Foreign Fighters in Syria: Problem or Part of the Solution?

In this photo released by the Saudi Royal Palace, Syria's interim President Ahmad al-Sharaa, left, shakes hands with President Donald Trump, center, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Wednesday, May 14, 2025. At right is Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.(Bandar Aljaloud/Saudi Royal Palace via AP)
In this photo released by the Saudi Royal Palace, Syria's interim President Ahmad al-Sharaa, left, shakes hands with President Donald Trump, center, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Wednesday, May 14, 2025. At right is Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.(Bandar Aljaloud/Saudi Royal Palace via AP)
TT

Foreign Fighters in Syria: Problem or Part of the Solution?

In this photo released by the Saudi Royal Palace, Syria's interim President Ahmad al-Sharaa, left, shakes hands with President Donald Trump, center, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Wednesday, May 14, 2025. At right is Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.(Bandar Aljaloud/Saudi Royal Palace via AP)
In this photo released by the Saudi Royal Palace, Syria's interim President Ahmad al-Sharaa, left, shakes hands with President Donald Trump, center, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Wednesday, May 14, 2025. At right is Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.(Bandar Aljaloud/Saudi Royal Palace via AP)

US President Donald Trump’s announcement to lift sanctions on Syria came with five conditions, chief among them the demand that “all foreign fighters” leave Syrian territory, a requirement that poses a significant challenge to the new administration of President Ahmed al-Sharaa.

The presence of these fighters, many of whom have been allied for years with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), underscores the complexity of Trump’s demand. These militants played a key role in the conflict against former President Bashar al-Assad, and many in HTS view them as having earned their place on the battlefield through loyalty and sacrifice.

The influx of foreign fighters into Syria began with the formation of the Free Syrian Army in the early days of the uprising. Türkiye’s border soon became a dual gateway, a route of escape for Syrians fleeing war, either settling in Türkiye or continuing toward Europe, and a corridor for hundreds of non-Syrian fighters arriving to join the battle.

Initially, many of these fighters aligned themselves with non-ideological armed groups. But over time, especially between 2012 and 2014, as the regime intensified its use of barrel bombs and heavy weaponry on opposition-held neighborhoods, the foreign fighters gained prominence in what became known as the “revolutionary strongholds,” particularly in Syria’s north.

‘The Migrants’ of the Revolution

Their combat skills and commitment earned them both fear and admiration. In this period, foreign fighters often led the charge in so-called “inghimasi” (commando-style) and suicide operations, which won them significant support among local communities. They were dubbed “al-Muhajireen” - the migrants - a reference both to their origins and their perceived dedication to the Syrian cause.

Following the collapse of the former Syrian regime on December 8, foreign fighter factions such as the Turkistan Islamic Party, Ajnad al-Sham and Ajnad al-Kavkaz (Chechens) emerged as key players within the operations command room led by the HTS.

In his first public remarks on the presence of foreign fighters, Syria’s new president described them as instrumental in toppling Bashar al-Assad’s regime and said they “deserve to be rewarded.”

Speaking to journalists in mid-January, al-Sharaa said the atrocities committed by the former government had necessitated foreign support, and hinted at the possibility of granting these fighters Syrian citizenship, a suggestion that sparked widespread debate.

Soon after, the new administration took steps that signaled both gratitude and political calculation: several foreign fighters were appointed to senior military posts in the newly restructured Syrian army, with ranks ranging from colonel to brigadier general.

Among the most prominent were Jordanian Abdulrahman Hussein al-Khatib, promoted to brigadier general; Egyptian Alaa Mohamed Abdel Baki; Uyghur militant Abdulaziz Dawood Khodabardi; Tajik national Moulana Tursun Abdulsamad; Turkish fighter Omar Mohamed Jeftchi Mukhtar; Albanian Abdul Bashari Khattab; and Dagestani native Zanor al-Basri Abdelhamid Abdullah, the commander of the “Army of Emigrants and Supporters.”

A Dilemma at the Heart of Syria’s Future

A former HTS commander, speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat on condition of anonymity, said the al-Sharaa administration is unlikely to oppose the US demand.

“The muhajireen brothers themselves are not clinging to their positions if they stand in the way of the country’s interests,” he said.

Indeed, less than 24 hours after Trump and al-Sharaa met in the Saudi capital, local Syrian outlets began reporting that General Security forces had raided foreign fighter strongholds in rural Idlib.

Asharq Al-Awsat was unable to independently verify the reports, but whether the raids were genuine or simply political theater, analysts say the message was unmistakable: Damascus may be willing to act decisively to secure international recognition and economic relief.

