stated that the UN representative's movements in Iraq "indicate an international decision to disband the PMF, considering that factions loyal to Iran operate in Iraq." He pointed out that recent events in Lebanon and Syria, as well as the strikes between Iran and Israel, suggest "a new vision for the region."

"The PMF threatens the core of Iraq's national security, presenting challenges akin to a direct declaration of war. This places Iraq in a difficult position with the region and the international community, especially given the new vision for the Middle East following the end of the so-called ‘Shia Crescent.’ International powers are eager to implement changes that include ending all manifestations of power and armament to create a more secure and stable Middle East."

Differentiating PMF and Factions

Security and strategic expert Dr. Ahmed Al-Sharifi explained the distinction between the Popular Mobilization Forces and various armed factions. He clarified that "the Americans demanded the dissolution of the factions, not the PMF, which they view primarily as a supportive force. Therefore, it is essential to distinguish between the factions and the PMF."

In an interview with Shafaq News, Al-Sharifi anticipated reforms within the PMF, aiming to "organize its affairs and verify its actual numbers, rather than allowing its management by political entities."

"The armed factions shield themselves under the PMF's umbrella. The PMF is legally sanctioned and an integral part of state institutions," he continued, refuting claims that the religious authority, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, opposed limiting arms to the state. "Al-Sistani, in fact, supports the disarmament of factions, advocating for all weaponry to be confined within the state's framework."

"This prompted UN representative Mohammed al-Hassan to directly engage with the religious authority to confirm its stance on restricting arms to the state," Al-Sharifi said.

Factions as Part of Regional Conflict Equation

Al-Sharifi explained that "Iraqi factions have become an integral part of the regional conflict equation, acting as an arm of the Axis of Resistance that is practically engaged with both Israel and the United States, while Iraq is classified as a strategic ally of the United States."

"Before taking office, Iraqi PM Al-Sudani was presented with a set of commitments and assurances in a private meeting with the UN representative and the American ambassador. Al-Sudani pledged that the factions' weapons would not be used for cross-border operations nor target American presence or interests. However, after the Gaza events, the factions found a pretext and began operating outside Al-Sudani's commitments."

Al-Sharifi argued that the current situation has reached a critical point where "either Al-Sudani's government falls or he manages to control the field and fulfill his commitments to silence the factions. The UN and the American ambassador have been working on this equation, pushing the government to silence any activities related to regional conflicts."

"The issue of silencing the factions now rests solely with Al-Sudani. With the religious authority's endorsement, it is incumbent upon the PM to demand that the factions disarm. Achieving this would resolve the current crisis, avoiding internal conflict in Iraq and even with the factions themselves."

He further explained that "if the factions disarm and adopt a political stance, they would become an integral part of the political party balancing act, retaining the right to express their opinions, including their ideological opposition to the American presence."

Al-Sharifi predicted that the situation is moving in this direction, noting that "Al-Sudani has yet to express an opinion. Instead, he is maneuvering regionally to create pressure on the United States regarding the demand for faction disarmament."

"The Prime Minister's efforts with Saudi Arabia and Jordan have not succeeded, as the United States will not heed their demands concerning faction disarmament."

Visits to Saudi Arabia and Jordan

Al-Sharifi revealed the underlying motives behind Al-Sudani's visits to Saudi Arabia and Jordan, explaining that "the PM is aware of Iran's regional chokehold and the evident collapse of the Axis of Resistance. The ongoing Russian withdrawal and downsizing of its bases in Syria indicate Iran's diminishing influence."

"Iran was previously questioned about the behavior of the factions. Following Al-Sudani's dispatch of a delegation to Tehran to request the restriction of the factions, Iran declared that the factions operate independently and are not linked to it. This statement effectively absolved Iran of responsibility for the factions' actions in Iraq, leaving Al-Sudani as the sole figure facing this issue."

"Al-Sudani, unable to disarm the factions, turned to Saudi Arabia and Jordan to exert pressure on the United States. He aimed to leverage the relationships of these countries with the US to persuade it to abandon its demand for the disarmament of the factions. However, these diplomatic efforts did not succeed as this initiative aligns with a new regional design by the US tailored to its specifications," Al-Sharifi pointed out.

Blurred Lines in Iraq

Political researcher Ramadan Al-Badran explained that Iraq is entwined in regional tensions, connected to the participation of armed groups within Syria, emphasizing that "recent events in Syria are linked to Iraq in multiple ways: geographic proximity, overlapping interests, the presence of Iraqi armed groups, Iraq's stance on the former regime, and the transition of armed groups into power. These factors naturally make Iraq the most affected country by changes in Syria."

Al-Badran, speaking to Shafaq News Agency, pointed out that the UN mission and the international community recognize the danger posed by armed groups' continued activity. They assert that a stable Middle East cannot be achieved without ending these groups' activities and confining military roles exclusively to state-related entities.

"Iraq is currently in a state of anxiety, with its position on armed groups unclear. Similarly, the armed groups' stance towards the state and their relationship with it is ambiguous, creating a gray area in Iraq. This uncertainty could lead to security and political developments both within and outside Iraq."

Diplomatic Efforts to Avoid Conflict

Al-Badran explained that the UN representative is engaging in shuttle diplomacy to develop a vision after gathering reactions from all relevant parties. "He visited Grand Ayatollah Al-Sistani, whose fatwa was instrumental in the formation of these groups, as they claim their legitimacy from the religious authority. Therefore, the religious authority's stance is crucial."

Regarding al-Hassan's visit to Tehran, Al-Badran noted that "Iran provides logistical and military support to these factions. Thus, Iran must be informed of the developments, as it could be adversely affected by the activities of these groups, which openly acknowledge Iran's support."

