Tehran Loses Ground to Najaf’s Rising Influence in Baghdad

PMF fighters patrol northern Baghdad in archived photo – PMF Media
PMF fighters patrol northern Baghdad in archived photo – PMF Media
TT

Tehran Loses Ground to Najaf’s Rising Influence in Baghdad

PMF fighters patrol northern Baghdad in archived photo – PMF Media
PMF fighters patrol northern Baghdad in archived photo – PMF Media

Iran’s sway over Iraq’s Shiite political landscape is weakening as the Najaf religious establishment, led by Cleric Ali al-Sistani, asserts greater influence, challenging Tehran’s efforts to preserve its armed proxies and obstruct state-led reforms.

Despite pressure from Iran’s Revolutionary Guards to resist internal reforms – particularly those aimed at disarming rogue militias and integrating the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) into the state – sources close to the Shiite clergy say Najaf has grown increasingly alarmed by what it views as a political system on the brink of collapse.

Speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat since late July, political insiders described a “silent confrontation” between two competing visions for Iraq's Shiite community. One is backed by the pro-Iran Coordination Framework that dominates government.

The other is quietly advanced by Najaf, which sees urgent need for reform amid regional volatility.

“The system is facing its most serious test since 2003,” one religious source said. “It is losing its ability to sustain itself,” they added.

Hezbollah Brigades Threaten Government

Tensions flared in late July when Kataib Hezbollah, a powerful Iranian-backed militia, lashed out at Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani, accusing him of provoking a confrontation with security forces.

The group released a video showing its field commander, Jamal Mahlel, warning the premier that his hopes for re-election were doomed.

“You will not have a second term,” Mahlel said, echoing threats once directed at former PM Haider al-Abadi.

The video, reportedly leaked by the group itself, followed a rare armed clash on July 27 between Kataib Hezbollah and Iraqi security forces over alleged land seizures near Baghdad. While details remain murky, the confrontation prompted the group to declare the end of its security operations in the capital’s southern belt – a symbolic retreat from areas long used as power bases by Iran-backed factions.

The fallout was significant. In a lengthy statement, militia spokesman Abu Ali al-Askari condemned the government’s actions, accusing the army of attacking “a group of youths” with heavily armed forces and armored vehicles.

“These areas were part of what was once called the Baghdad Belt,” said Askari, acknowledging a loss of ground. “A mistake was made, and the cost was high.”

Tehran Calls for Readiness, Sees Another War Looming

At the same time, Iranian officials warned allied factions to prepare for “imminent danger.” According to two militia sources, senior figures from the Revolutionary Guards – including Quds Force commander Esmail Qaani – urged Iraq’s groups to resist disarmament, describing it as a critical moment while Iran rebuilds its military capabilities.

One of the sources said Tehran’s message was unequivocal: “Every weapon will matter in the next war.” The same warning, he added, was also conveyed to Lebanon’s Hezbollah.

On July 29, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei declared that Iran would take “great strides in deepening religious faith and advancing scientific knowledge” – a statement widely interpreted as reaffirming Iran’s ideological commitment to regional influence, including its nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

An internal document leaked from Kataib Hezbollah appeared to confirm preparations for “escalation – either internally or externally.” Analysts believe the leak was deliberate, part of a coordinated campaign to send a message to both Baghdad and Washington amid shifting geopolitical dynamics.

A senior Coordination Framework leader acknowledged that the US stance was becoming increasingly aggressive.

“Washington is playing brinkmanship,” he said. “This isn’t just about the factions anymore – the entire ruling coalition is under pressure.”

US Pushback on PMF Law Raises Stakes

Tensions rose sharply in late July after US Senator Marco Rubio warned that a proposed Iraqi law formalizing the PMF would entrench Iranian influence. During a call with Sudani, Rubio voiced concerns about legitimizing militias the US deems a threat.

Days later, acting US Ambassador Steven Fagin told deputy parliament speaker Mohsen Al-Mandalawi that the law would “empower terrorist groups.” On August 5, State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce described the legislation as a “hostile act” that could trigger harsh sanctions.

The Coordination Framework official admitted US pressure could become “suffocating,” especially as Washington appears to treat the Iraqi political system as a battlefield where some actors have become unacceptable.

