As Iraq Seeks Sovereignty, Iranian-Backed Militias Dig In Deeper

Iraq’s struggle to assert state authority faces a stark reality: the very militias that helped defeat ISIS now refuse to relinquish their weapons, claiming new threats demand their permanence.

The Militia Paradox

The statement from Mahdi al-Kaabi, a leader of the Iranian-backed Harakat al-Nujaba militia, underscores a fundamental challenge facing Iraq’s government. These armed groups, many organized under the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) umbrella, gained legitimacy and power during the 2014-2017 fight against ISIS. Now, years after that threat has receded, they resist integration into regular security forces or disbandment, citing vague external dangers including an alleged Israeli expansionist agenda “from the Nile to the Euphrates”—a conspiracy theory with no basis in reality.

The PMF’s transformation from emergency response force to permanent parallel military structure represents one of the most significant obstacles to Iraqi state-building. With an estimated 150,000 fighters across dozens of factions, these militias control checkpoints, run businesses, and maintain their own intelligence networks. Their leaders sit in parliament while their fighters answer to commanders whose ultimate loyalty lies with Tehran, not Baghdad.

Iran’s Strategic Investment

The revelation that Iran remains “committed to ensuring the survival of the militias” surprises no one familiar with Tehran’s regional strategy. Since 2003, Iran has methodically cultivated proxy forces across the Middle East, from Hezbollah in Lebanon to the Houthis in Yemen. In Iraq, this network serves multiple purposes: projecting power westward toward Israel and the Mediterranean, maintaining leverage over Iraqi politics, and creating a land corridor for weapons and personnel movement.

What’s particularly striking about al-Kaabi’s comments is the shift in justification. Where once these groups claimed necessity in fighting ISIS, now they invoke phantasmal threats of Israeli expansion to justify their existence. This rhetorical evolution reveals the true nature of these organizations—not as defenders of Iraq, but as instruments of Iranian regional ambitions that require permanent armed presence regardless of actual security needs.

Implications for Iraqi Democracy

The persistence of these militias poses existential questions for Iraq’s democratic experiment. No modern state can function effectively with multiple armed forces operating outside government control. These groups undermine the rule of law, intimidate political opponents, and create a climate where violence, not votes, ultimately determines policy. Their economic activities, from controlling border crossings to extorting businesses, drain resources from the state while enriching militia commanders.

The international community faces a dilemma: continue supporting an Iraqi government that cannot control large swaths of its territory and security apparatus, or risk withdrawal that could precipitate another collapse. Meanwhile, ordinary Iraqis, who have repeatedly protested against militia influence and Iranian interference, find themselves caught between weak state institutions and armed groups that claim to protect them while undermining their country’s sovereignty.

As Iraq approaches its third decade of post-Saddam governance, a troubling question emerges: Can a nation truly be sovereign when foreign-backed militias hold more guns than the government and answer to commanders in Tehran rather than Baghdad?