Why does Sudanese link the disarmament of the factions to America’s exit from Iraq? | policy

Iraqi Prime Minister Muhammad Shiaa Al-Sudani linked the disarmament of the armed factions in the country to the complete withdrawal of the international coalition forces led by the United States, in statements that came days before the parliamentary elections, revealing at the same time the signing of contracts with major American companies in the energy, oil, and gas investment sectors.

Al-Sudani’s statements raised several questions: Do they represent an electoral agenda or a future policy for the government in the event of his term being extended? What messages do these statements carry at home and abroad, especially with regard to restricting weapons to the state? What is the significance of signing contracts with American companies at a time when Washington is talking about withdrawing its forces from Iraq?

The statements come at a sensitive time, as Iraq is only a few days away from legislative elections in which local and regional issues are intertwined, and the international dimension is inseparable from them.

The journalist writer specializing in American affairs, Hussein Jaradi, described the current stage as a “second term struggle” and stressed that the electoral conflict is not about the number of seats as much as it is about the post-election phase.

Based on this understanding, Grady expressed – in statements to the Beyond the News program – his conviction that Al-Sudani is seeking a second term, and to remain in his position he must gain the satisfaction of Washington and Tehran despite the decline in the Iranian role and the increasing American role. Therefore, he tries to reassure both parties through balanced statements.

According to Grady, the prime minister should not provoke the factions when he calls on American forces to withdraw, and at the same time should not provoke Washington when he indicates that there is a path to sovereignty that requires a complete withdrawal of American forces.

Al-Sudani confirmed that Iraq pledged to put all weapons under state control, but stressed that this would not succeed if the US-led coalition remained in the country, and stressed that the international coalition’s exit plan was still in place.

Iraq’s progress

For his part, the Dean of the Faculty of Political Science at Al-Nahrain University, Dr. Osama Al-Saeedi, explained that the Prime Minister is sending a message that Iraq has reached an advanced stage, and therefore the reasons that led to the presence of weapons have disappeared with the disappearance and elimination of terrorist organizations, and the scheduling of the withdrawal of American forces.

He pointed out that these parties will be included within the approved and official Popular Mobilization Forces institution legislated under the law, which means that they will be within the framework of the state and the law and will be subject to joint operations procedures.

Al-Saidi cited what happened in 2014 when the resistance factions rushed to confront ISIS before the fatwa of “sufficient jihad.” Then the government’s measures came to unify efforts under one roof, which contributed to liberating the lands in less than 3 years.

On the other hand, the writer and researcher in political affairs, Kazem Al-Hajj, identified many factors that encourage the resistance factions to cling to their weapons and not engage in a political dialogue about restricting weapons to the state.

Among these factors – according to Al-Hajj – the factions consider the continued presence of American forces on Iraqi territory as occupying forces, “in addition to the continuation of terrorist operations and inflammatory rhetoric against Iraq from within and without.”

According to Al-Hajj, the factions – in their position of refusing to give up their weapons – are based on the nature of the Iraqi position rejecting the Israeli entity, which is seen as an entity usurping the occupied land of Palestine, in addition to the constant threats that reach the Iraqis from this entity.

Al-Hajj believes that the political realism with which the Sudanese government dealt with the issue of the presence of American forces created a positive atmosphere between the resistance factions and the government, and was reflected in the nature of stability during the last period, especially in light of the changes that the region witnessed.

In the event of the withdrawal of US forces scheduled for the end of September 2026, “there will be a major change in the resistance factions’ view of how to deal with their weapons, but that is linked to the absence of all reasons for their survival,” Al-Hajj says.

Signing contracts

In conjunction with his demand for the withdrawal of American forces, Al-Sudani revealed the signing of contracts with American companies in the fields of energy, oil production, and gas investment, coinciding with his directive to stop the import of gasoline, gas, and white oil.

From Grady’s point of view, Al-Sudani is betting that Washington will receive this economic signal in a positive way. “This openness to American companies contributes to strengthening his position with Washington and reassures the Iraqi interior of the existence of promising economic opportunities.”

These contracts are also clear messages to Washington that Baghdad is economically open, “despite what it is accused of having close ties to the eastern axis,” and they fall within the context of what the Prime Minister seeks from a delicate balance between Washington and Tehran.

Academician Al-Saidi agrees with this point of view, pointing out that the Prime Minister’s idea since assuming his current position is to transform the relationship with the United States from a controversial military and security one to an economic and commercial one.

This philosophy is consistent with the mentality of US President Donald Trump, who seeks investment and economic interests.

In the same context, Al-Hajj points out that these contracts should be considered by the United States as a gateway to redefining the economic relationship with Iraq in a way that serves common interests.

At a time when Washington is seeking to cut off any financial supply or trade relations with the Iranian side, Iraqi projects with the United States are coming to reduce Baghdad’s dependence on Iranian gas. Al-Hajj points out that the ultimate Iraqi goal is to reach self-sufficiency in the field of energy, and not just replace one partner with another.