Skip to main content

Iraq’s prime minister steps aside for rival in post-election wrangling over government

BAGHDAD (AP) — Iraq’s caretaker Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani, whose bloc won the largest share of seats in November’s parliamentary elections, has stepped aside to clear the field for a rival, former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, two Iraqi officials said Tuesday.

The officials — a senior leader in al-Sudani’s Reconstruction and Development Coalition and a government official — spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the matter. Al-Sudani’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

Al-Sudani’s Reconstruction and Development Coalition won 46 seats in the 329-seat parliament, while the coalition led by al-Maliki won 30 seats. Both men had sought the backing of the Coordination Framework, a coalition of Iran-backed Shiite parties that brought al-Sudani to power in 2022.

The two Iraqi officials said the Coordination Framework was unable to choose between the top contenders and left it to the candidates themselves to decide. A meeting between al-Sudani and al-Maliki agreed that al-Sudani would step aside in favor of al-Maliki, they said.

The incoming government will face major economic and political challenges. The most contentious is the future of the country’s armed groups, particularly the Popular Mobilization Forces, a coalition of mostly Shiite militias that formed to fight the Islamic State group as it rampaged across Iraq more than a decade ago.

It was formally placed under the control of the Iraqi military in 2016, but in practice still operates with significant autonomy. The U.S. has been pushing for Iraq to disarm Iran-backed groups — a difficult proposition, given the political power that many of them hold.

Judiciary joins the debate over weapons

As politicians wrangle over government formation, Iraq’s judiciary has waded into the debate on the issue of non-state weapons.

In a speech earlier this month, Judge Faiq Zidan, head of Iraq’s Supreme Judicial Council, said there were no longer a need for weapons outside the Iraqi state following the defeat of terrorism. He said that a functioning state depends on respect for the law, unified decision-making and “exclusive state control of weapons.”

Some political forces welcomed Zidan’s statement as a step toward strengthening state institutions and consolidating government authority, but armed groups pushed back against it.

The Iraqi Resistance Coordination group, which includes powerful armed factions such as Kataib Hezbollah, Kataib Sayyid al-Shuhada and Asaib Ahl al-Haq, issued a statement rejecting any discussion about their weapons.

The group described its arms as “a guarantee to defend the country and its sacred sites” and highlighted its role in combating IS. It added that any dialogue on the issue, including with the government, must take place “after full sovereignty is achieved,” rejecting what it called foreign interference.

A judicial official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to journalists said that Zidan “has laid out a comprehensive legal framework for the disarmament process.”

“The refusal by some factions to disarm will not prevent the judiciary from supporting the incoming Iraqi government by providing legal cover and judicial backing for the disarmament process,” he said.

The judiciary has also taken a stronger stance in the post-election period on enforcing constitutional deadlines for government formation, including naming the speaker of parliament and the president.

Analyst Ihsan Al-Shammari, professor at the University of Baghdad, said this represents one of the most assertive judicial interventions in Iraq since 2003, when the current political system was established following the U.S.-led invasion that unseated Saddam Hussein.

How advanced is Iran’s nuclear program? Here’s what we know.

