logo
Iraq's prime minister seeks closer US ties while keeping armed groups at bay

Iraq's prime minister seeks closer US ties while keeping armed groups at bay

Indian Express8 hours ago
The prime minister of Iraq has kept his country on the sidelines as military conflicts raged nearby for almost two years. This required balancing Iraq's relations with two countries vital to his power and enemies with each other: the US and Iran.
The feat became especially difficult last month when war broke out between Israel, a US ally, and Iran — and the US struck Iranian nuclear sites. Mohammed Shia al-Sudani said he used a mix of political and military pressure to stop armed groups aligned with Iran from entering the fray.
In an exclusive interview with The Associated Press, Al-Sudani explains how he did this, how he plans to keep these groups in check going forward and — as he seeks a second term — why he wants to get closer to the Trump administration, even as he maintains strong ties to Iran-backed political parties that helped propel him to power in 2022.
After Israel launched airstrikes on Iran and it responded by firing missiles at Tel Aviv, armed groups in Iraq attempted to launch missiles and drones toward Israel and at bases in Iraq housing U.S. troops, al-Sudani said. But they were thwarted 29 times by Iraqi government 'security operations' that he did not detail.
'We know that the (Israeli) government had a policy — and still does — of expanding the war in the region,' al-Sudani said. 'Therefore, we made sure not to give any justification to any party to target Iraq.'
Al-Sudani said his government also reached out to leaders in Iran 'to urge them toward calm and to make room for dialogue and a return to negotiations.'
The U.S. and Iraq last year announced an agreement to wrap up the mission of an American-led coalition in Iraq fighting the Islamic State — and in March al-Sudani announced that the head of IS in Iraq and Syria had been killed in a joint Iraqi-U.S. operation. The first phase of the coalition's drawdown was supposed to be completed by September 2025, but there has been little sign of it happening.
Al-Sudani said the U.S. and Iraq will meet by the end of the year to 'arrange the bilateral security relationship' between the two countries. He also hopes to secure U.S. economic investment — in oil and gas, and also artificial intelligence — which he said would contribute to regional security and make 'the two countries great together.'
A variety of militias sprung up in Iraq in the years after the 2003 U.S. invasion that toppled former autocratic leader Saddam Hussein. And since the war between Israel and Hamas began in October 2023, sparking regionwide conflicts, an array of pro-Iran armed factions have periodically launched strikes on bases housing U.S. troops.
Al-Sudani said the presence of the coalition forces had provided a 'justification' for Iraqi groups to arm themselves, but that once the coalition withdrawal is complete, 'there will be no need or no justification for any group to carry weapons outside the scope of the state.'
One of the most complicated issues for al-Sudani is how to handle the Popular Mobilization Forces, a coalition of mostly Shiite, Iran-backed militias that formed to fight IS. This coalition was formally placed under the control of the Iraqi military in 2016, although in practice it still operates with significant autonomy.
The Iraqi parliament is discussing legislation that would solidify the relationship between the military and the PMF, drawing objections from Washington. The State Department said in a statement last week that the legislation 'would institutionalize Iranian influence and armed terrorist groups undermining Iraq's sovereignty.'
Al-Sudani defended the proposed legislation, saying it's part of an effort to ensure that arms are controlled by the state. 'Security agencies must operate under laws and be subject to them and be held accountable,' he said.
In recent weeks, a series of drone attacks have targeted oil facilities in northern Iraq's semiautonomous Kurdish region.
Kurdish regional authorities accused groups in the PMF of carrying out the attacks. Authorities in Baghdad disputed this, but haven't assigned blame. Al-Sudani called the attacks a 'terrorist act' and said his government is working with Kurdish authorities and coalition forces to identify those responsible and hold them accountable.
Just as the drone attacks have called into question Baghdad's control over armed groups, so has the case of Israeli-Russian researcher Elizabeth Tsurkov, who went missing in Iraq in 2023.
Her family believes she is being held by the Iraqi militia Kataib Hezbollah, and there have reportedly been U.S.-mediated negotiations to negotiate her release.
Al-Sudani did not name the group responsible for Tsurkov's kidnapping, but he pushed back against the idea that his government has not made serious efforts to free her. He said his government has a team dedicated to finding her.
'We do not negotiate with gangs and kidnappers,' he said, but the team has been in discussions with political factions that might be able to help locate her.
Relations between Iraq and the new government in Syria have been tenuous since the fall of former President Bashar Assad in December, after a lightning offensive led by Sunni Islamist insurgents.
Syria's interim President Ahmad al-Sharaa was formerly known by the nom de guerre Abu Mohammed al-Golani. He once joined the ranks of al-Qaida insurgents battling U.S. forces in Iraq after the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. Al-Sharaa still faces a warrant for his arrest on terrorism charges in Iraq.
Al-Sharaa has since broken with al-Qaida and has fought against the Islamic State. Al-Sudani said his government is coordinating with the new Syrian government, particularly on security matters.
'We and the administration in Syria certainly have a common enemy, ISIS, which is clearly and openly present inside Syria,' he said.
Al-Sudani said his government has warned the Syrians against the mistakes that occurred in Iraq after Saddam's fall, when the ensuing security vacuum spawned years of sectarian violence and the rise of armed extremist groups. In recent weeks, sectarian violence in Syria has shaken the country's fragile postwar recovery.
Al-Sudani called for Syria's current leadership to pursue a 'comprehensive political process that includes all components and communities.'
'We do not want Syria to be divided,' he said. 'This is unacceptable and we certainly do not want any foreign presence on Syrian soil,' apparently alluding to Israel's incursions into southern Syria.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