Kareem Mohammed, a current Syrian army commander and former battalion leader in the HTS with direct ties to foreign fighters, told Asharq Al-Awsat from Damascus that these combatants still hold significant sway within the country’s military and security apparatus, as well as among the revolution’s grassroots base.

“There is no interest for the government in taking negative action against them,” Mohammed said. “They remain popular within the ranks of the new army and the revolutionary heartland.”

Mohammed added that several countries have recently begun raising the issue of foreign fighters as a bargaining chip in their engagement with Syria’s new leadership. But he emphasized the crucial role these militants - referred to by rebels as al-Muhajireen (the migrants) - played from the outset of the uprising.

“These fighters had a decisive impact from the early days of the revolution. Their military expertise stood out in key battles,” he said.

According to Mohammed, the al-Sharaa government is actively working to distance the muhajireen from internal political conflicts and reassign them to their former positions in Idlib. There are also promises of eventual integration into Syrian society and possibly even the granting of citizenship down the line.

The ongoing debate over the presence of foreign fighters in Syria may be based on a misunderstanding, according to extremist group researcher Hossam Jazmati, who says Western powers are not explicitly calling for their expulsion.

“The American and Western demands are not about deporting foreign fighters,” Jazmati told Asharq Al-Awsat.

“Rather, they focus on two main conditions: that these individuals do not hold prominent positions in the emerging Syrian state, particularly in the army, security, or government , and that Syrian territory is not used by any of them to launch, prepare for, or train for military operations abroad.”

Jazmati noted that even during Hayat Tahrir al-Sham’s control over Idlib in recent years, the group maintained a policy of preventing factions from using Syrian territory as a base for cross-border attacks.

“HTS managed to keep the jihadist movements in check, discouraging any ambitions of launching operations beyond Syria’s borders,” he said.

As the future of foreign fighters in Syria hangs in the balance, allies and commanders aligned with the so-called muhajireen are rejecting any calls for their expulsion or forced repatriation.

“What their brothers and allies refuse is the idea of throwing them out of a country they fought to defend against a brutal regime, or handing them over to their home countries, where prison, or even execution, likely awaits,” said Jazmati.

“Generally speaking, I don’t believe that leaders and fighters in the HTS, or other factions, or even the religious and revolutionary base that admires the muhajireen model, insist on these fighters taking part in building the new state,” he added. “Nor do I think the foreign fighters themselves want that.”

That sentiment is echoed by Abu Hafs al-Turkistani, a former leader in the Turkistan Islamic Party who now heads a battalion within the Syrian army under the Ministry of Defense. His unit, composed mainly of Uyghur fighters, is stationed between Idlib and the Latakia countryside.

“We didn’t come to Syria to kill Syrians,” Turkistani told Asharq Al-Awsat. “We didn’t come here for money or positions. We came to support them, to share their suffering and help them as best we could, and thanks to God, victory was achieved, and we are honored to have taken part in it.”

Turkistani dismissed accusations linking foreign fighters to recent violence in coastal areas or in Sweida as part of a broader media campaign to vilify them. “These are baseless allegations,” he said.

Turkistani insisted that foreign fighters have largely kept to themselves and respected Syrian customs and traditions.

“We never interfered in the lives of Syrians. We’ve lived among them for years and stayed out of their personal affairs. Every nation has its differences, and while we may not agree on everything, we never tried to impose ourselves on their society,” he said.

As for past incidents in Idlib involving foreign fighters, Turkistani acknowledged isolated cases but said they were not repeated and did not reflect a broader pattern of misconduct. “The Syrians know that well,” he added.

Jazmati says Syria’s new leadership could resolve the foreign fighters dilemma by allowing them to stay under clear legal terms, provided they step away from power and military involvement.

“The muhajireen can remain in Syria under officially agreed legal arrangements, as civilians only,” Jazmati told Asharq Al-Awsat.

“They were never here to govern, and should not be placed at the forefront of a state they have no intention of ruling. But they must also pledge not to use Syrian territory to plan or launch jihadist operations in their home countries or elsewhere, as that could cause serious harm. If they refuse, they can leave for a destination of their choice.”

Appointments Stir Controversy

A foreign fighter of Arab nationality, known as Abu Mohammed, told Asharq Al-Awsat that he and others remain committed to the state led by al-Sharaa.

“We will not turn against Sharaa. We never did,” he said. “We avoided factional infighting and always prioritized Syria’s interests, which never clashed with our own. We were ready to die for the lives of Syrians, and now we know how to live under a state we respect and value.”

However, Jazmati warned that the real challenge lies in undoing the senior military appointments made shortly after the fall of the Assad regime, including three generals and three colonels, all foreign nationals.

“Reversing those promotions and assignments is a political and institutional dilemma,” Jazmati said. “It’s only been three weeks since the regime’s collapse, and these titles carry weight.”

