US strategy 2026: Containment or military strike for Iraqi armed factions
Shafaq News
Iraq headed into 2026 with unresolved concerns over the future of armed factions operating outside full state control, as competing domestic positions intersect with sustained international pressure. Security specialists, political researchers, and armed faction representatives describe to Shafaq News a narrowing set of options, shaped by regional dynamics, internal political calculations, and diverging views on whether the weapons file can be settled internally or dictated by external actors.
Read more: Iraq’s armed factions and the disarmament debate: Why unity masks deep divisions
Security analyst Mukhallad Al-Darb explained that US calls to disarm Iran-backed armed groups are part of a broader effort to confine weapons exclusively to state authority, noting that the approach does not single out any one group but targets the existence of armed factions as parallel forces. “The issue concerns dissolving these factions from the armed resistance sphere,” he remarked.
Under this framework, Al-Darb noted, factions face limited choices. One path involves integration into civilian or military state institutions; the other entails continued exposure to escalating external pressure. Political participation, he added, does not protect this process.
As evidence, Al-Darb pointed to Asaib Ahl Al-Haq, led by Qais Al-Khazali, which holds parliamentary and ministerial representation yet remains subject to pressure. Regional and international actors, he confirmed, reject the presence of forces that rival the state’s monopoly on arms, particularly when such forces could confront official institutions, as seen in Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen.
Al-Darb questioned whether there is sufficient internal Iraqi resolve to negotiate and settle the weapons issue before external actors impose their will by military force, or whether options will remain limited under “external threats.”
From the political arena, researcher Ramadan Al-Badran described the outlook for armed factions as uncertain and offering no reassuring indicators. He noted their influence varies widely, ranging from factions deeply embedded within state institutions to others with far less leverage.
According to Al-Badran, all decisions remain tied to overlapping and volatile factors, particularly developments in Iran and its relationship with the international community, “keeping the situation tense and outcomes unpredictable.”
Within the factions themselves, Firas Al-Yasser, a political council member of the US-sanctioned Harakat Hezbollah Al-Nujaba, accused the United States of seeking to weaken Iraq and strip it of sources of strength. Dismissing the claims linking the recent parliamentary gains to armed activity, he argued the electoral rise to “resistance-aligned forces, with no connection to weapons.”
Debates over disarmament, Al-Yasser added, “carry no value” within the resistance’s framework, further urging lawmakers to concentrate on legislative responsibilities and serving the Iraqi public.
US pressure, meanwhile, follows a clearer approach adopted in 2025, according to security and strategic expert Ahmed Al-Sharifi. He outlined that the US policy aims at reducing Iranian influence in Iraq, presenting Iran-aligned factions with two options: containment or confrontation.
Containment, Al-Sharifi detailed, requires disarmament in exchange for integration into political and social life. ‘’Any breach could trigger economic sanctions or military action,’’ he added, underscoring that Washington opposes the armed factions’ control over “sovereign institutions, particularly the defense and interior ministries, along with national security and intelligence bodies.’’
Beyond security measures, Al-Sharifi noted the reopening of corruption files and detailed investigations as additional pressure tools. These factors, he added, have made factions reluctant to relinquish power due to fears of losing economic influence or facing legal accountability.
Written and edited by Shafaq News staff.