▶ Watch Video: Trump says strikes on Iran will continue "as long as necessary" Washington — President Trump ordered military strikes on Iran early Saturday, Feb. 28, after pressing the country to curtail its nuclear program, grappling with an issue that has vexed presidents from both parties for decades. Iran — which denies having any nuclear weapons ambitions — has amassed a stockpile of uranium that is enriched to near the level of purity necessary to build a bomb. Mr. Trump ordered strikes on a trio of key Iranian nuclear sites last June, causing extensive damage and leaving the status of the stockpile unclear. Now, less than a year later, the president is carrying out a much larger military campaign."We will ensure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon," Mr. Trump said in a video announcing what he called a "massive and ongoing operation." He said he had "sought repeatedly to make a deal," but Iranian officials "rejected every opportunity to renounce their nuclear ambitions, and we can't take it anymore."The United States and Iran had engaged in several rounds of indirect negotiations in recent weeks, as a fleet of U.S. naval vessels and military aircraft arrived in the Middle East to ratchet up the pressure. Here are some details on Iran's nuclear program: How close is Iran to making a nuclear weapon, and is it building one right now?In recent years, Iran has rapidly increased its stockpile of highly enriched uranium. As of mid-June 2025, shortly before the U.S.'s strikes that month, Iran had enriched some 972 pounds of uranium up to 60% purity, according to estimates from the International Atomic Energy Agency. By comparison, Iran had 605.8 pounds of 60%-enriched uranium in February 2025, and 267.9 pounds a year before that, the IAEA has said. According to the U.N. watchdog's metrics, about 92.5 pounds of 60%-enriched uranium is enough to build a single nuclear weapon if enriched further.That material is just a short step away from weapons-grade 90%-enriched uranium. The U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency estimated last May that it would take Iran "probably less than one week" to produce enough weapons-grade uranium to make its first bomb, if it decided to do so. Actually building a bomb could take somewhat longer: Another intelligence summary from last year found that Iran could make a nuclear device within three to eight months unless it faced technical or logistical delays, CBS News has previously reported.What's not clear, however, is whether Iran has made the decision to build a nuclear weapon. Iran is believed to have halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003, and the U.S. intelligence community assessed last spring that the program hadn't restarted."Iran almost certainly is not producing nuclear weapons, but Iran has undertaken activities in recent years that better position it to produce them, if it chooses to do so," the DIA said in May.Asked on Feb. 18 whether the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency had seen any indication that Iran might currently be working to develop a nuclear weapon, the agency's director-general Rafael Grossi told a French television network it had not. "No," he told TF1, adding: "On the contrary, I see, today, a willingness on both sides to reach an agreement," referring to the U.S. and Iran.Iran, for its part, has long insisted that its nuclear program is entirely peaceful, and that it does not intend to develop a nuclear weapon.Iran's stockpile includes uranium enriched far beyond the level needed for most non-military uses like nuclear power or medical applications. The IAEA said in May that Iran is now "the only non-nuclear-weapon State to produce such nuclear material."What impact did the last U.S. strikes on Iran have?Last June's airstrikes targeted Iran's Fordo and Natanz enrichment facilities and a research site near the city of Isfahan. It's not clear how much the strikes damaged Iran's nuclear program. Mr. Trump has long said the strikes "obliterated" the three nuclear sites, setting back the program by "basically decades." The IAEA's Grossi told CBS News in June that the strikes caused "severe damage" but not "total damage." In his interview with the French network in February, Grossi said Iran's nuclear material was "still there, in large quantities," despite the U.S. strikes, though "some of it may be less accessible." Iran also is not currently enriching uranium, Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters on Feb. 25, though he alleged that "they're trying to get to the point where they ultimately can." Satellite images from late January show roofs built over damaged buildings at the Natanz and Isfahan sites, potentially indicating efforts by Iran to salvage any remaining materials. A confidential report issued by the IAEA assessed that Iran is conducting unexplained activity at nuclear sites that were bombed by the U.S., CBS News has confirmed.The IAEA says it withdrew its inspectors from Iran for safety reasons shortly after the June strikes, and Iran moved to suspend cooperation with the agency the following month. The agency said in November that it had been able to conduct some inspections in the months following the attacks, but not at any of the sites that were struck by U.S. forces.Iran downplayed the strikes, arguing they didn't eliminate its technological capabilities."Yes, you destroyed the facilities, the machines," Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told Fox News in January. "But the technology cannot be bombed, and the determination also cannot be bombed."What's the history of Iran's nuclear program?Iran's nuclear program dates back decades, with some early research activity taking place under the U.S.-allied government that controlled the country before the 1979 Islamic Revolution. By the mid-1980s, Iran started developing — or acquiring on the black market — the technology required to build centrifuges that can enrich uranium, according to the IAEA.The country's ambitions drew intense international pressure starting in 2002, when an anti-regime group alleged that Iran had secretly built a pair of nuclear facilities. Former President George W. Bush's administration later alleged that Iran was working to develop missiles capable of carrying nuclear weapons. The IAEA has said that until 2003, Iran had a "structured program" to carry out "activities that are relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device." The agency added that some of those activities have military and non-military uses, but some "are specific to nuclear weapons."While the U.S. intelligence assessment was that Iran stopped trying to develop nuclear weapons in 2003, the country resumed enriching uranium at various points after that. As a result, it had faced years of increasingly tight sanctions. In 2015, then-President Barack Obama's administration struck a deal with Iran and other global powers to limit the country's uranium stockpiles and enrichment capacity for a set period of time, and to submit Iran's nuclear program to IAEA monitoring, in exchange for sanctions relief. The agreement was known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA.Three years later, Mr. Trump withdrew the U.S. unilaterally from that deal, which he argued was insufficient. He imposed a new round of harsh sanctions, dubbing it a "maximum pressure" campaign to force Iran to negotiate a new agreement. Efforts by the Biden administration and European parties to the JCPOA to revive the deal were unsuccessful.Since then, Iran has stopped abiding by the terms of that agreement, dramatically ramping up its uranium enrichment program, including by enriching uranium to 60% purity for the first time.At times, Mr. Trump has pushed Iran to give up uranium enrichment altogether, rather than just sticking to lower levels of enrichment in order to support a civil nuclear program. "They want to enrich a little bit. You don't have to enrich when you have that much oil," the president said on Feb. 27. "I say, no enrichment." Araghchi has ruled out that idea, describing the enrichment program as a "matter of dignity and pride.""We have every right to enjoy a peaceful nuclear energy, including enrichment," he told CBS News in a Feb. 22 interview. "As a sovereign country, we have every right to decide for ourselves, by ourselves. We have developed this technology by ourselves, by our scientists, and it's very dear to us, because we have paid a lot."
Read Next Story