As its regional proxy network weakens, Tehran uses backchannel diplomacy and covert coercion to maintain dominance over Iraq’s militias.
In the shadow of the recent Israel-Iran conflict and growing regional instability, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps–Quds Force (IRGC-QF) Commander Esmail Ghaani has intensified his efforts to shore up Iran regime’s influence in Iraq. According to regional sources, Ghaani held a series of meetings with Iranian-backed Iraqi Shia factions in recent weeks aimed at tightening control, enforcing discipline, and preempting escalatory retaliation from the militias under Tehran’s umbrella.
Ghaani reportedly met with four top leaders of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) in Baghdad on July 27, instructing them to exercise self-restraint despite ongoing tensions. The PMF, while formally integrated into Iraq’s state security apparatus, includes numerous factions that operate as Iranian regime proxies, reporting directly to Tehran rather than Baghdad.
While Iranian-backed militias in Iraq carried out dozens of attacks on U.S., Israeli, and other foreign targets during and after the 12-day Israel-Iran war in June, none of the operations were publicly claimed. This lack of attribution may reflect internal confusion, strategic ambiguity, or attempts to shield Iran’s regime from direct retaliation—suggesting that not all attacks were explicitly sanctioned by Iranian regime authorities.
Between June 12 and 24 alone, these Iraqi militias reportedly launched approximately 40 drone attacks on Israel. Yet the silence following these operations indicates a broader pattern of proxy warfare without accountability, where militias operate in legal and political grey zones.
Behind Ghaani’s diplomatic push lies a deeper concern: Tehran’s regional strategy is under stress. After nearly three years of intensifying conflict with Israel, Iran’s regime and its so-called “Axis of Resistance”—a network of militant groups across the region—have suffered serious setbacks, both militarily and politically. Although Iranian regime proxies in Iraq have avoided large-scale military defeat, their willingness to escalate further against Israel or the U.S. appears diminished—perhaps due to pressure from within Iraq or the risk of international blowback.
Crucially, Ghaani appears concerned about potential vulnerabilities that could erode Iran regime’s hold over Iraq. According to Iraqi political sources, he warned militia leaders on July 15 of “impending Israeli attacks” on their facilities and urged them to remain cautious. In the broader context, such strikes could fuel resentment within Iraqi society and embolden nationalist or anti-Iranian factions who view Tehran’s involvement in Iraqi affairs as foreign interference.
This is not the first time Ghaani has intervened during moments of heightened tension. Like his predecessor Qassem Soleimani, Ghaani regularly conducts quiet crisis diplomacy with proxy groups to prevent uncontrolled escalation that could jeopardize Iran regime’s broader regional goals. But this balancing act—enforcing loyalty while avoiding provocation—has grown more difficult in a fragmented and hostile environment.
In parallel, Ghaani reportedly pressed Iraqi federal officials to address unspecified “internal issues”, which could refer to the growing rift between pro-Iranian elements and segments of the Iraqi political class increasingly critical of foreign entanglements. Iran regime’s long-standing effort to embed itself within Iraqi institutions faces new resistance from both civil society and nationalist political currents.
Iran regime’s influence in Iraq is entering a more precarious phase. As its regional proxies become overstretched and less reliable, Tehran is resorting to backroom pressure, covert warnings, and strategic messaging to hold together its “Axis of Resistance.” But with rising tensions, growing anti-Iranian sentiment in Iraq, and potential Israeli or U.S. retaliations looming, the limits of Tehran’s proxy strategy may be approaching.
Ghaani’s quiet visit to Baghdad was not merely a show of support—it was a signal of the regime’s anxiety, fragility, and desperate effort to preserve leverage in a volatile regional landscape increasingly slipping from its control.
