When Iraqi Prime Minister Ali Falah al-Zaidi arrived in Washington this week, the American message was ready before any meetings began. A senior U.S. State Department official told MBN that Washington would make “decisions based on real actions and concrete results, not on promises.” The core demands are to curb Iranian influence, halt attacks launched from Iraqi soil by Iran-backed militias, and deliver measurable results on disarmament.
Three tracks. One standard: actions, not words.
Track One: Disarming the Militias
In an exclusive interview with MBN on the sidelines of the visit, Sabah al-Numan, spokesman for the commander-in-chief of Iraq’s armed forces, said al-Zaidi gave President Trump “a clear vision and roadmap on weapons consolidation, with a final, irreversible timeline.” Al-Numan added: “This decision does not represent only the prime minister’s decision. It is a sovereign Iraqi decision derived from the constitutional legitimacy of this government and from popular acceptance. It is a popular demand before it is a political one.”
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth framed the same file in sharper terms after hosting al-Zaidi at the Pentagon. “To deepen our partnership, Iraq must assert its sovereignty and disarm the Iran-aligned militias responsible for 600-plus attacks on U.S. personnel this spring,” he said. He added, “A secure Iraq opens the door to strong commercial and defense cooperation.”
Iraqi government spokesman Haider al-Aboudi, in an exclusive interview with MBN, confirmed that the government has approached this file “with realism” since taking office on May 14. He said the decision “dismantled the substance of these files by returning to constitutional principles that prohibited the formation of groups or militias outside the framework of the armed forces.” Al-Aboudi said the file had moved “from the realm of slogans we heard in the past two decades to a reality that citizens are now experiencing.”
Asked directly whether the government is prepared to confront factions that refuse to surrender their weapons, al-Numan did not hesitate. “There are significant steps this government and the prime minister have taken in the area of weapons consolidation,” he said. “Today, he also gave a vision and roadmap on weapons consolidation with a final, irreversible timeline.” He was direct about what September 30 means: “This will eliminate any justifications for these factions to continue operating, because their role is a mission, not a profession. After that date, the law and the constitution will be the arbiters.”
Al-Aboudi reinforced that position, saying factions that have refused to integrate “are opinions and points of view; they do not rise to the level of a decision. The decision belongs to the Iraqi state and its institutions.” He added that some factions had already surrendered their weapons and were in the process of merging with state institutions, and that the government’s approach going forward would be grounded in constitutional authority rather than confrontation.
Trump gave his public endorsement to the Iraqi position in the Oval Office. “This man is going to be a great leader in the Middle East, beyond Iraq,” he said of al-Zaidi. “His influence is going to spread all throughout the Middle East. Mark my words, I knew what I was doing.”
Track Two: military Withdrawal and the Future of Counter ISIS
In the White House, Trump and al-Zaidi jointly confirmed that all remaining U.S. forces, believed to number fewer than 2,000 troops, will leave Iraq by September 30. Trump said, “We don’t think we need the military there anymore. We’re there to help them. We’re there to protect them if need be. But we don’t think that’s going to be necessary.” Al-Zaidi summarized the shift in one line: “U.S. forces will be out of Iraq. U.S. companies will be inside Iraq.”
But the Pentagon attached a condition to that withdrawal. Hegseth said Washington expects Iraqi Security Forces and the Kurdish Peshmerga to “lead in counter-ISIS efforts as the Operation Inherent Resolve military mission winds down.” After the coalition mission ends, the security architecture, he made clear, depends entirely on Iraq’s willingness to assert state control.
Al-Numan told MBN that Iraq came to Washington “fully confident in the security capabilities of our armed forces and their ability to maintain security.” He said Baghdad is pressing to activate the 2011 Strategic Framework Agreement, noting that “the security provisions have not been implemented to the satisfaction of the Iraqi side.” Iraq is requesting continued U.S. support in the form of arms, advisory assistance, and training.
Al-Numan also disclosed that Baghdad is developing security coordination with Syria, saying joint operations had “resulted in the arrest or killing of a number of terrorists and the foiling of drug smuggling attempts.” He added that Iraq is now eyeing a pipeline across Syrian territory as an alternative oil export route, given the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. “A large number of Iraqi tankers are already transiting Syria to reach export ports,” he said.
Track Three: oil and Economic Partnership as Leverage and Opportunity
Trump was direct about what he wants from the economic relationship. He told reporters at the White House: “Iraq has tremendous potential because of its oil. We’re going to be doing a lot of deals. We’re going to create a lot of jobs for both countries, and we’re going to be taking out a lot of oil.”
The economic offers on the table are substantial. Baghdad has approved preliminary agreements for a Basra Oil Company consortium deal with Chevron for a 2-million-barrel-per-day pipeline running from Basra to Haditha, then branching to Turkey’s Ceyhan port and Syria’s Baniyas port. A Halliburton integrated management contract for the Bin Omar and Sinbad oil fields targets 250,000 barrels per day. Iraq is also seeking an IMF loan of up to $8 billion.
The strategic objective behind these deals is clear: reduce Iraq’s dependence on the Strait of Hormuz for oil exports, which Baghdad now considers an existential necessity after the strait’s closure. Al-Numan noted that Iraqi tankers are already rerouting through Syria.
Al-Aboudi described the shift in the nature of the relationship plainly. The relationship, he said, is moving “to a new space: the space of economic partnership built on investment and development in the Iraqi environment, in a way that serves the interests of both countries.”
Trump’s decision earlier Monday to abandon his proposed 20% Hormuz toll in favor of trade and investment deals, after speaking directly with Gulf leaders, shapes Iraq’s export agenda and was part of the broader conversation with al-Zaidi this week.
The Question Everyone Avoided
Atlantic Council analyst Victoria Taylor noted that while al-Zaidi has been cast as the Trump of the Middle East” given his business background, “the reality is much more complicated.” She added that he came to power through Iraq’s existing political infrastructure and will be “beholden in some way to that system.” Al-Aboudi pushed back on that framing, telling MBN that domestic opposition voices “remain opinions and points of view, they do not rise to the level of a decision.”
The decision today is represented by the Iraqi state through its institutions, and in particular the Iraqi government and the prime minister as the executive authority directly responsible for the state’s general policy.”
Al-Zaidi answered the question in his own way. He will not choose a side, he said. He will choose Iraq. Washington heard that. And said it will judge by results, not by words.
The real test begins October 1.
