logo
Why powerful pro-Tehran militias in Iraq stayed quiet amid Iran conflict

Why powerful pro-Tehran militias in Iraq stayed quiet amid Iran conflict

Washington Post25-06-2025
When U.S. forces struck three Iranian nuclear facilities over the weekend, concern rippled through the population of neighboring Iraq, where pro-Iranian militias wield much influence and the majority of the people, like in Iran, are Shiite Muslims.
The prospect for retaliation in Iraq against the U.S. briefly loomed. Nowhere else in the Arab world do American and Iranian interests exist in such close proximity, with several thousand U.S. soldiers stationed on a string of military bases across the country and Iran supporting a range of political and armed forces that wield power on the ground.
But those Iraqi militias have proved to be conspicuously quiet.
These groups have been shaped by previous struggles for influence in Iraq between the U.S. and Iran, emerging warier of involvement in external conflict and more independent of external backers. The Iran-linked militias have also become central players in the Iraqi government, earning billions of dollars from state coffers, operating extensive business networks and holding more power than ever before. There is much at stake if these groups become a target, Middle East analysts say.
'These groups have become so integrated into the Iraqi state in one way or another, whether it's through business dealings, whether it is through politics. Why would these people give up on that?' asked Lahib Higel, Crisis Group's senior analyst for Iraq. Tensions may reach a point where the groups turn to violence, she said, 'but these groups are going to stay quiet for as long as they can.'
The militias in Iraq have long been an important part of Iran's sprawling network across the region of allies and proxy forces, which also include Hamas, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen. That formidable network was built by General Qasem Soleimani, who ran Iran's Quds Force, the division of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps responsible for external operations, and whom President Donald Trump had assassinated in January 2020 in Baghdad.
Unlike Hezbollah and the Houthis, Iraq's militias had already learned the lessons of direct confrontation with the U.S., experts say. The top Iraqi militia leader, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, was killed in the same drone strike as Soleimani, forcing other senior leaders into hiding as Iran and the U.S. traded ballistic missiles and airstrikes on Iraqi soil.
Over the following years, the Iraqi militias adapted from top-down, Iranian-driven groups to ones with greater autonomy.
'The assassination of Soleimani and Muhandis removed a strong lever of control and influence that Iran had over several of these groups,' said Sajad Jiyad, a fellow at the New York-based Century International. 'Not having that Godfather figure has meant that these groups have charted their own path.'
Iraq's official network of militia factions, known as the Popular Mobilization Forces, dates back to 2014, when tens of thousands of men across the mostly Shiite south answered calls from Iraq's prime minister and Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the country's top Shiite religious authority, to join the fight against Islamic State militants.
Today, the groups are marbled through Iraq's ruling institutions and have become economic powerhouses and political enforcers of the political regime. Middle East analysts and Iraqi officials say Iraq has remained mostly aloof from the conflict pitting Israel and the U.S. against Iran because of shared interests between the armed groups and their Iranian backers.
After the U.S. bombers transiting Iraqi airspace struck Iran's nuclear facilities, Kataib Hezbollah, an Iraqi militia that has previously targeted U.S. troops, issued only a muted statement, noting that Iraq's inability to control its airspace made the country vulnerable.
'The American forces in Iraq paved the way for this assault by opening Iraqi airspace,' the group said. 'If it is said that we do not want Iraq to be a battleground, then it is incumbent upon us to restrain the role of foreign forces present on Iraqi soil and controlling its skies.'
Iraq's military said the following day that a swarm of small drones had targeted six army bases but reached only two, causing damage to radar systems at Camp Taji, north of Baghdad, and the Imam Ali base in Dhi Qar governorate, but no casualties. No U.S. forces were present at either one. The Iraqi army said in a statement that Prime Minister Mohammed Shiite al-Sudani had ordered an investigation into the incident, without ascribing blame to any group.
The militias' tempered response reflects their desire not to be dragged into the sort of conflict that left Hezbollah eviscerated in Lebanon, said Higel. 'They don't want to face the same fate,' she said. 'However much they support Iran in rhetoric, we've seen the fissures. They had already started when Soleimani was killed, but they've really accelerated after the 7th of October' attacks in Israel.
If their standing took a blow, it could put in jeopardy about $3.5 billion allocated in the Iraqi budget, according to the finance ministry, to pay militia salaries and provide other forms of support.
Iran, similarly, benefits from the quiet next door. 'Iraq has remained outside the conflict primarily due to Iran's desire to keep it that way,' said a senior Iraqi official who, like some others interviewed for this story, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive subject. 'They understand that Iraq's stability is extremely important to their national security and also to their economic situation.'
As Western governments have sought to isolate Iran with sanctions, Iraq has become its economic lung. Iraq is not only a major trading partner, but Iran has used Iraqi currency exchanges to transfer money and Iraqi ports to mix and rebrand sanctioned oil products, according to researchers at the Chatham House international affairs think tank, providing Tehran with precious access to the international economy.
Iraq has also provided safe haven to other Iran-backed groups as they come under fire, the researchers found. After Israel's killing of Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah in September, dozens of senior Hezbollah business figures traveled to Iraq, where the group had made significant financial investments.
Jiyad, of Century International, said the pro-Iran armed groups are likely to remain on the sidelines for now. 'It may be that the Iranians see that as an option to deploy later,' he said. 'I think the Iranians are not trying to play all their cards at once.'
Likewise, the senior Iraqi official said, these groups 'are Iran's last card.'
An official with the pro-Iran Asaib al-Haq group, which has a role in the Iraqi government, said Iraq's armed factions remained braced in 'watchful anticipation.' This official said, 'We do not wish to be dragged into the war, although the resistance factions are ready to respond. … This will, however, depend on the course of events and the impact on our country.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Hamas Said to Agree to Gaza Truce Deal Proposed by Egypt, Qatar
Hamas Said to Agree to Gaza Truce Deal Proposed by Egypt, Qatar

