Iraq at a Crossroads: Are Regional Understandings Imposing New Rules of the Game?

Ongoing political and diplomatic engagements between Baghdad and Washington suggest that Iraq is entering a sensitive phase of redefining both its domestic and foreign priorities. On one hand, the government is seeking to complete the process of state-building and institutional consolidation; on the other, it continues to grapple with unresolved security and political challenges.

Preparations for Iraqi Prime Minister Ali Al-Zaidi’s upcoming visit to the United States, alongside an anticipated visit by U.S. envoy Tom Barrack to both Baghdad and Erbil, have brought renewed attention to a range of issues that extend beyond the traditional bilateral framework. These include the future relationship between the Iraqi state and armed factions, the nature of regional balances influencing Iraqi decision-making, and the broader trajectory of Iraq’s political development.

At first glance, the Prime Minister’s visit to Washington appears to be a continuation of cooperation between the two countries in the fields of security, economics, and energy. However, available indications suggest that the visit carries deeper political implications related to redefining aspects of the Baghdad-Washington relationship at a time of rapid regional transformation.

The issues on the agenda extend beyond cooperation agreements and economic memoranda of understanding. They touch directly upon the structure of Iraq’s political system, including the future of armed factions, the completion of the governmental framework, relations between the federal government and the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), and the security of the energy sector. This overlap between domestic and external issues reflects a fundamental reality: many Iraqi challenges can no longer be viewed as purely internal matters but have become intertwined with broader regional and international dynamics.

The Weapons Dilemma: Between State Authority and Political Settlements

The issue of armed factions remains one of the most complex challenges in contemporary Iraq.

Since the military defeat of ISIS in 2017, a fundamental question has persisted: what should become of the armed groups that emerged or expanded during the war, and to what extent can they be fully integrated into state institutions or reorganized within the framework of the official security apparatus?

Current discussions indicate differing views among some armed groups regarding how to address this issue. While certain factions appear willing to consider disarmament or organizational restructuring, others continue to insist on maintaining varying degrees of military or political autonomy.

The significance of this issue extends beyond security considerations. It is directly linked to the distribution of power within Iraq itself. Many political actors maintain relationships with or influence over armed formations, making any effort to address the weapons issue part of a broader process of recalibrating political influence within the Iraqi system.

This explains the sensitivity surrounding debates over government participation and ministerial appointments, where security concerns intersect with political and electoral calculations.

Iraq at the Heart of the Washington–Tehran Equation

Given Iraq’s central position within the broader U.S.-Iran relationship, it is difficult to separate the issue of armed groups from the wider regional context.

Iraq remains one of the principal arenas where American and Iranian interests intersect, meaning that many domestic issues are directly or indirectly influenced by the level of tension—or understanding—between Washington and Tehran.

In this context, many observers believe that the future of Iraq’s armed factions may depend significantly on the trajectory of U.S.-Iran relations. Periods of de-escalation create greater opportunities for flexible solutions to Iraq’s security challenges. Conversely, renewed confrontation could transform the issue of weapons and armed groups into one of the primary instruments of mutual pressure.

This does not imply the absence of Iraqi agency, but it does highlight the extent to which Baghdad’s room for maneuver is shaped by the surrounding regional environment.

Popular Mobilization Forces and Institutionalization

Recent calls to relocate Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) camps away from urban centers should be viewed within this broader framework.

Such proposals can be interpreted as part of a wider effort to strengthen the institutional character of Iraq’s security apparatus and regulate the deployment of various military formations throughout the country.

The issue is not necessarily about revisiting the legal legitimacy of the PMF—which is recognized as an official Iraqi institution under national law—but rather about redefining the relationship between armed formations and civilian spaces in ways that enhance security, stability, and effective urban governance.

These measures take on additional significance amid ongoing discussions about consolidating the state's monopoly over the use of force and reinforcing the role of official institutions in carrying out security and military functions.

Oil, Erbil, and the Security of Energy

Alongside security concerns, oil remains one of the most sensitive issues in relations between Baghdad and Erbil.

For years, the management of petroleum resources and the distribution of revenues have been at the center of disputes between the federal government and the Kurdistan Region. Although progress has been achieved in certain areas, significant constitutional and legal disagreements regarding resource management remain unresolved.

Recent attacks targeting oil fields have added a new security dimension to the issue, prompting Baghdad to strengthen coordination with KRG authorities and provide additional guarantees for the protection of energy infrastructure and personnel.

Military exchanges and joint efforts to secure oil installations reflect a growing recognition by both sides that energy security is no longer merely an economic concern. It has become an integral component of Iraq’s broader national security strategy.

Balancing State-Building and Political Stability

Current developments indicate that Iraq is attempting to strike a delicate balance between the demands of state-building and the preservation of political stability.

The government faces the challenge of completing constitutional institutions, managing relations with armed factions, resolving disputes with the Kurdistan Region, and maintaining balanced relations with influential regional and international actors.

The success of this approach will depend on Baghdad’s ability to translate political understandings into sustainable institutional arrangements, as well as the willingness of competing actors to prioritize state interests over factional considerations and regional alignments.

The preparations surrounding upcoming Iraqi-American meetings reveal that Baghdad is not simply addressing a series of isolated negotiating files. Rather, it is confronting an interconnected set of challenges that lie at the heart of Iraq’s state-building process.

The future of armed factions, disputes with the Kurdistan Region, energy security, and the maintenance of domestic political balances are all components of a broader equation centered on finding a more stable framework for Iraq in an increasingly volatile regional environment.

While regional and international understandings may help create favorable conditions for addressing some of these challenges, the decisive factor will remain Iraq’s own ability to generate sustainable national solutions that strengthen state sovereignty and balance the competing demands of security, stability, and political representation.