Najaf Reemerges as a Counterweight

As Iran struggles with the fallout from its confrontation with Israel and a weakened proxy network post-October 7, the Najaf religious establishment has quietly regained influence in Baghdad. Sources close to the clerical leadership said Najaf views the current trajectory as dangerous for Iraq’s Shiites.

A senior cleric close to Sistani’s office said the religious leadership believes “the fate of Iraq’s Shiites should not be tied to rogue militias,” especially amid fears of renewed ISIS activity spilling over from Syria.

On July 17, Sistani’s representative, Abdul Mahdi al-Karbalai, appeared publicly for the first time in five years, calling for an end to militia activity and stronger state institutions.

According to officials familiar with behind-the-scenes discussions, a senior government figure met Karbalai shortly after the speech and was given a clear message: disarmament of militias and PMF integration must proceed in a way that respects fighters’ dignity and protects their livelihoods.

The message also included fiscal warnings – urging the government to curb chaotic spending and rethink Iraq’s foreign alignments to shield the country from external shocks.

From Soleimani to Sistani: Power Shifts in Baghdad

For years, key decisions in Baghdad were shaped by visits from Qasem Soleimani, the late Quds Force commander. But one Coordination Framework leader noted that the balance of power has shifted.

“Today, those kinds of strategic meetings are happening between Najaf and Baghdad – not Tehran,” he said.

He added that while Iran is desperate to retain its Iraqi foothold amid setbacks in its nuclear program, Najaf’s growing assertiveness is changing the rules of the game.

Sudani Under Pressure to Act

Caught between American opposition, Iranian expectations, and Najaf’s reform push, Sudani faces a narrowing path. His political survival may depend on how he handles the future of the PMF – a sensitive issue with no easy solutions.

Sources involved in high-level discussions say the US recognizes the risks of disbanding tens of thousands of fighters, many of whom were instrumental in the fight against ISIS. But Najaf insists that Iraq must not delay legal and institutional reform any longer.

“This is a historic responsibility,” one clerical source said. “If political leaders fail to act, the consequences will be severe.”

Analysts warn the PMF file has become a political time bomb ahead of elections. As Sudani weighs his next move, even his allies admit he must navigate a shifting regional landscape – or risk not just his office, but the future of Iraq’s post-2003 political order.



Lebanon’s Leaders Unite on Technical, Security Track in Talks with Israel

Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri meets with UN Security Council Delegation in Beirut (Lebanese Parliament)
Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri meets with UN Security Council Delegation in Beirut (Lebanese Parliament)
TT

Lebanon’s Leaders Unite on Technical, Security Track in Talks with Israel

Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri meets with UN Security Council Delegation in Beirut (Lebanese Parliament)
Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri meets with UN Security Council Delegation in Beirut (Lebanese Parliament)

Cabinet sources said Lebanon’s three top leaders remain aligned as negotiations with Israel move into a new phase, marked by the appointment of a civilian envoy, former ambassador to Washington and lawyer Simon Karam, to lead Lebanon’s delegation to the Mechanism Committee.

The move is intended to jolt the committee out of months of stagnation and push it toward a security agreement anchored in enforcing a cessation of hostilities, after earlier rounds were dominated by routine tallies of Israeli violations conducted with United Nations peacekeepers.

The sources said the leaders’ agreement to pull the Mechanism out of its deadlock coincided with drawing political boundaries for the talks.

These boundaries are strictly limited to ending Israeli violations and attacks, securing a withdrawal from the south, releasing Lebanese detainees, and revisiting and correcting border demarcation in response to Lebanon’s reservations over disputed points along the Blue Line that it considers part of its sovereign territory.

The sources told Asharq Al-Awsat that Lebanon insists on restricting the negotiations to non-negotiable security issues. It will not allow the talks to drift into discussions on normalizing relations with Israel or striking a peace agreement.

This position is shared by President Joseph Aoun, Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, and Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, who was the first to propose adding civilians to the Mechanism.

The three leaders reiterated their stance ahead of the first round of talks, attended by US envoy Morgan Ortagus and joined by Karam, in defiance of the agenda set by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

They said Netanyahu is trying to raise the stakes to provoke Hezbollah against the state and sow confusion, even as the Israeli army continues its violations to turn the group’s base against it.

