Iraq’s Militias, Accused of Threatening US, Pose a Quandary for Iraq

Members of a militia with the Popular Mobilization Forces at the Tal Afar airport, west of Mosul, Iraq, in 2017.CreditCreditAhmad Al-Rubaye/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Members of a militia with the Popular Mobilization Forces at the Tal Afar airport, west of Mosul, Iraq, in 2017.CreditCreditAhmad Al-Rubaye/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
TT

Iraq’s Militias, Accused of Threatening US, Pose a Quandary for Iraq

Members of a militia with the Popular Mobilization Forces at the Tal Afar airport, west of Mosul, Iraq, in 2017.CreditCreditAhmad Al-Rubaye/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Members of a militia with the Popular Mobilization Forces at the Tal Afar airport, west of Mosul, Iraq, in 2017.CreditCreditAhmad Al-Rubaye/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

When the United States said this week that American forces in Iraq faced threats from Iranian “proxies,” it was referring to the armed groups that helped fight ISIS and have bedeviled Iraq ever since.

The Iraqi armed groups, some with ties to Iran, have a footprint in every Iraqi province. Whether they function as Iranian proxies, however, is far from settled.

“The word ‘proxy’ implies that these are tools of Iran, and they aren’t,” said Anthony H. Cordesman, a national security analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

“You have a range of groups in Iraq’s Popular Mobilization: Some are Sunni, some are pro-Iraqi government, some have ties to the Quds force and the Islamic Guard,” he said.

The question is further clouded by the fact that these groups are recognized and funded by the Iraqi government.

This week, the United States ordered an aircraft carrier and bombers to the Persian Gulf in response to what it termed as threats from the groups.

There are roughly 30 of the militias, known as the Popular Mobilization Forces, with at least 125,000 active-duty fighters.

Their relationships with Iran vary widely, according to experts and government officials in Iraq and Washington. Some Popular Mobilization groups keep their distance from Iran while others — including some of the most powerful — are deeply intertwined with it.

Now that the fight against ISIS has dwindled, the problem facing Iraq is what to do with these groups. While there has been talk of having them disband and disarm, only a couple of them seem willing to do so.

Although the militias have been absorbed into the Iraqi security forces, they are not under the command of either the Defense or Interior Ministries. Instead, they enjoy a special status, reporting to the prime minister.

Some of the groups seem relatively benign and carry out almost exclusively local responsibilities, providing policing services where the police are in short supply.

However, others are corrupt, behaving like mafias, and several have been accused of human rights abuses. And while they report to the prime minister, it is not clear that anyone really can restrain them.

“If they have armed wings and are corrupt, no one can control them,” former Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi said in an interview this year.

A major concern among some officials is that, much like Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, they will go into business, but with the unfair advantage of having armed men behind them and the implicit protection of senior figures in the Iraqi government.

“In Iraq if you don’t put controls on these groups, you will have these guys morph into networks that will range from semi-criminal entities to politically predatory forces that would act as a state within a state,” said Alex Vatanka, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute.

It is the four or five groups with the closest ties to Iran that are seen as exercising unauthorized power. Some run kickback schemes on a local level, using coercion to force business people to give them a piece of the action or compel citizens to use their services.

Many of these groups have large numbers of representatives in the Iraqi Parliament, where the power to designate ministers is divided among the political blocs. If a bloc or a party controls who becomes a minister, they have a chance to influence who gets valuable contracts or jobs.

These groups also can act as a lobby for Iranian interests within the Iraqi state.

Senior Iraqi government officials worry privately about the influence of the groups that have proved closest to Iran and are impervious to efforts to bring them under the government’s control, but the officials are generally reluctant to speak publicly about it.

The Defense Ministry was angry when some of the Popular Mobilization’s brigades moved to the Syrian border in November, taking up crucial positions, but the ministry worked out a way of avoiding a confrontation with them.

Similarly, soon after the United States Treasury Department announced in March it was listing one of the Popular Mobilization groups, Harakat Hezbollah al-Nujaba, as a foreign terrorist organization, the Iraqi government made clear it disagreed.

Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi did not defend the group by name — al-Nujaba has proved difficult for the Iraqi military to work with at times — but he did support the Popular Mobilization groups.

“The Americans can make the decisions they want, but the Americans see things differently from the way we do, and our attitude toward the Popular Mobilization is well known and clear,” he said in March. “We respect all of the groups of the Popular Mobilization that made sacrifices.” The sacrifices he was alluding to were largely made from 2014 through 2016, when ISIS swept across northern Iraq.

However, in areas where they defeated ISIS, some militias took over the extremists’ illegal activities, enriching themselves but doing little for local communities. These groups, most notably in northern Iraq, fought Iraqi government forces as recently as last year to hold on to their oil smuggling business. They ultimately lost, but still have bases near the now-capped oil wells.

One of those groups is Asaib Ahl al-Haq, which was accused by rights groups of the extrajudicial killings of Sunnis during the fight against ISIS. In recent months, it has been criticized for demanding that business owners in northern Iraq give it a cut of any business they are involved in. The group has denied the accusations against it.