Bloomberg

timean hour ago

  • Bloomberg

Hamas Said to Agree to Gaza Truce Deal Proposed by Egypt, Qatar

Hamas has agreed to a deal to pause the militant group's war with Israel in Gaza, according to two officials with knowledge of the situation, fueling optimism that a long-awaited breakthrough in negotiations could be close. The proposal would see Hamas release half of the hostages it still holds from the October 2023 attack on Israel that triggered the conflict, one diplomat briefed on the negotiations said, in return for the freeing of Palestinian prisoners and a partial withdrawal of Israeli troops.

Analysis: Trump's empty threats on Russia sanctions
Analysis: Trump's empty threats on Russia sanctions

CNN

timean hour ago

  • CNN

Analysis: Trump's empty threats on Russia sanctions

For years, Donald Trump criticized presidents for empty threats. He often pointed to then-President Barack Obama failing to enforce his 'red line' on Syria using chemical weapons. During his first term in 2017, Trump called it a 'blank threat' that cost us 'in many other parts of the world.' When Trump pulled the United States out of the Iran nuclear deal in 2018, he intoned: 'Today's action sends a critical message: The United States no longer makes empty threats. When I make promises, I keep them.' When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, Trump decried the Biden administration for letting Vladimir Putin off 'with no repercussions whatsoever.' But Monday, as Trump prepares to meet with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and a host of European leaders, his own threats to sanction Russia are looking pretty empty. The president last month issued a tight new deadline for Russia to agree to a peace deal or face supposedly crippling economic punishment. That deadline passed 10 days ago with no new sanctions on Moscow, although he did announce higher tariffs on India for buying Russian oil, set to go into effect later this month. And on the day of his sanctions deadline, Trump instead announced he'd be meeting with Putin, which he did on Friday in Alaska. But to the extent we know anything that came of that summit, it seems to be that Trump has not only backed off on his sanctions threat – at least for now – but he's also backed off on his push for a ceasefire in Ukraine. He instead wants a full peace deal now – which could take much longer to hash out and could buy Putin time, with little to no public evidence that the Russian president is serious about peace. There is something to be said for being nimble in foreign policy and adjusting to new inputs. But there's also something to be said for making threats that you intend to back up. And Trump's commentary here has been clear. For months now, he's said sanctions were right around the corner. 'If we don't make a 'deal,' and soon, I have no other choice but to put high levels of Taxes, Tariffs, and Sanctions on anything being sold by Russia to the United States, and various other participating countries,' Trump said on social media on January 22. Nearly seven months later, 'soon' apparently still hasn't arrived. When asked in May about a package of Russia sanctions that has widespread support in the Senate, Trump told Fox News it was 'turkey time.' 'That would be crushing for Russia, because they're having a hard time now with the economy,' Trump said. 'Turkey time' was three months ago. Russia still hasn't been crushed. By July, Trump got more explicit with his timeframe. He initially said Russia had 50 days to cut a deal or face sanctions and 'secondary tariffs.' Two weeks later, he tightened that to 10-12 days and then 10 days, with a deadline of August 8. 