During the recent period of heightened U.S.-Iran tensions, Iraq’s armed faction leaders were noticeably absent from the political and security landscape. Their disappearance followed reports of targeted strikes similar to those in Lebanon and Yemen. However, this landscape has shifted in recent weeks with the resumption of negotiations between Washington and Tehran, and a general easing of hostilities between the two sides.
One prominent figure making a return is Abu Ali al-Askari, spokesperson for Kata’ib Hezbollah in Iraq. He had issued a statement in October 2024 during the military escalation involving Iran and the “Axis of Resistance,” but then vanished from the scene—only to reappear in April 2025 with a series of public statements.
Observers suggest this prior “disappearance” was due to both pressure from the Iraqi government and directives from Tehran. They link the factions’ reemergence to the ongoing nuclear negotiations, which they say have given the groups renewed momentum and possibly a platform for sending political messages.
Speaking to Al-Alam Al-Jadeed, political analyst Nizar Haidar remarked, “This may be the first time that the armed factions have respected state authority—sheathing their weapons and refraining from interfering with national policies or security affairs, or from overstepping the exclusive role of the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, who, under the constitution, holds sole authority over decisions of war and peace.”
Haidar elaborates that the factions’ retreat—albeit reluctant—can be attributed to three main factors in chronological order:
- American threats delivered to Prime Minister Al-Sudani’s government warning of forceful retaliation should any armed faction target U.S. interests in Iraq or the broader region. Washington emphasized that the Iraqi government is bound by agreements and protocols to protect such interests.
- The failure of certain ideological narratives, such as the “Unity of Arenas” doctrine, which encouraged cross-border resistance. The factions appear to have realized that Iraq could suffer a fate similar to those other “arenas” if it diverges from the national consensus supporting state authority.
- The ongoing U.S.-Iran nuclear negotiations, which Tehran hopes will yield a new agreement—even if it requires painful concessions. Haidar notes that Iran’s efforts necessitated instructing its proxies in Iraq to calm the domestic scene, at least temporarily.
He adds, “Based on close monitoring of both public and private developments, I believe the factions are preparing to enter the political process by participating in the upcoming parliamentary elections scheduled for the end of this year. If they lay down their arms and opt for political engagement, this would benefit the country and the overall democratic process, regardless of the number of seats they win.”
In March, former U.S. President Donald Trump issued a stark warning during an interview with NBC, threatening “unprecedented bombing” should negotiations fail to yield a nuclear agreement with Iran.
Since April, three rounds of U.S.-Iran nuclear talks have been held under Omani mediation, with a fourth round postponed for the time being.
In this context, political analyst Ahmad al-Khidr told Al-Alam Al-Jadeed that the factions’ renewed media presence during the negotiations could be a strategic move to signal that their positions are independent of any diplomatic outcomes.
He explained, “The factions are likely trying to convey that the United States should consider them a separate factor from the negotiations. However, the Trump administration knows well the depth of coordination between these factions and Iran.”
He added, “I doubt these messages from the factions will carry any weight with the U.S., given the widely acknowledged influence Tehran holds over their leadership and operations.”
Iraqi President Abdul Latif Rashid had previously confirmed that the armed factions had complied with government directives and halted all operations against American forces.
In March, Iranian Ambassador to Baghdad Mohammad Al Sadiq told Iraq’s state TV that President Trump’s message to Tehran included a demand to disband the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) or integrate them into Iraq’s official security apparatus.
Prime Minister Mohammed Shia’ al-Sudani responded in a televised interview, denying any such American request and clarifying that “the issue of disbanding the factions is tied to the withdrawal of the international coalition from Iraq.”
Political affairs researcher Raad Arafa, speaking to Al-Alam Al-Jadeed, affirmed that “the U.S.-Iran negotiations have reignited media visibility for faction leaders and ended their public silence.”
He noted, “American threats had led to a complete disappearance of these leaders from media and strategic meetings. But negotiations between Tehran and Washington have eased the pressure, prompting a resurgence of their public presence—driven by the belief that these talks reflect a softening in the American stance and a lower likelihood of direct strikes in Iraq.”
Lebanese political writer Mustafa Fahs revealed on April 10 that the Muscat talks focus on three main issues: Iran’s nuclear program, ballistic missiles, and its regional proxies. He claimed Iran would likely relinquish some of its regional arms—not all—for historical reasons. In Iraq specifically, this would mean restructuring and formalizing the factions’ armaments. He also noted that Tehran may begin prioritizing domestic affairs and scale back rhetoric around the Palestinian cause.
Meanwhile, Ghazi Faisal, head of the Iraqi Center for Strategic Studies, told Al-Alam Al-Jadeed that “the fate of Iraq’s armed factions is closely linked to Iran’s position and the outcome of its negotiations with the U.S.”
He concluded, “If the negotiations succeed—which remains unlikely—we’ll see a comprehensive transformation of Iraq’s political map, starting with the status of the armed factions and their leaders. However, if the talks collapse and war breaks out, these factions aligned with the IRGC will serve as Tehran’s partners, and their fate will be tied directly to the outcome of that conflict.”
Would you like this adapted into a news article format for publication?