According to confidential information seen by Jazmati, Syrian officials have pledged to halt the appointment of non-Syrians going forward.

But resolving the status of those already promoted remains a sensitive issue, one that may require a compromise that preserves their dignity, rank, and possibly even their current roles.

Efforts to limit the influence of foreign fighters in Syria’s post-Assad era are unlikely to trigger a resurgence of al-Qaeda or ISIS, according Jazmati.

“I don’t see al-Qaeda seeking a revival in Syria after its affiliate, Hurras al-Din, was dismantled,” Jazmati told Asharq Al-Awsat.

“As for ISIS, while its Syrian strategy remains unclear, it could attempt to recruit disaffected individuals, both Syrian and foreign, who are frustrated by the new government’s policies. Other smaller groups may also emerge, especially those that believe the current leadership is straying from their interpretation of Islamic law.”

Fragmented Landscape of Foreign Fighters

Not all foreign fighters in Syria fall along a single ideological spectrum. Divisions among them have existed since the early days of their arrival, influenced by how they were recruited and the routes they took to join the war.

Some were brought in through structured recruitment networks. These fighters were often contacted online, vetted, and then smuggled into Syria through well-organized channels. Others arrived independently, relying on human smugglers and covering their own travel costs, usually via Türkiye on tourist visas.

By mid-2013, as the rebel scene in Syria splintered, foreign fighters mostly gravitated toward jihadist factions, especially Jabhat al-Nusra. A smaller number joined so-called “moderate” groups such as Liwa al-Tawhid in Aleppo.

Ideological Rifts and Realignment

As rivalries over ideology and influence deepened, most foreign fighters shifted between groups, particularly after Jabhat al-Nusra’s break from ISIS. The split followed its former leader Ahmad al-Sharaa’s refusal to pledge allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, instead aligning with former al-Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri.

That move sparked further defections, with some foreign fighters rejecting al-Zawahiri’s authority and joining ISIS.

Clashes between the factions ensued, eventually leading to the rise of independent groups like Jund al-Aqsa, founded by Abu Abdul Aziz al-Qatari, a jihadist of Palestinian origin born in Iraq.

Other units formed along national lines, including Uyghur, Uzbek, and Chechen battalions.

By mid-2014, the rise of ISIS across western Iraq and into Syria’s Deir Ezzor, Raqqa, parts of Hasakah, and the Aleppo and Idlib countryside intensified rivalries among jihadist factions.

ISIS declared other foreign-led groups apostates, even as many maintained ties with Jabhat al-Nusra and adopted a position of neutrality in the escalating infighting.

Factions like the Turkistan Islamic Party, Ajnad al-Sham, Ajnad al-Kavkaz, and Ansar al-Tawhid, as well as remnants of Jund al-Aqsa, survived through Assad’s fall, opting for autonomy or quiet alliance with the HTS.

The Syrianization of the Fight

Between 2014 and 2018, HTS, under the leadership of Abu Mohammad al-Jolani (al-Sharaa), systematically sidelined foreign fighters, removing them from leadership roles and the media spotlight.

Many were arrested or expelled, especially those affiliated with hardline factions such as Hurras al-Din, or those resistant to HTS’s pivot toward local governance.

The shift was both strategic and ideological.

Syrians increasingly resented the dominance of foreign leaders within the group, while international actors, particularly Türkiye, raised concerns about HTS’s associations with transnational jihadism.

Foreign fighters were often seen preaching al-Qaeda-style rhetoric and resisting cooperation with the Turkish military,which they denounced due to its NATO membership.

Al-Sharaa responded by launching a sweeping reform within HTS, marginalizing extremists regardless of nationality.

He rebranded the movement’s mission from global jihad to Syrian nationalism, using phrases like “Thawrat Ahl al-Sham” (“the revolution of the people of the Levant”) to underscore local priorities.

Many foreign fighters aligned with this vision, describing themselves as “supporters” rather than leaders of Syria’s future, as HTS moved to integrate them into the new nationalist framework.

Al-Sharaa’s project of “Syrianizing” the battle and its fighters aimed to distance the group from its jihadist roots and bring it closer to the political mainstream.

Now as president, al-Sharaa faces a new test: can he extend this project of ideological reform and integration under a national flag, while appeasing international stakeholders demanding limits on foreign fighters?

Observers say success will depend on his ability to restructure without alienating the fighters who once formed the backbone of the armed opposition.

The challenge lies in balancing their role in Syria’s recent history with the imperatives of diplomacy, reconstruction, and future security.

Whether Sharaa’s past efforts at moderation and localization can evolve into a credible state policy remains to be seen but with pressure mounting from both allies and adversaries, the answer may define the country’s next chapter.