This became evident in the targeting of several homes between the banks of the Litani River, despite containing no weapons depots.

The sources said Netanyahu is escalating militarily to force Lebanon to accept Israeli terms, although he knows the negotiations will not deviate from their technical and security framework.

Lebanon, they said, remains committed to ensuring that only the state holds weapons.

The sources noted Berri’s insistence that he was the first to propose adding civilians to the Mechanism and asked where Hezbollah Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem stands on this proposal.

They asked whether he ever objected to his “older brother’s” suggestion, given that Qassem had declared in an open letter to the three leaders that he rejects negotiations with Israel.

Qassem later walked back parts of that letter by having a senior Hezbollah official convey a message that Berri was not its intended target, in an effort to prevent a rupture within the Shiite political camp.

The sources also questioned why Hezbollah objects to the talks if its “older brother” is the one negotiating on its behalf and was behind the United States mediated ceasefire agreement brokered by Amos Hochstein.

They said the only card Hezbollah has left is raising the ceiling of its objections, since it no longer has the ability to reset the negotiating table at a time when the balance of power has tilted in Israel’s favor, particularly after the group’s unilateral support for Gaza cost it its previous deterrence and rules of engagement.

The sources said Hezbollah lacks alternatives that would allow it to reverse the balance of power and is limiting itself to loud political objections that it cannot translate into military action.

This comes despite its insistence on keeping its weapons and its accusation that the Salam government committed a mistake by agreeing to the principle that arms must be exclusively in the hands of the state, beginning from north of the Litani to Lebanon’s international border with Syria, in parallel with progress in the negotiations.

They said Hezbollah is forced to calibrate its position, since it cannot afford to break with Aoun or jeopardize its alliance with Berri, a rupture that would leave the group exposed at a moment when it seeks internal protection.

Any strain in these relationships would also create negative repercussions for the Shiite community. The sources asked why the group does not place its cards in Berri’s hands, as he is better positioned to navigate Shiite public sentiment that seeks the liberation of the south and the return of its residents to their villages.

Berri is viewed, even by rivals, as the essential gatekeeper to any settlement that could restore international attention to Lebanon and open a path for reconstruction. He enjoys Arab and international ties that Hezbollah lacks, as the group remains reliant solely on Iran.

The sources said the negotiations’ entry into a new phase prompted United States pressure on Israel to prevent the war from expanding, after Lebanon agreed to Washington’s request to add a civilian to the Mechanism and task him with leading the delegation.

They urged Hezbollah to stand behind the state’s diplomatic choice and said the group’s fears that the talks could lead to a peace treaty with Israel are unfounded.

They noted that Berri himself was the first to support bringing civilians into the process, which should reassure Hezbollah and encourage it to give diplomacy a chance.

They added that Salam is not acting unilaterally and is coordinating with Aoun. Both leaders are working together to implement the government’s commitment to ensuring that only the state holds weapons.

They also revealed that communication between Aoun and Berri has not stopped. The two men reviewed the atmosphere surrounding the Mechanism’s meeting in Naqoura before the latest cabinet session.

According to the sources, Berri instructed his parliamentary bloc and senior Amal Movement members not to comment on the negotiations, positively or negatively.

The directive came because he wants to centralize the political message and avoid dragging party members on both sides into disputes that could spill into the streets.

Hezbollah, they said, also wants to protect its relationship with its sole remaining ally in Lebanon after its former partners in the so-called Axis of Resistance endorsed the principle of exclusive state authority over weapons.

The sources said Hezbollah knows that avenues for repairing its Arab and international relations remain closed, unlike Berri who maintains wide ties.

They questioned what Hezbollah is counting on after its leadership rejected Egypt’s initiative, insisting, according to Western diplomatic sources cited by Asharq Al-Awsat, on linking its position to US-Iran negotiations in hopes of safeguarding Iran’s leverage in Lebanon after regional setbacks for the Axis.

They said the government will take note of Hezbollah’s objection, although it will have no impact on the course of the talks.

Hezbollah will not mobilize its supporters in the streets to avoid friction with Amal, particularly since Berri does not oppose the launch of negotiations, which remain tied to liberating the south and implementing Resolution 1701.