YSRCP to launch App for reporting ‘harassment and injustice by officials'
YSRCP to launch App for reporting ‘harassment and injustice by officials'

The Hindu

time24 minutes ago

  • The Hindu

YSRCP to launch App for reporting ‘harassment and injustice by officials'

The YSRCP is preparing to launch a mobile application next week that is designed to document and report 'instances of harassment and injustice by the officials.' Disclosing this at the Political Affairs Committee (PAC) meeting on Tuesday, YSRCP president Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy said the app would be useful to lodge complaints against the officials who 'harass or mistreat' people or party workers. 'People can submit detailed accounts of the incidents, along with any supporting evidence, such as photos or documents. They will be securely stored in a digital library server,' he said, adding, 'The moment our government comes to power, we will open this digital library and ensure that those responsible are held accountable under the law. Those responsible will be brought to justice with interest. No one will be spared.' Mr. Jagan Mohan Reddy alleged that the NDA dispensation was engaged in 'deception and vengeance.' The Naidu-led government misused State machinery to target YSRCP leaders through false cases and arrests. The arrests of MP Midhun Reddy, Nandigam Suresh, Chevireddy Bhaskar Reddy and Kakani Govardhan Reddy were politically motivated, he alleged. Allegations against police 'A few police officials, including DIGs, DSPs, and CIs, are involved in organised crime, extortion, and illegal liquor auctions, with kickbacks allegedly flowing to the MLAs and even the Chief Minister's family,' Mr. Jagan Mohan Reddy alleged. He called upon the leaders to shed complacency and take the lead in revitalising the party's organisational framework. 'Our honeymoon period is over. If we don't act now, we risk losing touch with the people,' he said, adding the party must prepare for elections at any time, and build a strong structure that would ensure YSRCP's continuity for the next 30 to 40 years. He directed that party committees be immediately set up at the village and booth levels. He highlighted the success of the party's campaign titled 'Recalling Chandrababu's Manifesto – Babu Surety, Fraud Guarantee'.

