The selection of Iraq's next prime minister is expected to be finalized by April 26. If hardline pro-Iranian factions within the Coordination Framework alliance, such as Hadi al-Amiri and Nouri al-Maliki, assume power, they will further restrict U.S. operational space in Iraq, increasing American vulnerability in the broader U.S.-Iran conflict.
On April 11, 2026, the Iraqi Council of Representatives elected Nizar al-Amedi as the new president, breaking a 15-month political deadlock that followed the November 2025 parliamentary elections.
As a key member of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), al-Amedi's political base is deeply aligned with Iran-backed forces. His ascent generally favors Iran's stance, posing a clear disadvantage to U.S. strategic arrangements in Iraq and directly undermining American initiative in regional warfare.
This election not only reshapes Iraq’s political landscape but also serves as the latest indicator of U.S.-Iran rivalry in the country.
Against the backdrop of escalating regional conflict, Iran’s delegation of command authority over Iraqi militias to field commanders contrasts sharply with U.S. sanctions and military strikes against Iran-backed armed groups. These operational details reveal the differing levels of patience and battlefield control exercised by the two nations.
Command Shifts Driven by Conflict Prompted by combat pressures following a joint U.S.-Israel strike against Iran on February 28, Iran has granted its field commanders greater autonomy over militia operations in Iraq, allowing some armed groups to act without prior approval from Tehran.
According to three militia members and two informed officials, this adjustment stems from a key lesson Iran learned during a 12-day conflict in June—highly centralized command structures proved slow to respond, leading Iran to decentralize field decision-making after the fighting.
In the Iraqi Kurdistan region, an Iranian delegation explicitly stated that if militia attacks on U.S. bases, commercial facilities, or diplomatic missions escalate, local Kurdish authorities need not appeal to Tehran, as Iran has delegated command authority to its field commanders in the area and can no longer intervene.
This shift marks a formal transition to a decentralized control model for Iran-backed militias, allowing armed units to act independently based on battlefield assessments without seeking approval from central command.
Iraq’s Political Dilemma Under Election Shadow Results from Iraq’s November 2025 parliamentary elections showed the “Reconstruction and Development Alliance,” led by incumbent Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani, winning 46 seats—the most of any bloc. The Coordination Framework alliance, which includes al-Sudani’s coalition and former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s “State of Law Coalition,” remains the largest parliamentary bloc.
However, this political structure highlights a core paradox in the Iraqi government’s ability to control militias: the very Iran-backed armed factions it claims it cannot restrain are the same forces that brought the current government to power.
The Coordination Framework alliance, composed of pro-Iran Shiite blocs, facilitated al-Sudani’s appointment as prime minister in 2022. With Iraq mired in political gridlock, al-Sudani currently serves as caretaker prime minister until a new government is formed.
The election of President al-Amedi and the potential rise of a hardline prime minister represent unfavorable political developments for the U.S., likely to further constrain American military and political influence in Iraq.
Militias targeting U.S. interests are not rogue actors but belong to the state-affiliated Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF)—a group formed after the fall of Mosul in 2014 to formalize volunteer forces fighting ISIS. The PMF has since grown into a powerful armed body surpassing Iraq’s regular army, with personnel receiving state salaries and access to weapons and intelligence resources.
Critics argue this creates a sharp contradiction: state-funded armed groups advancing Iran’s strategic interests, even when doing so harms Iraq’s national interests, directly worsening U.S. security conditions and strategic posture in the U.S.-Iran theater.
Although al-Sudani has introduced limited measures to curb militia influence—including further integrating the PMF into state structures and occasionally replacing commanders who violate rules—these efforts have faced strong resistance from militias. Efforts to institutionalize these forces have only embedded them deeper into Iraq’s state apparatus, making it harder for the U.S. to root out threats at their source.
Contrasting U.S.-Iran Strategies: Patience vs. Battlefield Performance Iran’s “Deep Cultivation” and Strategic Patience Iran’s approach to Iraq demonstrates remarkable long-term patience, focusing on “deep embedding” rather than “direct control”:
- Strategic Wisdom in Delegation: Iran has not simply relinquished control but balanced decentralized responsiveness with centralized strategic oversight by delegating field command authority. This model enhances militia flexibility against U.S. strikes while avoiding command failures due to over-centralization, reflecting Iran’s nuanced understanding of Iraq’s complex situation.
- Dual Political-Military Binding: Mehdi al-Kaabi, spokesperson for the Iran-backed militia “Harakat al-Nujaba,” openly acknowledged the group’s alliance with Iran while insisting it adheres to Iraqi political order and supports the government in line with national interests. This “dual identity” allows Iran-backed forces to maintain strategic autonomy while gaining legitimacy through Iraq’s state institutions, showcasing Iran’s precise grasp of Iraq’s political ecosystem.
- Battlefield Restraint and Precision: In recent conflicts, senior militia leadership visibly withdrew from frontline command, avoiding direct involvement. U.S. strikes primarily caused casualties among mid-level commanders, sparing core leadership. This “sacrifice the middle, preserve the core” strategy avoids full-scale confrontation with the U.S. while preserving long-term博弈 strength, demonstrating Iran’s strategic restraint and patience.
