Seyed Reza Ghazvini Gharabi, in an interview with the website of the Strategic Council on Foreign Relations, said: “This decision by Washington marks a turning point in Iraq’s security and political equations; an action that could have complex and multi-layered consequences for the future of this country and its relations with foreign powers.” He believes: “This decision by Washington, more than being a response to security threats, finds meaning in the context of maximum pressure on the Axis of Resistance and will seriously affect Iraq’s internal stability capacities.”

According to the West Asia affairs analyst, “Groups such as the Harakat al-Nujaba, Kata’ib Sayyid al-Shuhada, Harakat Ansar Allah al-Awfiya, and Kata’ib Imam Ali are an inseparable part of the official structure of the PMF; an institution recognized by Iraqi law as part of the armed forces and which played an important role in defeating ISIS. Placing them on the terrorist list not only targets the legal legitimacy of the PMF but will also place the central government’s interaction with these forces in a difficult position.” Ghazvini Gharabi says: “This decision could pave the way for new internal tensions in Iraq, because an important part of the Shiite social base supports these groups, and such pressure from America may drive them to take retaliatory actions against Washington’s interests.”

From this analyst’s perspective, “Mohammed Shia’ al-Sudani, the Prime Minister of Iraq, will face more contradictory pressures than ever before. On one hand, America expects Baghdad to restrain or even dissolve these groups, and on the other hand, ignoring this demand could subject Iraq to the threat of new economic sanctions and political pressures.” Ghazvini Gharabi believes that “such an atmosphere could undermine public trust in the government and even pave the way for the return of ISIS or extremist groups; an issue that further endangers Iraq’s national security.”

This Iraq affairs expert referred to the agreement for the complete withdrawal of US forces from Iraq and emphasized that “this new decision by Washington could delay the implementation process of the agreement. An agreement that was supposed to end the combat mission of US forces and limit their presence to advisory roles now faces the argument that groups close to Iran pose a continuous threat to US interests. Accordingly, this military presence must continue.” According to Ghazvini Gharabi, “In practice, this decision could provide a legal and political pretext for maintaining bases such as Ain al-Asad and pressure the Iraqi government to implement serious changes in the structure of the PMF; changes whose implementation will face internal resistance and opposition from Shiite groups.”

In another part of his analysis, this expert emphasized that “the Zionist regime will likely be one of the main actors benefiting from this US decision.” Referring to the Israeli regime’s drone attacks on the positions of the Resistance groups in Iraq over the past years, he stated: “In practice, this decision gives Tel Aviv more pretext to continue and even expand these attacks and increases the likelihood of more precise targeting of Resistance leaders or bases. Therefore, at a time when tensions between Iran and the Zionist regime are intensifying, such actions could also activate a cycle of direct conflicts on the borders of Iraq and Syria or even within Iraqi territory; a cycle whose consequences will extend beyond Iraq’s borders.”

Ghazvini Gharabi, regarding the impact of this decision on Iraq’s domestic sphere, stated: “The Iraqi government and parliament have multiple political and legal tools at their disposal to respond.” He referred to “the experience of passing the Iraqi parliament’s resolution after the martyrdom of Soleimani” and believes that “now, efforts may also be made to compel the government to expedite the withdrawal of US forces.” However, he adds that “Iraq’s economic and security dependence on the West will prevent immediate decisions.” According to this West Asia affairs analyst, “Although some polls show that the majority of the Iraqi people oppose the US military presence, economic and political realities will push Baghdad towards cautious crisis management.”

Ghazvini Gharabi, summarizing his analysis, said: “The recent decision by Washington is part of a broader process that the US and the Zionist regime are pursuing in West Asia; a process justified by the slogan of fighting terrorism, but in practice, it changes the balance of power in favor of specific axes and increases the risk of long-term instability.” He believes that Iraq is at a sensitive point; a point where any miscalculation could return the country to the arena of bloody conflicts and threaten the fragile political processes of the post-ISIS era.