Akhilesh Questions Timing Of Pahalgam Revenge, Hints At Ceasefire ‘Friendship' With US
Akhilesh Questions Timing Of Pahalgam Revenge, Hints At Ceasefire ‘Friendship' With US

Time of India

time24 minutes ago

  • Time of India

Akhilesh Questions Timing Of Pahalgam Revenge, Hints At Ceasefire ‘Friendship' With US

Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav has stirred a major political storm by questioning the timing and intent of Operation Mahadev, the Indian Army-led offensive that killed three Pakistani terrorists linked to the Pahalgam massacre. During a fiery Lok Sabha debate, Akhilesh asked why civilians weren't protected in Pahalgam on April 22 and who would be held accountable for the security lapse. He claimed Operation Sindoor was necessitated by government failure, and even suggested a hidden understanding with the U.S. and Pakistan behind the ceasefire. Taking a poetic dig at PM Modi, Akhilesh said: "Main duniya ko manane mein laga hoon, mera ghar mujhse rootha ja raha hai." While acknowledging the Army's sacrifice, he criticized the media portrayal of the strikes as exaggerated. Is this political scrutiny or playing into enemy hands? Watch the full debate and its implications.#operationsindoor #operationmahadev #amitshah #akhileshyadav #akhileshyadavspeech #operationmahadev #pok #parliamentdebate #terrorism #modivsakhilesh #sindoorstrike #pakistan #parliament #loksabha #loksabhadebate #toi #toibharat #bharat #trending #breakingnews #indianews Read More

Trump vs. Harvard: A battle that tests the strength of American democracy and the price of intellectual freedom
Trump vs. Harvard: A battle that tests the strength of American democracy and the price of intellectual freedom

Time of India

time33 minutes ago

  • Time of India

Trump vs. Harvard: A battle that tests the strength of American democracy and the price of intellectual freedom

