PMF legislation, Rising U.S. Concerns and Threat of Retaliatory Measures Sanctions or aid suspension are on the table if the legislation is enacted.
By Saadula Aqrawi
Yes, in a strategic realignment, the United States and Iraq have agreed to wind down the U.S.-led coalition mission against ISIS by September 2025, transitioning to a more limited bilateral advisory framework thereafter. As part of this drawdown, U.S. troops and coalition partners are set to vacate key bases across Baghdad and other provinces. Notably, Erbil in the Kurdistan Region will host a residual U.S. presence potentially extending into 2026, primarily to support operations against remaining ISIS elements.
I believe that this shift to Erbil underscores Erbil’s strategic utility and relative security compared to other regions. However, it also signals a retreat from a more widespread footprint, reflective of Iraq’s recalibrating internal politics and security dynamics. Simultaneously, Iraq’s Parliament has advanced a controversial PMF law sometimes cited as the “PMF Authority Law” along with associated legislation on service and retirement benefits. These measures aim to institutionalize the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), a coalition of mostly Iran-aligned Shiite militias, as a permanent, autonomous security institution with ministerial status and administrative independence . And of course the proponents argue the legislation formalizes and helps integrate the PMF within the state apparatus, offering structure, protection for fighters, and aligning command directly under the Prime Minister. Critics, including Kurdish and Sunni MPs, view it as empowering a parallel military structure loyal more to Tehran than Baghdad.
The U.S. has repeatedly issued strong warnings that passing this PMF legislation would institutionalize Iranian influence, weaken Iraq’s sovereignty, and elevate the U.S.-designated terrorist groups within state structures. Notably, Secretary of State Marco Rubio personally conveyed these concerns. He emphasized that the legislation could lead to severe consequences including economic sanctions, a halt in security assistance, and potentially reinsertion of Iraq onto the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism. Policy analysts reinforce these warnings, suggesting a strong U.S. response should the law pass, coordinated with regional partners, to counter the expanding influence of Iran-aligned militias.
I believe that the PMF law’s passage may deepen internal divisions, especially among Kurdish and Sunni blocs, and increase tensions with the U.S. This could have ramifications for security cooperation and international investment. The U.S. drawdown, particularly its relocation to Erbil, leaves a geopolitical vacuum which Iran-aligned forces may seek to fill. Responses such as U.S. base realignments or security partnerships may shift accordingly. Supporters view these laws as necessary for security reform, standardizing PMF operations under state control.
The U.S. might escalate military responses, possibly including targeted strikes against PMF elements, echoing historical precedents like the 2020 strike that killed PMF-affiliated leader Abu Mahdi al Mohandas a move viewed as aimed directly at deterring Iran’s influence. Re listing Iraq or parts of its security apparatus—as a state sponsor of terrorism could fundamentally alter diplomatic and security ties, likely bringing broader regional repercussions.