Sudanese Endure Hardship Under the Weight of War

A near-empty market in Khartoum (Asharq Al-Awsat)
A near-empty market in Khartoum (Asharq Al-Awsat)
TT

Sudanese Endure Hardship Under the Weight of War

A near-empty market in Khartoum (Asharq Al-Awsat)
A near-empty market in Khartoum (Asharq Al-Awsat)

For many Sudanese, the question is no longer when the war will end, but how they can make it through another day as prices soar and their ability to secure even the most basic necessities continues to erode.

Each morning brings higher prices for essential goods, shrinking incomes and fewer job opportunities, leaving thousands of families to make painful choices between food, medicine and education.

In the markets, buying and selling reflect more than just an economic crisis. They tell the story of a war whose impact has reached people's tables, turning daily life into a quiet struggle for survival.

The rapid rise in the exchange rate has weighed heavily on markets. Some traders have suspended sales temporarily while they reprice their goods to keep up with constant changes.

At the same time, a deepening liquidity crisis has added pressure on citizens, making it harder to meet basic needs amid the country’s current economic strain.

The US dollar has passed 5,000 Sudanese pounds on the parallel market, up from about 4,200 pounds a few weeks ago, a rise of nearly 20%, according to market dealers. The jump reflects sharp volatility in the currency market as economic pressure persists and monetary stability weakens.

Purchasing power declines

Trader Mohammed al-Rifai said markets were clearly stagnating as purchasing power fell and prices kept rising due to inflation and a stronger dollar.

He told Asharq Al-Awsat that “weaker daily earnings for traders, along with the fees and taxes imposed on them, have made continuing business activity more difficult and less worthwhile.”

Trader Abu Aqla Fadlallah described the economic situation as extremely difficult, saying prices of basic goods had reached unprecedented levels and daily needs had become a heavy burden on families.

He told Asharq Al-Awsat that “my income is no longer enough to cover my family’s needs and my children’s education.”

He said he sometimes spends an entire day in the market without making a single sale, adding that the country needs effective economic policies that draw on its vast resources and ease citizens’ suffering.

Vegetable seller al-Tijani Mahmoud said weak purchasing power had hit sales directly. The cost of bringing vegetables to market has risen sharply, he said, alongside rent and operating expenses.

Speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat, he said some traders are forced to sell at a loss to clear their goods, calling for steps to address market imbalances.

Unregulated practices

Economic expert Haitham Mohamed Fathi said higher prices for raw materials used in production, driven by the rise in local exchange rates and higher global fuel costs, had directly pushed up the prices of finished goods.

Fathi told Asharq Al-Awsat that the shutdown of many factories because of the war and the damage they sustained had reduced supply just as demand increased. The result, he said, was higher prices in retail markets and the spread of the informal market.

“Higher global shipping costs, longer transport times, rising internal transport expenses, and the multiplicity of fees and levies between states are all additional factors that have doubled the cost of goods,” he said.

He said some unregulated commercial practices, including excessive price increases aimed at maximizing profits, had further deepened consumers’ suffering.

The economic expert warned that continued disruption in the energy, transport and trade sectors could undermine food security and increase the risk of shortages or unstable supplies of some goods.

He said the agricultural sector could also be affected if production costs continue to rise without sufficient support for farming.

Government measures

To contain the economic crisis, the Sudanese government has stepped up meetings in recent days at the sovereign and ministerial levels to discuss the fallout from the rising exchange rate and the country’s worsening liquidity crisis.

The Sovereign Council said the state was working on a package of measures to stabilize the foreign exchange market, limit the impact of the pound’s decline on living conditions and address market imbalances.

The Sovereign Council held a meeting, chaired by Sovereign Council chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, to discuss measures to stabilize the currency market and ease economic pressure, as the pound has recorded a slight improvement in recent days.

In a statement, the council said the meeting discussed several priority national issues, led by economic, security and service-related files, amid the current conditions facing the country.

Daily challenges

Citizen Sumaya Hassan said food prices had risen beyond what she could afford, leaving her in a daily struggle to provide for her children’s basic needs. She told Asharq Al-Awsat that the continuing war and lack of job opportunities had made living conditions harsher and weighed heavily on thousands of families.

Citizen Fatima Hussein said the wave of price hikes had directly affected her family’s life, with basic goods now beyond the means of most citizens.

Speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat, she said she had reached Omdurman after a long displacement journey and was still struggling to secure daily necessities. She called for urgent steps to curb rising prices.

Citizen Maysoun Abbas said she was shocked by the sharp rise in the prices of spices and foodstuffs, which she estimated were now about 70% higher than before the war. She said families had been forced to give up many basic needs just to manage living expenses, amid the anxiety and instability imposed by the war.