Harvard's standoff with the Trump administration tests the price of dissent in American academia. January 2025 wasn't supposed to read like the script of a dystopian campus drama. Yet, within days of Donald Trump's second inauguration, American higher education found itself back in the crosshairs. Harvard University, that centuries-old fortress of intellectual prestige, became the frontline in a clash not over grades or graduation rates, but over politics, power, and the weaponisation of federal authority. This isn't the same old 'Trump vs. Academia' skirmish we saw in 2017. This time, it's a stress test of whether a White House—any White House—can muscle its way into university governance, dictate the fate of billions in research funds, and even toy with student visas as leverage. If you think this saga only concerns one elite campus, think again. What happened to Harvard between January and July 2025 may well be the blueprint for how political control over universities could be asserted in America for years to come. January–February 2025: The opening moves On January 29, barely a week after the oath-taking ceremony, Trump signed Executive Order 14188. Following this, the Department of Justice established the Federal Task Force to Combat Antisemitism on Campuses. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Free P2,000 GCash eGift UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Undo At first glance, it seemed like another culture-war skirmish wrapped in civil rights language. But the fine print gave federal agencies unprecedented authority to probe universities, condition funding, and scrutinise so-called 'alien students' for ideological leanings. Harvard, along with dozens of institutions, received its first formal letter of 'concern' on February 27 from the Department of Justice, demanding meetings over alleged Title VI violations. For the uninitiated, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act bars institutions receiving federal funds from discriminating on the basis of race, colour, or national origin. These weren't polite invitations. They were the opening salvo in a campaign that would escalate beyond anything seen before in federal–academic relations. The groundwork was laid: The administration now had a legal hook (civil rights), a moral shield (antisemitism), and a political target (elite universities often painted as 'woke havens'). Harvard was merely the first domino. March–April 2025: From review to retaliation On March 31, the Task Force formally launched a federal review into Harvard's use of billions in federal research grants, citing alleged failures to protect Jewish students. Boston University Radio (WBUR) and multiple outlets reported that this review was the precursor to unprecedented fiscal scrutiny and laid the foundation for later punitive actions. Just days later, the White House sent a letter demanding sweeping changes at Harvard: Dismantle DEI programs, overhaul governance, adopt 'merit-based' hiring, submit to viewpoint diversity audits, and revise admissions policies. In other words, the federal government wasn't just enforcing civil rights, it was trying to rewrite campus rules by diktat. Harvard refused. What followed was a fiscal guillotine. On April 14, $2.2 billion in federal research grants were frozen, along with $60 million in contracts. The message was blunt: Comply or watch your labs go dark. Trump's Truth Social post on—calling Harvard a 'JOKE' teaching 'Hate and Stupidity' and suggesting it lose tax-exempt status—wasn't just an online bluster. It was the President setting policy through grievance politics. By April 16, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem piled on, demanding detailed records on every international student, threatening SEVP decertification (loss of Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification), and cancelling an additional $2.7 million in grants. Harvard struck back legally on April 21, filing its first lawsuit in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts, to challenge the funding freeze as unconstitutional. The complaint asked the federal court to vacate punitive actions and restore billions in research dollars. But the damage was already done: Projects stalled, faculty recruitment froze, and students with research assistantships were left dangling, unsure if their stipends would arrive next semester. May 2025: Visa warfare on campus If April was about money, May targeted people. On May 5, Trump signed a proclamation declaring Harvard an 'unsuitable destination' for foreign students, citing nebulous national-security concerns. It was a shot across the bow, signalling that visas could be wielded as a political weapon. Then came May 22. ICE revoked Harvard's SEVP certification, effectively threatening the legal status of roughly 5,500–6,000 international students overnight. The timing was surgical: Just as spring exams wrapped, thousands of students risked being forced to leave the country or transfer. Harvard's emergency lawsuit on May 23 pulled it back from the brink—Judge Allison Burroughs issued a temporary restraining order hours later, halting the move. But the message was clear: Even the most prestigious university couldn't shield its students from the whims of political power when visas were used as leverage. For every prospective international student watching this unfold, the warning was unmistakable: In the US, your ability to study may hinge less on your merit than on whether your university angers the Oval Office or not. June–July 2025: Courtroom standoff and settlement signals By summer, the conflict had crystallised into two major lawsuits: One over the funding freeze, another over SEVP decertification. Both landed in Boston's federal court, with Harvard arguing that the administration's actions violated the First Amendment, Title VI protections, and due process laws. The Trump team countered that grant money was a privilege, not a right, and universities failing 'agency priorities' could have funding yanked at will. On July 21, oral arguments over the $2.2 billion freeze saw Judge Allison Burroughs grill both sides. A final ruling has not yet been issued, but the hearing laid bare the stakes: if Harvard loses, future presidents could dictate university policy through the purse strings, turning research funding into a political loyalty test. If Harvard wins, it would carve out a legal shield for academic freedom, albeit one forged in bitter litigation. Meanwhile, The New York Times revealed Harvard is exploring a potential settlement with the Trump administration, reportedly willing to pay up to $500 million to resolve the dispute. Negotiations reportedly focus on restoring access to more than $2 billion in frozen research funds while preserving governance autonomy, but the very premise of these talks is chilling. The figure is staggering, not just because of the money involved, but because of what it signals: Even the wealthiest and most powerful university in the country might have to 'pay tribute' to the White House to unlock funding it was already lawfully awarded. The talks mirror Columbia University's earlier $200 million settlement, but this is a higher‑stakes game. Harvard's endowment has become both shield and target, a financial bullseye for an administration eager to make an example of elite academia. Behind the headlines, DHS expanded its scrutiny to J-1 visas, research visas, and campus-linked foreign programs. Even without a final ruling, universities nationwide began quietly reviewing policies, fearing they'd be next. The chilling effect on student speech, faculty hiring, and international enrolment was immediate and measurable. Harvard's choice: Buy relief or win the law If Harvard settles, it risks sidelining the judiciary altogether, dodging the constitutional answer: Can a White House weaponise federal funding to police campus thought? The money tap may reopen, but the chance to set a legal boundary closes. The precedent becomes fear, telling every university president that when Washington knocks, resistance is futile and freedom negotiable. It transforms education into a marketplace where political compliance can be bought and dissent carries a billion-dollar price tag. If Harvard bows to this arrangement, it legitimises a dangerous precedent: Federal funding as ransom, with intellectual independence up for sale. TOI Education is on WhatsApp now. Follow us here Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!

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