Iran–US talks and future of Iraqi armed factions: Sovereignty vs. Resistance

Shafaq News/ As indirect talks between the United States and Iran unfold across European capitals, a recurring theme resurfaces in Washington’s vision for the Middle East: stability, sovereignty, and the monopolization of force by recognized states.

American officials—under the administration of President Donald Trump—have consistently emphasized their objective to foster peace and security in the region. Central to that vision is dismantling armed non-state actors, particularly in Iraq and Lebanon, where paramilitary groups continue to operate with significant influence.

This issue appears to be one of the core agenda items in the ongoing Iran–US dialogue. Following the conclusion of a second round of talks in Rome on Saturday, Iranian state media described the negotiations as "constructive."

These discussions began on April 12 in Oman and are reportedly led by Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and US Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff. A third round is scheduled for the coming weekend, with speculation mounting that Iraqi factions—especially those aligned with Iran—are a major point of contention.

Trump Doctrine: One Force, One State

According to Lebanese strategic analyst and retired Brigadier General Saeed al-Qazah, the Trump administration's Middle East roadmap revolves around a core principle: sovereign states must monopolize the use of violence.

“There can be no lasting peace or stability in the Middle East without the disarmament of militias and their absorption into the structures of legitimate state institutions,” Al-Qazah told Shafaq News, adding that neutralizing all armed factions outside the state’s framework is essential. “Whether they claim resistance or defense, such groups must be dissolved or placed under state command under national laws and political decisions.”

In this context, Iraq is undergoing what al-Qazah described as a “steady transition” toward centralized authority over the use of force. “The Iraqi state is moving toward ensuring that all armed groups operate under the umbrella of the state, through organized frameworks that align with the country’s sovereignty,” he said.

Legitimacy vs. Autonomy: Fate of PMF

While Baghdad has made some efforts to regulate the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), a broader constellation of armed forces with varying loyalties and objectives continues to complicate the picture. Member of Iraq’s parliamentary Security and Defense Committee, Mohammed al-Shammari, told Shafaq News that “the PMF, while a legally recognized entity under the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, still includes factions that operate autonomously with ideological motives, independent of the state.”

This autonomy, he explained, remains a key concern for the US. “Washington wants to see these factions disbanded, seeing them as external to the state and often hostile to US interests. The US is willing to pursue their dismantling by any means—political or otherwise,” al-Shammari stated.

Still, he acknowledged a reality many in the region understand well: “Tehran is a strategic actor that makes calculated decisions in line with its interests, and it will act in ways that serve its broader vision, including its regional alliances.”

Tehran’s Response: Resistance is a Red Line

From Tehran, however, the message is markedly different. Mehdi Azizi, director of the New Vision Center for Studies and Media in the Iranian capital, pushed back against suggestions that Iran would abandon its regional allies in the name of diplomacy. “Iran doesn’t need proxies or proxy wars,” he said. “The Islamic Resistance in Iraq is an independent force that defends Iraqi sovereignty against US arrogance and Israeli threats.”

In his interview with Shafaq News, Azizi insisted that “the resistance in Iraq is a domestic issue and unrelated to Iran–US negotiations,” describing as “misleading” the idea that these discussions are a pretext for dismantling regional armed movements.

“There are political and media efforts to insert the issue of armed factions into the Rome talks, but Iran will not negotiate away its principles or its support for the Axis of Resistance in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, and Yemen,” he asserted.

Azizi’s remarks reflect a broader Iranian stance: while Iran may engage in diplomacy, it remains committed to the strategic alliances that define its regional influence.

US Strategy and Path Forward

Still, for the United States—and its regional allies, notably Israel—the existence of these factions remains a point of tension. Dr. Aqil Abbas, an expert on American foreign policy, believes that the future of Iraq’s armed groups is ultimately tied to the outcome of US-Iran negotiations, whether they end in confrontation or compromise.

“Washington and Tel Aviv both support dismantling the factions and the PMF, which they see as an integral part of the Resistance Axis,” Abbas explained. But dismantling is more complex than it sounds.

Abbas outlined two possible scenarios: integrating the groups into the Iraqi Army either as individual fighters or as intact units. But both paths have complications. “If they’re integrated as factions, their internal command structures may remain intact, and the integration won’t be effective. The US won’t accept this,” he said.

“And if they’re merged as individuals, the question becomes how such integration would be monitored and enforced. There’s a lack of clarity on execution,” Abbas added.

“Regardless, these factions will not maintain the same power they once had, not just because of US pressure but due to internal Iraqi shifts as well.”

A Precarious Balance

Ultimately, the fate of Iraq’s armed factions sits at the intersection of geopolitical strategy and domestic politics. While the US continues to push for the demilitarization of non-state actors, Iran defends what it views as legitimate resistance groups. Iraq, meanwhile, finds itself in the middle—striving to assert sovereignty without plunging into internal conflict.

With another round of talks on the horizon and rising regional tensions, the coming weeks may offer greater clarity—or further uncertainty.