Any attempt by Hezbollah to outbid Berri for populist gain would backfire and weaken the group’s standing within its own community.


Iraq’s New Government Faces Unpredictable Prospects

Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani stands beside Nouri al-Maliki during a religious event in Baghdad (Government Media)
Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani stands beside Nouri al-Maliki during a religious event in Baghdad (Government Media)
TT

Iraq’s New Government Faces Unpredictable Prospects

Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani stands beside Nouri al-Maliki during a religious event in Baghdad (Government Media)
Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani stands beside Nouri al-Maliki during a religious event in Baghdad (Government Media)

Tension rippled through Iraq’s ruling Shiite alliance after authorities briefly listed Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Yemen’s Houthi group as terrorist organizations, then swiftly reversed the move, at a time when debate over the next government is intensifying.

The decision and the rapid retreat from it revived scrutiny of a long running point of friction between United States pressure on Baghdad and Iranian influence in the country.

Iraq’s presidency said on Friday it had no knowledge of the designation of the Houthis and Hezbollah as terrorist entities and no role in freezing their assets.

It said such decisions are not sent to the presidency and that it only reviews and endorses laws approved by parliament and presidential decrees.

The statement added that decisions by the cabinet, the committee that freezes terrorist assets, and anti money laundering directives are not referred to the presidency for approval and that it learned of the designation only through social media, prompting the clarification.

The listing appeared in the 17 November 2025 edition of the official Gazette, which cited the government’s counterterrorism obligations under a series of United Nations Security Council resolutions.

Authorities then moved to roll back the designation after a statement and a document from the Central Bank of Iraq confirmed that Baghdad’s approval had been limited to entities and individuals tied to ISIS and Al-Qaeda only.

Tension inside the Coordination Framework

Political figures and legal experts said the central bank operates as an independent institution and does not fall under direct government control.

But they said a corrective step taken by outgoing Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani, including public clarification and an urgent investigation, escalated the dispute inside the Coordination Framework as negotiations over the next premier intensify.

Although the alliance issued no unified position, parties and factions close to it accused the government of making a deliberate move meant to signal alignment with the demands of the administration of President Donald Trump.

They made the accusation as presidential envoy Mark Savaya was expected in Baghdad after a similar visit by Washington’s envoy to Syria and Lebanon.

Sudani, who faces mounting pressure within his coalition and was even removed from an internal WhatsApp group by some Coordination Framework leaders according to political sources, issued a brief statement saying there would be no compromise on Iraq’s support for what he called peoples’ rights and sacrifices, a veiled reference to Hezbollah and the Houthis.

Former deputy prime minister Bahaa Araji, a political ally of Sudani, defended him. He said the incident was a technical error in a decision issued by a committee tied to the central bank which he described as an independent institution not subject to government will.

He said on X that the mistake would be corrected and that the investigation would prevent opportunists from exploiting it politically.

Impact on government formation

The episode unfolded as the Coordination Framework attempts to settle on a nominee for prime minister, amid clear divisions over whether to keep Sudani for a second term or replace him.

The uproar over what is now known as the central bank error has further complicated the alliance’s internal bargaining and opened the door to unexpected scenarios, political sources said.

At the same time, Shiite armed factions escalated their criticism. Ali al-Asadi, head of the political bureau of Harakat al-Nujaba, said listing the two groups as terrorists was an act of betrayal.

He also claimed Iraq had nominated US President Donald Trump for the Nobel Prize, which he called an insult to sacrifices. He said such a government does not represent the Iraqi people and posted a hashtag calling the move a death sentence for a second term.

The incident, which began as an administrative oversight and morphed into a political crisis, underscored the fragility of the balance Baghdad tries to maintain between its ties with the United States, its main financial and military partner, and its relations with groups aligned with Iran.


Trump’s Phase Two Remarks Revive Questions Over Gaza Article 17

Palestinians fill water containers at the Nuseirat camp for displaced families in central Gaza (AFP)
Palestinians fill water containers at the Nuseirat camp for displaced families in central Gaza (AFP)
TT

Trump’s Phase Two Remarks Revive Questions Over Gaza Article 17

Palestinians fill water containers at the Nuseirat camp for displaced families in central Gaza (AFP)
Palestinians fill water containers at the Nuseirat camp for displaced families in central Gaza (AFP)

A brief and cryptic remark by US President Donald Trump about modifying phase two of the Gaza ceasefire agreement, offered without any details, has stirred questions over how the accord will be executed.