For Iraqi politicians, who want to build their country and improve life for its citizens, the pressure from Iran on Iraq presents a daunting challenge.

The New York Times



Has Iran Abandoned Hezbollah in its Fight against Israel in Lebanon?

 Lebanese citizens who fled on the southern villages amid ongoing Israeli airstrikes Monday, settle at a waterfront promenade in the southern port city of Sidon, Lebanon, Tuesday, Sept. 24, 2024. (AP)
Lebanese citizens who fled on the southern villages amid ongoing Israeli airstrikes Monday, settle at a waterfront promenade in the southern port city of Sidon, Lebanon, Tuesday, Sept. 24, 2024. (AP)
TT

Has Iran Abandoned Hezbollah in its Fight against Israel in Lebanon?

 Lebanese citizens who fled on the southern villages amid ongoing Israeli airstrikes Monday, settle at a waterfront promenade in the southern port city of Sidon, Lebanon, Tuesday, Sept. 24, 2024. (AP)
Lebanese citizens who fled on the southern villages amid ongoing Israeli airstrikes Monday, settle at a waterfront promenade in the southern port city of Sidon, Lebanon, Tuesday, Sept. 24, 2024. (AP)

Iran appears to have withdrawn itself from the latest confrontation between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Israel on Monday intensified its operations against Iran-backed Hezbollah, striking targets in Lebanon’s South and eastern Bekaa Valley.

Iran seems noticeably absent as it arranges its political affairs with the United States and the West, said Lebanese political observers.

They pointed to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s recent remarks that Tehran was making a “tactical retreat” as it backs down from retaliating to Israeli strikes on Iranian interests. It also seems to have abandoned plans for avenging the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran in July.

Most notably, they highlighted the Iranian foreign minister’s statement on Monday that his country is ready to hold talks on its nuclear program in New York where world leaders are meeting for the United Nations General Assembly.

The political observers appeared divided over whether Iran has really abandoned Hezbollah and was ready to exchange it in return for political gains on the negotiations table, or whether the ideological relationship between Iran and Hezbollah was really unbreakable.

Soaid: Hezbollah is abandoned to its fate

Head of the Saydet el-Jabal Gathering former MP Fares Soaid lamented that the scenario that unfolded in Gaza for nearly year is being replicated in Lebanon.

“The coming days will reveal whether Iran is leading the Resistance Axis against Israel or whether it is fighting Tel Aviv through its allies, while it is really focused on negotiations with the United States,” he told Asharq Al-Awsat.

“Day after day, it is becoming evident that members of Iran’s regional proxies are dying while fighting against Israel in order to improve Tehran’s negotiating position with Washington,” he explained.

“The Lebanese people are sensing that Hezbollah, which used to boast of Iran’s support for it, is now waging the battle alone. It is as if it has been left to its fate, while Iran arranges its papers with the West,” he added.

Geopolitical expert Ziad al-Sayegh said the fact that Iran has not joined the Israel’s fiercest battle against Lebanon, does not at all mean that it has abandoned Hezbollah.

He told Asharq Al-Awsat that it was naive to believe that the bond between them could be so easily broken since they share deep ideological ties.

People in Lebanon believe that Iran’s failure to react to the latest dangerous developments in Lebanon, starting with the attack on Hezbollah’s communication devices and killing of senior Radwan unit commanders last week, mean it has abandoned the party and left it to its fate.

Surviving at Hezbollah’s expense

Soaid stressed that the Iranian leadership was trying to “survive this war and perhaps strike a deal at the expense of Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen and Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq.”

“Unfortunately, this is not the first time that a Lebanese party ties its fate to a foreign party and bets wrong,” he added.

He recalled how the Lebanese National Movement “tied its fate” to Palestinian Fatah movement leader Yasser Arafat in the 1970s.

“Syrian President Hafez al-Assad decided to eliminate Fatah, kicking off the process by assassinating Lebanon’s Kamal Jumblatt and newly elected President Bashir al-Gemayel,” noted Soaid.

Arafat couldn’t protect Jumblatt and no foreign power was able to save Gemayel, he explained.

“Regional forces are using internal forces, not the other way around,” he noted. “The situation today demonstrates that Hezbollah is following the orders of Tehran and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, not the other way around,” he added.

Iran would never have gained so much influence in the region had the West not allowed it to run rampant.

Sayegh said the West “has granted Iran cover for years and the people of the region have played the price of this dirty work. The West won’t get out of this situation unscathed.”

“We have entered the era of eliminating extremism that is formed out of nationalist and religious ideology and Israel and Iran are best examples of this,” he stated.

“The Arab world is demanded to follow the course of the establishment of a Palestinian state. Hezbollah must read the historic and geographic truths through the lense of the Lebanese identity,” he urged.

“It must apply the constitution and respect the state’s sovereignty. Therein lies salvation,” he remarked.