Ex-Ambassador: US Views Iraq Through Iran Lens, Warns of Sanctions Over PMF

ERBIL (Kurdistan24) — In a stark assessment of Washington's foreign policy, Iraq’s former Ambassador to the United Nations, Feisal al-Istrabadi, stated that the United States seems to view Iraq primarily through the prism of its broader strategy towards Iran—an approach he says has caused Iraq to suffer and is now pushing the country towards a critical juncture where it could face American sanctions.

Speaking exclusively to Kurdistan24 on Friday, the veteran diplomat and constitutional expert warned that the continued institutionalization of powerful militias outside of state control, coupled with persistent attacks on the Kurdistan Region, is testing American patience and could provoke severe consequences, including direct U.S. action against these groups. His comments come amid a flurry of high-level diplomatic activity, including a recent phone call between U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani, focused on escalating security and economic crises.

“Well, it is not clear to me that there is actually a US policy towards Iraq as such,” Ambassador Istrabadi began, laying out a framework that has defined Washington’s engagement for over a decade. “I think for a very long time, starting with Obama through Trump's first administration, then through the Biden administration, and now at the beginning of Trump's second administration, Iraq is seen as part of US-Iran policy. And I think that Iraq has suffered for this.”

According to Istrabadi, the overarching American objective is simple: stability through avoidance. “So in general, I would say the policy, to the extent one exists, that includes Iraq, it is a policy of no problems. The United States does not want to deal with problems in Iraq. I think that is the most you can say for what US policy towards Iraq is,” he explained. This policy is intrinsically linked to its goal to “isolate Iran from the rest of the states in the region,” making any development that strengthens Tehran’s hand in Baghdad a point of major concern for Washington.

The PMF Bill: A Red Line for Washington

Central to this concern is a controversial bill pending in the Iraqi Council of Representatives that would further institutionalize the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF). The recent phone call between Secretary Rubio and Prime Minister al-Sudani directly addressed this issue. A readout from the U.S. State Department noted that Rubio “reiterated serious U.S. concerns with the Popular Mobilization Commission (PMC) bill,” warning that “any such legislation would institutionalize Iranian influence and armed terrorist groups undermining Iraq’s sovereignty.”

Ambassador Istrabadi confirmed the gravity of the issue, stating, “The United States is very concerned. I think a lot of Iraqis are very concerned that the bill that is proposed in the Iraqi parliament would enshrine the [militias] as a sort of private army existing technically within, but also in fact outside the normal chain of command, the constitutional chain of command.” He argued that, in both American and many Iraqi eyes, such a move “would strengthen the hand of Iran.”

The potential fallout from passing this legislation, Istrabadi warned, could be dire. “It is also possible, I would not say it is outside the realm of possibility, that if Baghdad acts to institutionalize these militias further… Iraq could face American sanctions,” he stated bluntly.

This assessment is echoed by other experts. Iraqi military analyst Ayad al-Tufan told Kurdistan24 on Thursday that Washington sees the PMF as a direct challenge to its agreements with Baghdad. "The Americans consider the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) to be in direct conflict with the security agreement between Iraq and the US," al-Tufan said. "The Americans see the PMF as not taking orders from the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, but rather being directed by Iran."

Attacks on Kurdistan Region Test US Tolerance

The PMF issue is compounded by a recent wave of drone attacks targeting the energy infrastructure of the Kurdistan Region. Since early July, at least 19 attacks have been recorded, with nine striking oil fields operated by international companies.

Istrabadi argued that Washington’s tolerance for these destabilizing actions is wearing thin. “I think that if these organizations, which are, as you correctly say, illegal and outside the control of the government of Iraq, continue to act against the Kurdistan region, it may very well be that the United States, out of a loss of any other option, may well begin to target these groups,” he said.

He described the existence of such militias as fundamentally unacceptable. “It simply is not tolerable that a militia exists outside of the control of government authorities that has its own policies that, among other things, targets other Iraqis in the Kurdistan region of Iraq. That is not acceptable. It should not be tolerable or acceptable by any Iraqi in the first place, let alone by countries that have an interest in the region.”

The Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) has been vocal in its condemnation. Interior Minister Rebar Ahmed labeled the strikes "terrorist acts" and urged the federal government to take decisive action. Meanwhile, a high-level KRG delegation, led by Safeen Dizayee, head of the Department of Foreign Relations, was in Washington to press its case. “We discussed the relations between Erbil and Baghdad as well as the drone attacks on Erbil with officials from various US departments,” Dizayee told Kurdistan24, noting the attacks have significantly impacted oil production.

The U.S. State Department has publicly backed this position. Spokesperson Tammy Bruce recently stated, “These attacks threaten Iraq’s stability and economic future… The government of Iraq has a duty to protect its territory and all its citizens.”

Economic Levers and Diplomatic Pressure

In his analysis of the Rubio-Sudani call, Istrabadi identified economic imperatives as a key driver for the U.S. administration. He connected Washington’s demands to its energy policy, which favors the flow of hydrocarbons to keep global prices low. “The Trump administration wants oil to flow. It wants the price of oil down,” he said. “So in the first instance, it wants the oil to flow out of Iraq, whether from the Kurdistan region of Iraq, or from the federally controlled part of the country.”

This aligns with Secretary Rubio’s explicit demand for the resumption of oil exports through the Iraq-Türkiye Pipeline, which has been halted for over a year.

Furthermore, Istrabadi praised the U.S. for taking the position that Baghdad must fulfill its constitutional and moral obligations to pay the salaries of public sector employees in the Kurdistan Region. “I have always believed that Baghdad should not withhold the salaries within the Kurdistan region of Iraq,” he said. “Whatever the disputes between Baghdad and Erbil are, the ordinary worker… should not pay the price for those disputes.”

US-KRG and US-Iraq Relations

While acknowledging the strong ties between parts of the Kurdish leadership and Washington, Ambassador Istrabadi concluded with a significant word of caution for the Kurdistan Region’s leaders, advising against any strategy that seeks to leverage American support against the federal government in Baghdad.

“It is a very dangerous game, I think, for the Kurdistan region to try to play off America against Baghdad,” he warned, emphasizing a fundamental constitutional reality. “I will remind you, however, that constitutionally the foreign policy of the country is one of the federal government's exclusive powers.”

He stressed that the fates of Erbil and Baghdad are intertwined, and stability for one depends on the other operating within a shared constitutional framework. “A strong Baghdad means a strong Erbil within a constitutional setting,” he asserted.

Istrabadi also added nuance to the nature of U.S. relationships in Iraq, noting they are often party-specific rather than with monolithic entities. “It is more accurate to say that the KDP, the Kurdistan Democratic Party, has better relations with the U.S. than, say, the PUK, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan. And that is true in Baghdad as well.”

Ultimately, he pointed to a settled U.S. doctrine of respecting national sovereignty, citing the U.S. envoy to Syria who recently underscored that problems must be solved within the established post-World War I borders of states. This principle, Istrabadi suggested, remains the bedrock of U.S. policy, reinforcing his message that solutions for Iraq’s complex internal disputes must be found within its own constitutional and political system.