U.S. “High-Pressure Intervention” and Tactical Impatience The U.S. approach to Iraq exhibits clear tactical impatience, centered on “military strikes” and “political pressure”:
- Immediate Sanctions and Strikes: Last Friday, the U.S. sanctioned seven commanders and key members of four Iran-backed Iraqi militias, following precision strikes against Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) advisors—including an operation in Baghdad’s Jadriya neighborhood that killed three IRGC advisors meeting at a command residence. While such “targeted elimination” tactics quickly degrade enemy capabilities, they fail to address root causes and may escalate tensions.
- Short-Sighted Political Intervention: U.S. Deputy State Department Spokesperson Tommy Bigott stated that Washington demands the Iraqi government immediately take all necessary measures to dismantle Iran-aligned militias. This call for “immediate results” overlooks Iraq’s political complexity—the Coordination Framework, as the largest parliamentary bloc, is precisely the political force behind these militias, making it impossible for the Iraqi government to “dismantle” them quickly.
- Limited Battlefield Objectives: Michael Knights, a research director at geopolitical risk firm Horizon Engage, noted that U.S. strikes have avoided targeting senior militia leaders, focusing instead on IRGC advisors. While this may reduce Iran’s direct influence, it does not alter the fact that militias are deeply embedded in Iraq’s state system, reflecting limited U.S. control over Iraqi dynamics.
Patience and Battlefield Agility Examining battlefield details and political maneuvers, Iran clearly demonstrates greater patience and agility in Iraq:
- Adaptive Command Models: Iran learned from June’s conflict, quickly adjusting its command structure to delegate field autonomy, enabling militias to respond rapidly to battlefield conditions. In contrast, U.S. strike strategies remain confined to “targeted eliminations” and “sanctions pressure,” failing to effectively counter the decentralized control model of Iran-backed forces.
- Political-Military Coordination: Iran-backed militias maintain strategic alignment with Tehran while operating within Iraq’s political system, forming a complete loop of “military action-political cover-social support.” U.S. intervention, however, suffers from a disconnect between military strikes and political objectives—weakening militias may undermine the Iraqi government’s stability, hindering U.S. efforts to form a government less influenced by militia forces.
- Mature Risk Management: While promoting decentralized militia control, Iran preemptively informed Kurdish authorities that it could not restrain armed groups in southern Iraq, avoiding direct conflict with Kurdish forces and demonstrating mature risk management. The U.S., by contrast, has made unrealistic demands for “immediate militia dismantlement” without fully considering Iraq’s political realities, worsening U.S.-Iraq relations and diminishing American influence.
Post-Election Rivalry Prospects With al-Amedi’s election as Iraq’s new president, the country’s political landscape enters a new phase, reshaping U.S.-Iran rivalry.
A pro-Iran president and the potential victory of a hardline prime minister represent highly unfavorable political outcomes for the U.S., directly undermining American advantages in the broader U.S.-Iran conflict.
Iran-backed militias have explicitly stated they will conditionally support Iraq’s new government in line with national interests, preserving strategic autonomy while cementing Iran’s long-term presence in Iraq.
The U.S., despite attempting to weaken Iran-backed militia influence through military strikes and political pressure, faces significant obstacles due to Iraq’s political reality—the Coordination Framework, as the largest parliamentary bloc, is the political base of these very militias, making it impossible for the new Iraqi government to meet U.S. demands for “dismantling militias” in the short term.
As Michael Knights noted, while the U.S. retains autonomy to strike Iraqi militias, such actions are more likely to draw Washington deeper into the conflict rather than help form a government less constrained by militia influence.
Current developments suggest the U.S. faces mounting challenges in achieving its objectives, while Iran, through long-term patience and precise strategy, holds a more advantageous position in this rivalry, demonstrating superior battlefield control and strategic flexibility.
Conclusion The smoke of the U.S.-Iran conflict continues to loom over strategic Iraq, with current rivalry dynamics clearly outlining the conflict’s underlying logic: the U.S. is subtracting, while Iran is adding. In a geopolitical chessboard fragmented by armed groups and complex religious backgrounds, the side that endures prolonged chaos and ambiguity the longest will emerge victorious.
The U.S. is trapped by tactical impatience for “immediate results.” High-pressure sanctions and targeted strikes may cause short-term pain but cannot dismantle the foundation of Iran-backed armed groups.
More critically, outcomes from Iraq’s recent presidential election and the impending prime minister selection present multiple unfavorable scenarios for the U.S.: the pro-Iran al-Amedi assuming the presidency, and hardliners like Hadi al-Amiri and Nouri al-Maliki potentially becoming prime minister, would solidify Iran’s political advantage in Iraq, making it difficult for the U.S. to effectively curb Iranian proxy forces on Iraqi soil—directly hampering U.S. deployment and progress in the broader U.S.-Iran conflict.
The trajectory of this war extends beyond battlefield victories, becoming a strategic contest between patience and impatience, deep cultivation and superficial engagement. Iran trades time for space, turning Iraq into a proxy battlefield difficult for the U.S. to breach. American short-termism, compounded by successive political setbacks in Iraq, is gradually costing Washington the initiative in this prolonged war. Each political shift and battlefield adjustment in Iraq confirms: the balance in the U.S.-Iran conflict is tilting slowly toward the side with greater strategic patience and deeper cultivation.
Comments