Analysts say the comment points to a possible change in implementing the deal’s provisions rather than adjusting its core terms.

Instead of moving toward an Israeli withdrawal from the enclave, where Israel controls about 55% of the territory, and the disarmament of Hamas, they expect Washington to pivot to article 17, which allows for unilateral application of the peace plan without adhering to its sequencing.

They said phase two will be difficult to reach while key issues remain unresolved, including forming a peace council, establishing a Gaza administrative committee and deploying a stabilization force.

Article 17 of the ceasefire agreement, which took effect on October 10, states that if Hamas delays or rejects the proposal, the measures listed above, including an expanded aid operation, will be carried out in areas free of terrorism that the Israeli army hands over to the international stabilization force.

The peace document signed in October by Hamas and Israel covered only the provisions of what is known as phase one.

This includes an initial truce, the withdrawal of Israeli forces, conditions for exchanging detainees and prisoners and facilitating humanitarian aid. No formal agreement has been reached on phase two, which relates to governing Gaza after the war.

Trump said on Thursday that phase two of his Gaza peace plan will be modified very soon, amid growing concern over its stalled implementation. He did not specify what the changes would entail.

Saeed Okasha, an Israeli affairs analyst at the Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies, said Trump may be considering an adjustment anchored in article 17 to prevent the agreement from collapsing.

He said the article opens the way for dividing Gaza into an old Gaza and a new Gaza, an idea recently circulated by US envoy Steve Witkoff in several meetings last month.

Okasha said the amendment remains possible since the agreement was endorsed by the United Nations Security Council last month.

He said article 17 could be reactivated on grounds that Hamas has not met requirements for disarmament or other commitments, adding that such a shift could create a situation of neither war nor peace.

Ayman Al-Raqab, a Palestinian political analyst, said the lack of clarity over Trump’s intended changes has fueled concerns that any adjustment may entrench a division of Gaza at a time when Israel seeks to maintain a long term presence in the enclave. He said this aligns with proposals characterizing a new Gaza and an old Gaza.

Amid the uncertainty, the Axios news site reported that Trump plans to announce the start of phase two and unveil the new governance structure for Gaza before December 25. The site quoted two US officials as saying the formation of the international force and the governing body is in its final stages.

They expect Trump to meet Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu before the end of December to discuss the steps.

Al-Raqab said phase two still faces hurdles, including the absence of a peace council and a technocratic government, the lack of a police force to assume its duties and the pending formation of a stabilization force. He said no major moves are likely before January.

Okasha said he sees no immediate prospect other than Israel expanding the areas it controls in the enclave to about 60% as long as implementation of the agreement remains stalled, though without a major escalation similar to what Israel is carrying out in southern Lebanon.

Several days ago, the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth reported on an Israeli plan to resettle about two million Palestinians in new areas under Israeli control east of the Yellow Line and to empty areas held by Hamas of all civilians while pursuing Hamas members there over time.

British newspaper The Telegraph also quoted Western diplomats as saying the US plan for Gaza carries the risk of dividing the enclave permanently, entrenching the presence of Israeli forces in the devastated strip.

About a week ago, Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty underscored during a meeting in Barcelona with European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas the importance of preserving the territorial unity of Palestine, including the West Bank and Gaza, and rejected any measures that would entrench separation or undermine prospects for a two state solution.

Abdelatty reiterated that position on Wednesday, saying, “There is no place for talk of dividing Gaza. Gaza is an integrated territorial unit and is an inseparable part of the future Palestinian state together with the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. These are binding international legitimacy resolutions and certainly must be upheld.”

He said consultations continue with relevant parties on forming a Gaza administrative committee made up of technocrats to manage affairs on the ground.

Okasha said Egyptian efforts will continue to prevent any division of Gaza or any amendment that would undermine the agreement, adding that various scenarios remain possible as developments unfold around Trump’s plan.