'So, what I'm doing is we're going to do secondary sanctions unless we make a deal,' Trump said. The planned meeting with Putin appeared to forestall that deadline, at least temporarily. But Trump assured it was a new deadline. Asked last Wednesday what would happen if Putin didn't agree to stop the war after the Alaska meeting, Trump said: 'There will be very severe consequences.' The Russian leader hasn't agreed to stop the war, and the very severe consequences haven't arrived yet. The situation is dynamic, particularly with Monday's meetings at the White House. But the administration appears to be inching back from its threats. Asked about the sanctions Friday night on Fox News, Trump responded: 'We don't have to think about that right now.' Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Sunday actually pitched sanctions as an impediment to a potential peace deal. Appearing on multiple shows, he suggested the administration would wait until there was no hope of peace. 'The minute you issue new sanctions … our ability to get them to table will be severely diminished,' Rubio said of Russia on NBC's 'Meet the Press.' He added on CBS' 'Face the Nation,' 'You've basically locked in at least another year to year-and-a-half of war and death and destruction. We may unfortunately wind up there, but we don't want to wind up there.' While Trump has called economic punishment 'very devastating,' his administration has also recently rather curiously focused on the idea that sanctions on Russia might not even be that effective – noting Putin has dealt with them for years. In other words, it sounds a lot like they're laying a predicate for not following through on these threats any time soon. If that's the case, it wouldn't be the biggest surprise. Trump has a tendency to set deadlines for himself that ultimately fall by the wayside. 'Two weeks' has become an inside joke in DC political circles, owing to the many times the president has promised a decision or announcement and never followed through. Even when Trump announced the 10-day deadline for Russia, I wrote about how we probably shouldn't take it at face value. But as a former version of Trump would seem to agree, major foreign-policy threats are in a different class than promising a policy or personnel decision. Trump got extensive political mileage out of savaging Obama for his red line on Syria, because the stakes were so huge. He pitched the Democratic president as too timid to make good on the threat. The question now is whether Trump is doing the same with Putin. Maybe Trump has reason to believe there are serious prospects for a peace deal that warrant this pause. But Trump has certainly shown a reluctance to truly get tough with the Russian leader before. And some more hawkish Republicans are urging Trump to keep up the pressure. Sen. Lindsey Graham told Fox News' 'Sunday Morning Futures' that Trump can end the war, while re-upping the importance of the threat of sanctions. And perhaps tellingly, he said it required getting 'tough.' 'I'm cautiously optimistic we'll get there, if we're tough,' the South Carolina Republican said. Trump's former vice president, Mike Pence, said it was time for the Senate to pass Graham's sanctions bill. 'I know his style in dealing with these dictators; it's the velvet glove,' Pence told CNN's Jake Tapper on 'State of the Union.' 'But I think the hammer needs to come, and it needs to come immediately.' The hammer appears to have been holstered for now. And you could understand if these Republicans worry that Trump's harder line on Putin has been, too.