In Sudan, the war is no longer measured only by the number of victims or the scale of destruction. It is also measured by what it has done to families’ tables and livelihoods. As citizens and traders struggle to adapt to an extremely harsh economic reality, the gap between income and the cost of living is widening.

The need for urgent policies to restore market stability and protect the most vulnerable is growing.

Without a real response to the roots of the economic crisis, high prices will remain another face of the war, and the suffering of millions of Sudanese will continue even after the guns fall silent.


Baghdad Emerges as Next Arena in US-Iran Confrontation

Iraqi factions that fought alongside Iran in the recent war with the United States. (Popular Mobilization Forces media)
Iraqi factions that fought alongside Iran in the recent war with the United States. (Popular Mobilization Forces media)
TT

Baghdad Emerges as Next Arena in US-Iran Confrontation

Iraqi factions that fought alongside Iran in the recent war with the United States. (Popular Mobilization Forces media)
Iraqi factions that fought alongside Iran in the recent war with the United States. (Popular Mobilization Forces media)

More than a month after winning parliament’s confidence on May 14, 2026, Ali al-Zaidi’s government remains unfinished. Nearly 10 ministerial portfolios are still unresolved, including two central pillars of the Iraqi state: interior and defense.

In Iraq, where governments often emerge only after long bargaining among parties, parliamentary blocs, influence networks and regional powers, the delay may look familiar. But that reading only goes so far.

The incomplete cabinet does not just reflect the usual struggle over posts. It shows, above all, that the deals that brought al-Zaidi to power have not yet produced a real governing balance.

Al-Zaidi has parliamentary legitimacy, but not full command of his executive branch. His government stands legally, but remains politically incomplete.

The central issue is no longer simply whether he can complete the formation of a cabinet. It is how much room he will have to carry out his political, economic and security program.

Will al-Zaidi be merely the manager of a settlement struck by the main forces inside the Shiite camp? Or can he gradually turn that settlement into a real tool for political action and recover even a limited measure of the Iraqi state’s ability to take initiative?

That is why al-Zaidi’s expected visit to Washington in mid-July matters. It is more than a conventional diplomatic trip. Alongside the economic, energy and security files announced for discussion, the visit will be the first real test of his premiership.

It will show whether he can strengthen his international legitimacy, widen his independence from the political forces that brought him to power and define his relationship with the US administration at a time when Washington’s priorities in Iraq appear to be shifting.

Iraq in a new regional equation

Many were struck by the strategic surprise Tehran unleashed, which altered some regional balances. The move disrupted navigation in the Strait of Hormuz and introduced a troubling shift in international law through what Tehran called its “right to control.”

The interim agreement reached by Washington and Tehran allowed for a ceasefire and opened the way for a new phase of negotiations. It is likely to reduce the chances of direct military confrontation in the short term.

But it resolves none of the core disputes that still divide the United States and Iran in the Middle East. On the contrary, their rivalry appears set to move toward arenas where their interests continue to overlap. Iraq comes first among them.

For Baghdad, the shift carries a clear paradox. Relative easing between Washington and Tehran could give Ali Falih al-Zaidi’s government more space to pursue reforms without directly absorbing the costs of regional escalation.

But the same easing could also move the competition between the two powers into Iraqi institutions, turning the Iraqi state into the main arena of conflict.

The Washington-Tehran agreement also reopens the Iraqi file on other geopolitical fronts.

Gulf states are expected to accelerate strategies aimed at consolidating their regional interests, especially in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.

Türkiye, through its geopolitical strategy in energy and logistical connectivity, will seek to strengthen its position in Iraq. China and Russia, in turn, will try to entrench their presence in what they regard as the “southern front” of the US, and broader Western, offensive in the Eurasian space: Iran, alongside the western front in Ukraine and the eastern front in Taiwan, and the surrounding spaces of connection and influence.

In principle, Iraq should be able to benefit from this renewed competition for regional influence, particularly by attracting economic investment and securing stronger support for normalization and regional integration.

This geopolitical shift will inevitably affect Iraq’s place in the rivalry between Washington and Tehran. For nearly two decades, Iraq’s political system has rested on an ambiguous balance.

It is neither a US protectorate nor an absolute subordinate of Iran. It is an open space for constant negotiation among outside powers, local elites, sectarian parties, armed factions, fragile institutions and a rentier economy.

Despite its fragility, that model delivered a measure of relative stability for years. But current signs suggest it is entering a new phase; one expected to move toward consolidating the state and its institutions.