He explained that the region is undergoing "a complex negotiation process involving states, armed groups, and their supporters to reach a final decision on the future. The alternative is conflict, which could cause significant damage to those countries or their interests, complicating the situation further. This preventive measure aims to avoid more clashes and tensions in the Middle East."

"The Iraqi government is in a difficult position because the factions did not emerge independently but have political backing. These factions, with political affiliations, are part of the state and formed the government. Therefore, the government's decision is tied to political considerations and directly related to these factions."

Al-Badran concluded that "the Iraqi government is in an embarrassing situation, which the international community acknowledges and understands. Consequently, the focus has shifted to other influential entities, such as the religious authority and Iran, rather than relying solely on the government to make the final decision."

Political Solution Scenario

National security and Iranian studies expert Dr. Firas Elias stated that there is regional and international consensus to avoid creating instability within Iraq. This suggests that a political solution is being sought, as the United States recognizes the importance of maintaining a stable Iraq due to its interests and military presence there.

"In addition to the United States, regional countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Turkiye also do not wish to see Iraq descend into security escalation. These countries, particularly Saudi Arabia and Turkiye, have significant stakes in the Development Road project, hence their interest in finding a political solution for the PMF."

Elias elaborated that "this political solution might provide a sense of relief within Iraq, as it would exclude Iraq from any escalation scenarios in the foreseeable future. The solution would involve establishing a political pathway that could reorganize the PMF both politically and militarily or, at the very least, eliminate the distinction between the PMF as a state-affiliated force and Iran-aligned armed factions exploiting the PMF's name to engage in cross-border activities, particularly in Syria."

"Discussions about the PMF's dissolution are primarily political at this stage, subject to internal and UN envoy negotiations. The resolution of this issue is anticipated because the PMF, ultimately, is an Iraqi institution requiring an Iraqi solution rather than an international one."

Transforming PMF from Military to Security

Elias predicted that the solution would involve transforming the PMF from a military institution into a security entity. "This transformation will create a new structure within the PMF, differentiating between PMF brigades and factions aligned with armed groups, ensuring a purely Iraqi allegiance and arsenal, detached from any external scenarios that could influence internal affairs, particularly involving Israel."

"Israel has repeatedly threatened to target Iraq in response to strikes by Iran-aligned factions. These strikes include those on Israel before the fall of Al-Assad regime and recent attacks on the Houthis in Hodeidah, which Israel attributes to support from Iraqi armed factions."

Elias suggested that Israel is "exploiting this situation to justify potential attacks inside Iraq," emphasizing that "the Iraqi political leadership is aware of this scenario and is working to thwart it before it materializes. This awareness drives current internal discussions on securing the PMF and stabilizing Iraq's security situation, avoiding any extreme scenarios that could emerge."

"The internal and external maneuvers by Al-Sudani's government are part of political strategies to mitigate potential future risks for Iraq. These efforts aim to preempt threats and ensure the country remains stable amid regional tensions."

Balancing Regional Interests

Dr. Elias delved into these activities, explaining that PM Al-Sudani's discussions aim to shape an Iraqi approach to the Syrian situation. This approach considers Iraqi interests and the sensitivities of regional countries, particularly Iran.

"The Iraqi government is aware of Iran's concerns and the desires of regional countries, specifically Saudi Arabia and Turkiye, to exploit the regional context to reduce Iran's influence. These efforts seek to establish new regional arrangements that enhance their regional interests."

Elias said that "the current developments reflect an Iraqi perspective represented by Al-Sudani's government on building a multifaceted Iraqi approach that meets internal needs and respects regional sensitivities. This approach aims to enhance Iraq's standing in the future and create political and security stability within Iraq, avoiding potential future risks."

"UN envoy's visit to the Najaf authority aimed to garner support for the UN's stance on securing Iraq against potential future risks. This visit underscores the international community's and UN's recognition of Najaf's central and influential role in Iraqi politics," he noted, stressing that "the religious authority has historically played a key role in rescuing Iraq from crises. The UN holds high hopes for Najaf's role in establishing a peaceful and balanced regional approach, influencing ongoing regional conflicts."

Elias pointed out that while the UN envoy points to Najaf creating an internal and external path for Iraq, the religious authority will not strictly control certain Iraqi political forces, particularly those with strategic and ideological ties to Iran. These forces have their calculations that transcend Iraqi borders.

Elias anticipated "internal compliance by some political entities with Najaf-endorsed UN recommendations. However, external commitments will likely be less binding, allowing these entities the flexibility to secure their internal position and maintain foreign relations with Iran."

"The UN envoy's visit to Najaf aimed to outline a roadmap for Iraq's future, fostering political and security stability. The discussions covered critical issues like armed faction disarmament, relations with Iran, and the transitional situation in Syria post-Assad regime."

New Security Arrangements

With Donald Trump set to be inaugurated as President of the United States on January 20, 2025, the region is expected to see new security arrangements. According to Nabil Mikhael, a professor of international relations at George Washington University, the upcoming Trump administration may introduce new dynamics in handling the Iraqi file and the developments in Syria.

"The current American perspective links the security of Syria with that of Iraq. Therefore, any movements in Syria will impact Iraq, and vice versa. The new Iraqi government administration, security arrangements, and visits by the UN special envoy to Iraq are all significant matters viewed positively by the incoming Trump administration."

"The primary concern now is securing the Iraqi borders to prevent extremist groups from infiltrating from Syria to Iraq. Additionally, there is a need to address security cooperation with Turkiye, aiming for a US-Russian containment of Turkiye's role in both Syria and Iraq," Mikhael confirmed.