By Anietie Anii-Bassey
Iraq’s caretaker prime minister, Mohammed Shia al-Sudani, has withdrawn from contention to lead the country’s next government, clearing the way for his rival and former prime minister Nouri al-Maliki, according to two Iraqi officials familiar with the negotiations.
The move reshapes an already complex post-election landscape following November’s parliamentary vote and underscores the decisive influence of powerful Shiite political blocs in Baghdad.
The officials, one a senior figure within al-Sudani’s Reconstruction and Development Coalition and the other a government official, spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment publicly. Al-Sudani’s office did not respond to requests for confirmation or comment.
Al-Sudani’s coalition emerged from the elections with the largest number of seats, winning 46 in the 329-member parliament, compared with 30 seats secured by the State of Law coalition led by al-Maliki. Despite this numerical advantage, both men sought endorsement from the Coordination Framework, a powerful alliance of mostly Iran-aligned Shiite parties that played a decisive role in bringing al-Sudani to power in 2022.
According to the officials, the Coordination Framework was unable to reach a consensus between the two leading contenders and ultimately left the decision to the candidates themselves. Subsequent talks between al-Sudani and al-Maliki resulted in an agreement under which al-Sudani would step aside in favor of the former prime minister, effectively consolidating support behind al-Maliki’s bid to return to office.
The decision comes at a sensitive moment for Iraq, which is grappling with deep-seated political divisions, economic strain and unresolved questions about state authority and armed groups. The formation of the next government is expected to be contentious, with negotiations likely to test the fragile balance among rival factions and external influences.
Among the most divisive issues confronting the incoming leadership is the future of Iraq’s armed groups, particularly the Popular Mobilization Forces. The umbrella organization of mostly Shiite militias was formed more than a decade ago to combat the Islamic State group during its rapid expansion across large parts of Iraq.
Although the PMF was formally placed under the authority of the Iraqi armed forces in 2016, many of its factions continue to operate with considerable independence and wield significant political and military power.
The United States has intensified pressure on Baghdad to rein in and disarm Iran-backed armed groups, arguing that their continued autonomy undermines Iraqi sovereignty and regional stability. Iraqi officials, however, face a delicate challenge, as many of these factions are deeply embedded in the political system and command loyal constituencies.
As political leaders negotiate the contours of the next government, Iraq’s judiciary has stepped more forcefully into the national debate over weapons held outside state control.
Earlier this month, Faiq Zidan, head of the Supreme Judicial Council, delivered a speech asserting that there is no longer any justification for non-state weapons following the defeat of major terrorist threats. He emphasized that a functioning state requires respect for the law, unified decision-making and the exclusive monopoly of force by state institutions.
Zidan’s remarks were welcomed by some political actors as a rare and assertive push to strengthen state authority and restore the rule of law. Armed factions, however, reacted sharply.
The Iraqi Resistance Coordination group, which includes influential militias such as Kataib Hezbollah, Kataib Sayyid al-Shuhada and Asaib Ahl al-Haq, rejected any discussion of disarmament, describing their weapons as essential for defending the country and its religious sites.
The group also insisted that any dialogue on the issue could only take place after what it called the achievement of full sovereignty, denouncing what it views as foreign interference.
A judicial official, also speaking anonymously, said Zidan’s comments amounted to a comprehensive legal roadmap for addressing the issue of non-state arms. He added that resistance from certain factions would not deter the judiciary from supporting the next government through legal and judicial backing for a disarmament process.
In recent weeks, the judiciary has also taken a firmer stance on enforcing constitutional timelines related to government formation, including deadlines for electing a speaker of parliament and a president. The assertiveness reflects growing concern over prolonged political deadlock and its impact on governance.
Political analyst Ihsan al-Shammari, a professor at the University of Baghdad, said the judiciary’s actions represent one of the strongest interventions by Iraq’s courts since 2003, when the current political system was established after the U.S.-led invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein.
As al-Maliki moves closer to reclaiming the premiership, the convergence of political maneuvering and judicial activism is shaping what could become a defining chapter in Iraq’s post-election transition.
Original article
Comments