A shift in US policy

The Trump administration no longer appears fully prepared to accept the implicit logic that governed Iraq in recent years: a form of direct or indirect joint management between Washington and Tehran.

The signals so far point to a US approach built on long-term influence by strengthening Iraqi state institutions. The aim is to use technocratic tools and, perhaps, a greater degree of ideological neutrality to tilt the balance toward Iraqi national interests, especially economic ones, and away from Iranian influence.

Several officials inside the US administration appear to support this view. They argue that Iraq can gradually free itself from reliance on Iranian support if Iraqi state institutions regain credibility and effectiveness.

As the scheduled US military withdrawal in September 2026 approaches, a purely security-driven approach looks insufficient. Repeated operations targeting armed faction leaders and their organizational structures since 2020 have not produced a real shift in the balance of power.

One of the most prominent defenders of this approach is Tom Barrack, who occupies a special place in it. Barrack is the US ambassador to Türkiye and a close associate of Donald Trump.

He is also known for his close relationship with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and for being one of the leading defenders of the effectiveness of centralized, even authoritarian, systems in producing transitions. Today, he is one of the key actors in the Syrian and Iraqi files.

Barrack belongs to a classical school that sees no sustainable influence in the Middle East without central states that possess at least a minimum of political and institutional credibility.

In Syria, this translates into support for a pragmatic path toward normalizing relations with the new authority in Damascus. In Iraq, there appears to be a focus on strengthening Baghdad’s role, without overlooking the importance and status of Erbil.

This is how the recent reactivation of several files should be understood. Efforts to ease tension between Baghdad and Erbil, the push for closer coordination between Baghdad and Damascus, and renewed interest in some regional projects are not merely diplomatic moves.

They all serve one logic: gradually strengthening the Iraqi state’s ability to reclaim its role as the central actor in regional balances.

A settlement of the chronic disputes between the federal government and the Kurdistan Region, whether over the budget, oil exports, energy management or the distribution of powers, would strengthen Baghdad. It would also strengthen al-Zaidi himself.

The same logic applies to Baghdad’s relations with Damascus. US authorities, under Barrack’s influence, now appear to favor pragmatic coordination between the two capitals. This is not so much because Washington supports the new Syrian authority, but because it wants to stabilize a border area that has become vital to regional security.

The Iraqi-Syrian border remains a major strategic challenge in the fight against armed groups, smuggling and illegal transit networks. At the same time, it could again become a space for economic exchange and energy movement if the right political conditions emerge.

In this context, the idea of restarting the Kirkuk-Baniyas pipeline regains special importance. The project is not only economic. It also carries deep geopolitical meaning. It would give Iraq an additional outlet for oil exports via the Mediterranean, reducing, at least in part, its reliance on existing routes through the Gulf or Türkiye.

More importantly, it would mark Iraq’s return to its historical role as a link between the Gulf, the Arab Levant and the Mediterranean. The project alone would not solve Iraq’s economic crisis. But it would signal a desire to reposition Iraq at the center of regional dynamics rather than leave it as a stage for regional and international competition.

Governing under financial constraints

That horizon remains extremely fragile because of Iraq’s internal economic situation. Al-Zaidi’s government inherited deteriorating financial conditions. The state’s room for maneuver has narrowed sharply because of obligations accumulated in recent years, particularly under Mohammed Shia al-Sudani’s government.

Public-sector wages, social spending, domestic debt, and other financial commitments now consume a large share of state resources.

Oil exports add another strain. Negotiations with Türkiye on resuming exports through the port of Ceyhan have not yet been settled, depriving Iraq of an important share of oil revenue. Before the crisis, exports through that route reached hundreds of thousands of barrels per day.

The current crisis is therefore not a passing economic problem or a temporary financial squeeze. It exposes the structural limits of the political and economic model built in Iraq after 2003.

The Iraqi state has gradually become a vast machine for redistributing oil rent. Public salaries, pensions, social assistance, government contracts, public companies and subcontracting networks have become the main tools for organizing political and social balances.

Under this equation, the regular payment of salaries is no longer just a matter of financial management or the state budget. It has become central to the stability of the political system itself. Nearly 5 million government employees depend directly on public finances, along with millions of retirees and social welfare beneficiaries.

Any prolonged disruption could quickly trigger broad social tensions and deepen the fragility of a government already facing several political challenges at once.

The executive’s options remain limited. Government bonds could provide temporary liquidity, but they would not fix deep structural imbalances. Domestic borrowing also remains constrained by weak liquidity inside the Iraqi economy.

Turning to the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund remains possible, but it would come with strict conditions. These could include reforming public companies, rationalizing government spending, improving public financial management, and gradually reducing some forms of state support.