U.S. envoy: Israel must 'comply' after Lebanon's 'first step' to disarm Hezbollah
U.S. envoy: Israel must 'comply' after Lebanon's 'first step' to disarm Hezbollah

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

U.S. envoy: Israel must 'comply' after Lebanon's 'first step' to disarm Hezbollah

BEIRUT, Lebanon, Aug. 18 (UPI) -- U.S. Special Envoy Thomas Barrack said Monday that it is now Israel's turn to comply with the cease-fire agreement reached last November to end the war with Hezbollah, now that Lebanon has taken "the first step" toward disarming the Iran-backed militant group. Barrack, who met with Lebanon's top officials in Beirut, hailed the cabinet for endorsing earlier this month the objectives of a U.S.-proposed plan to disarm Hezbollah and for tasking the Army with preparing a plan to enforce a state monopoly on weapons by the end of the year. "This is a Lebanese decision that requires Israel's cooperation," he said after meeting with Lebanese President Joseph Aoun at the Presidential Palace. He added, "There's always a step-by-step approach, but I think the Lebanese government has done their part; they've taken the first step... Now what we need is Israel to comply with that equal handshake." Asked whether Israel is then expected to stop its violations and pullout from occupied parts of south Lebanon, Barrack said this was "the next step," noting the need for Israel's "participation" and for an economic plan "for prosperity, restoration and renovation of everybody." "You can't just take something and not give anything," he said. Israel refused to fully withdraw from southern Lebanon in accordance with the U.S.- and French-brokered cease-fire agreement of Nov. 27, retaining five strategic positions and continuing to strike suspected Hezbollah sites, resulting in the deaths of additional operatives and civilians. Despite the Lebanese Army taking control of most Hezbollah positions and facilities, pushing the group away from the Israeli border, and preventing any military presence south of the Litani River, Israel continued to insist on Hezbollah's complete disarmament. Hezbollah, significantly weakened during the 14-month war and reportedly having lost the bulk of its military capabilities, refrained from retaliating against Israel's continued attacks but refused to yield to pressure to fully disarm, insisting it would not do so as long as Israel violates the cease-fire accord. Barrack clarified that there has been "no American proposal to Israel and they have not negated anything," explaining that Washington has been discussing first with Lebanon to know its position and was in the process of holding the same discussions with Israel now. He tried to assure Lebanon's Shiite community, saying Hezbollah was part of the Shiite population who "have to see what is in store for them; what's the option and what's a better alternative than the alternative they have." He expressed optimism "to see progress on all sides" in the next few weeks, saying it would mean "a better life for the people" and "at least the beginning of a roadway to a different kind of dialogue" in the region. Lebanon's decision to set a timeline for Hezbollah disarmament was mainly motivated by the risk of another devastating war with Israel and of losing well-needed funds to rebuild its war-devastated regions. President Aoun told Barrack that "the other parties" would need to adhere "to the contents" of the plan agreed upon with Washington; secure greater support for the Lebanese Army and accelerate the internationally backed efforts to launch the reconstruction process in the war-ravaged areas. Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, who also met the U.S. envoy, emphasized the need for the U.S. to assume its responsibility in pressuring Israel to halt its hostile actions, withdraw from the five occupied points, and release Lebanese detainees captured during the war. Salam stressed the importance of renewing the mandate of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon at the end of this month, highlighting its role in reinforcing stability and assisting the Lebanese Army in extending state authority in the south. He, moreover, called for a clear international commitment to convening a conference to support reconstruction and economic recovery in Lebanon, which the World Bank has estimated at $11 billion, while Lebanese officials put it at more than $14 billion. House Speaker Nabih Berri, Hezbollah's main ally who negotiated the November 2024 cease-fire accord on its behalf, asked Barrack about Israel's commitment to the agreement and withdrawal from south Lebanon, saying: "This is the gateway to stability in Lebanon and an opportunity to begin the reconstruction process in preparation for the return of residents to their towns." The Hezbollah-Israel war, which killed and wounded more than 21,500 people, displaced over 1.2 million people, damaged or destroyed nearly 64,000 buildings and disrupted education for hundreds of thousands of students, according to a U.N. report.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store