Such measures could reassure international partners. But they also risk feeding social anger in a country where the state remains the largest employer and the main safety net against economic crises.

Factions between institutionalization and reconfiguration

Iraq’s economic crisis is tightly linked to the security question. The state is no longer just a rentier state distributing oil revenues. It has become a space where state institutions overlap with political, administrative, economic and military networks, all of which feed, to varying degrees, on public revenues.

Armed factions no longer draw their power from military capacity alone. They also draw it from a long process of institutionalization over the past two decades.

They now have extensions inside parliament and the executive, a presence in public administration, financial resources, economic networks and offices, protection offices dealing with oil companies, media outlets, social organizations and a measure of “legitimacy” acquired by some of them during the war against ISIS.

Seeing these factions as mere armed groups outside the state no longer reflects Iraq’s reality since 2003. The overlap between the state and the factions is no longer simply an infiltration of state institutions. It has become part of how those institutions function.

This reality also requires moving beyond another simplification often repeated in Western analysis: reducing these factions to “Iranian proxies.” They are not all equally close to Tehran, nor do they all have the same political or military relationship with it. Some have a considerable margin of independence and put Iraqi calculations first.

Others remain more deeply integrated into Tehran’s regional networks. It is therefore more accurate to speak of “Iraqi factions close to Iran” than to reduce them to direct Iranian extensions. That reduction obscures the transformations these groups have undergone inside Iraqi society and the Iraqi state.

The distinction is crucial to understanding current debates over the factions’ future. Part of this network now appears ready to discuss a gradual reorganization of its status.

Negotiations with the government are not centered on immediate disarmament so much as on deeper integration into the Popular Mobilization Forces and a clearer separation between political activity and military command.

Other groups, especially Kataib Hezbollah, Harakat al-Nujaba and Kataib Sayyid al-Shuhada, are more cautious about any process that could narrow their independence or redefine their relationship with the state.

The real question, however, is not whether political and military wings can realistically be separated. It is what kind of state Iraq has become. Can politics and weapons truly be separated when both operate inside the same institutional structure? Can traditional models of disarmament and reintegration be applied to groups that no longer stand outside the state?

Today, the factions are not defending their arsenals as much as they are defending their positions inside the state, their share of public resources, their economic networks and a social base that now depends, directly or indirectly, on the jobs, salaries, services and patronage they provide.

Estimates put their membership at between 200,000 and 300,000. Including their families, millions of Iraqis are linked to this system in varying degrees.

Any attempt to restructure the factions or reduce their role will therefore face a highly complex equation: US pressure to confine arms to the state, Iranian influence seeking to preserve part of the regional deterrence system, and broad local interests that view the factions’ survival as a guarantee of their economic and political positions.

Amid this overlap, the question is no longer how to disarm the factions. It is how to rebuild a state.

Time as a factor in the balance of power

This institutional complexity is compounded by another often-overlooked dimension: time.

The United States usually thinks within a relatively short political horizon, shaped by presidential terms, the search for quick results and near-term diplomatic deadlines.

Iraqi factions close to Iran, like Tehran itself, operate on a very different timeline. They know how to wait, postpone decisions, absorb pressure, multiply mediation efforts and turn time into a political resource.

In Iraq, time itself is part of the balance of power. The most entrenched actors are those that can withstand changes of government, international sanctions, shifting political balances and regional crises.

This ability to work according to the logic of the long term explains why repeated attempts to restructure the security sphere have produced limited results. Local forces know that international balances change far faster than Iraq’s internal balances.

These different timelines also help explain how the recent war between Iran, the United States and Israel was received by an important part of Iraq’s political scene.

A belief has gradually taken hold among a broad segment of political actors that Iran emerged from the confrontation politically stronger. This does not mean Tehran suffered no losses or faced no serious pressure.

It simply means the Iranian system did not fall and was not pushed to the margins of the regional equation. For many of its allies, its ability to endure was itself a form of “political victory.”

That reading directly shapes the behavior of Iraqi factions closest to Tehran. Many now ask a simple question: If Iran itself preserved its regional capabilities, why should the factions in Iraq make concessions?

Is there a new US doctrine?

At this stage, it is still too early to say a clear new US doctrine toward Iraq has taken shape. But several indicators suggest that part of the US administration now believes that limiting Iranian influence does not require direct confrontation with Tehran. It runs through the gradual strengthening of the Iraqi state’s credibility and capacity to act.

This approach, however, collides with the Iraqi reality described above. The United States, Iran and Iraq also move according to different clocks.

Al-Zaidi will have to confront several challenges at once. He must restore balance to public finances, preserve existing political settlements, redefine the relationship between the state and the factions, balance Baghdad’s relations with Erbil and Damascus, and maintain a constructive dialogue with Washington without reproducing internal polarization.

The challenge facing the new government is therefore not simply whether it can manage the country’s affairs. It is whether Iraq can rebuild a more credible state within the existing political balances that have provided a measure of relative stability.

In that space between reform and continuity, between state authority and the authority of influence networks, and between different national and regional rhythms, Iraq’s political future will most likely be decided in the years ahead.


Mojtaba Khamenei: Iran’s Unseen Leader Shadowed by Late Father

A bird flies near an Iranian flag and a banner with a picture of Iran's Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, in Tehran, Iran, June 28, 2026. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via Reuters
A bird flies near an Iranian flag and a banner with a picture of Iran's Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, in Tehran, Iran, June 28, 2026. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via Reuters
TT

Mojtaba Khamenei: Iran’s Unseen Leader Shadowed by Late Father

A bird flies near an Iranian flag and a banner with a picture of Iran's Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, in Tehran, Iran, June 28, 2026. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via Reuters
A bird flies near an Iranian flag and a banner with a picture of Iran's Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, in Tehran, Iran, June 28, 2026. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via Reuters

Mojtaba Khamenei, who has spent his career behind the scenes and is yet to appear in public as Iran's new supreme leader, faces the formidable challenge of occupying the role held by his father for most of the regime's existence.

Iranians knew little about the younger Khamenei when he was named to the lifetime post shortly after a US-Israeli airstrike killed his father Ali Khamenei, supreme leader since 1989, at the start of the Middle East war.

Said to have been wounded himself, Mojtaba Khamenei has issued over dozen written messages as leader that have carried on his father's confrontational ideology, taking aim at Israel and the United States.

In one of his most significant recent interventions, released on June 18, Mojtaba Khamenei said he had given his blessing to talks with the US to end the war despite having a "different view", likely an attempt to stay above the domestic political fray.

Despite the messages and activity on social media channels, there has been no concrete proof that Mojtaba Khamenei is even alive after the February 28 attack that also killed his wife Zahra Haddad Adel and other members of the Khamenei family.

But several Iranian officials have said he was wounded, sparking speculation he could be waiting to recover fully before appearing in public, as well as being mindful of his own security.

With Ali Khamenei's funeral starting Saturday, there will be intense scrutiny for signs of Mojtaba Khamenei emerging, and questions will mount if he fails to appear.

-'Radical' agenda -

Unlike Ali Khamenei, a prominent opponent of the shah who was president in the first decade of the republic from 1981-1989 before becoming supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei has never held a government position before.

But observers believe he was second-in-command at the office of the supreme leader under the veteran chief gatekeeper Mohammad Golpayegani.

He is also seen as close to the leadership of the powerful Revolutionary Guards, a connection that may have proved crucial in his selection by the Assembly of Experts clerical body.

One of the few official insights into the importance of Mojtaba Khamenei came in November 2019 when the US Treasury announced sanctions against him and other senior Iranian officials, including Golpayegani, on the grounds they were pushing Iran's "radical" agenda around the world.

The US said he was designated for representing Ali Khamenei "in an official capacity despite never being elected or appointed to a government position aside from work in the office of his father".

"The Supreme Leader has delegated a part of his leadership responsibilities to Mojtaba Khamenei," the US said, adding that he had "worked closely" with the commanders of the Quds Force -- the Guards branch responsible for operations outside Iran -- and the Basij militia "to advance his father's destabilizing regional ambitions and oppressive domestic objectives".

A sign of his potential sway came during the 2005 presidential elections when former parliament speaker Mehdi Karroubi wrote a letter to the supreme leader complaining that Mojtaba Khamenei had been intervening on behalf of his ultra-conservative rival Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Ahmadinejad went on to cause a sensation by defeating former president Hashemi Rafsanjani. Mojtaba was again seen by some commentators as coordinating the crackdown on protests that followed Ahmadinejad's disputed 2009 election victory.

A leaked US diplomatic cable from 2008 published by Wikileaks said that Mojtaba was "seen by many second only to Golpayegani within the office of the supreme leader".

- 'Unlikely' to have father's influence -

According to an investigation by Bloomberg, which cited anonymous sources and Western intelligence agency reports, Mojtaba Khamenei has amassed wealth estimated at more than $100 million.

It reported he has earned money from oil sales channeled into investments in luxury British real estate, hotels in Europe and property through shell companies in tax havens.

Born in his father's home city of Mashhad in northeastern Iran, Mojtaba Khamenei studied theology in the clerical hub of Qom where he also taught.

"The role of Mojtaba Khamenei is unclear," said Thomas Juneau, professor at the University of Ottawa.

"It is very unlikely at this point that he has the degree of influence that his father used to have."