Iraq’s weapons dispute deepens as factions resist state control

BAGHDAD – Iraq’s armed factions will not hand over their weapons by the deadline set for the end of this month, an informed source said on Sunday, as a new proposal to regulate or freeze their arsenals rather than surrender them to the state emerges from efforts to resolve one of the most sensitive issues in Iraqi politics.

The source, who is close to the Shiite Coordination Framework, said the alternative was being considered after the factions rejected demands to hand over their weapons, but gave no details on how the proposed arrangement would work or which body would oversee its implementation.

The proposal comes amid intensive political and security efforts to contain the dispute. Government, military and security officials, alongside Coordination Framework leaders, representatives of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) and armed factions are expected to meet within the next two days to discuss how the weapons issue should be handled.

An informed source said the meeting should not be viewed as evidence that a final agreement has been reached, but rather as an attempt to reduce tensions and prevent the dispute from moving from negotiations to the streets as the deadline approaches.

The meeting is expected to examine mechanisms for bringing weapons under state control, although the exact form of any arrangement remains unclear.

The Coordination Framework has formed a three-member committee comprising former Prime Minister Mohammed Shiaa al-Sudani, State of Law Coalition leader Nouri al-Maliki and Badr Organization leader Hadi al-Amiri to contain the dispute over the state’s control of weapons.

The committee has held a series of contacts with the factions in recent days in an effort to find a formula that would prevent an internal confrontation.

But the nature of the proposals under discussion also highlights the continuing gap between the government’s demand to end any armed presence outside state institutions and the determination of several factions to retain their military capabilities.

Harakat al-Nujaba, Kataib Hezbollah and Kataib Sayyid al-Shuhada, among other armed groups, have rejected calls to give up their weapons on September 30 and have linked their position to the withdrawal of foreign forces from Iraq.

The deadline has added significance because it coincides with the end of the military presence of the international coalition against Islamic State, making the weapons issue directly linked to wider security and political arrangements beyond Iraq’s domestic politics.

Several armed groups have previously rejected demands to surrender their arsenals, saying they would not accept a timetable because their weapons were ideological in nature and not confined within national borders.

Ali al-Asadi, head of Harakat al-Nujaba’s Political Council, said the movement remained committed to its right to safeguard what he called the “sanctity” of the resistance’s weapons in the face of regional risks and threats.

In a post on X on Friday, Asadi said he had concluded a visit to leading figures in the Coordination Framework’s political process, during which he reaffirmed the movement’s position on the importance of “preserving the Popular Mobilization Forces as a national body that cannot be compromised.”

He also stressed the need to preserve the “resistance” and the “sanctity of its weapons” in light of what he described as the “real and serious risks and threats” facing Iraq and the wider region.

Asadi also reiterated Nujaba’s policy of not participating in the political process, saying: “This approach is what keeps us alongside our people, experiencing what they experience, carrying their concerns and working to fulfil their demands.”

“This responsibility will remain on our shoulders until comprehensive change is achieved, ensuring sovereignty, security and prosperity, freeing our economy from American domination and stabilizing the domestic situation,” he said.

The government, meanwhile, has stressed that state institutions must retain authority over military and security decisions.

Sabah al-Numan, spokesperson for the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, said: “no force in the world and no regional circumstances can break a state whose people, in all their components and communities, rally around its institutions.”

In a briefing, Numan warned of what he called “a flood of alarmism led by platforms financed with suspicious funds to peddle fear and exploit Iraqis’ emotions as the Sept. 30 deadline approaches.”

“The military and security establishment, which stood firm through the darkest and most difficult circumstances and sacrificed its most precious blood to protect this land, fully understands the scale of the challenges and is working around the clock in the field, away from the clamour of political posturing,” Numan said.

“The next phase requires wisdom, steadfastness and solidarity,” he added.

The government faces a difficult balance between meeting demands for greater state control and avoiding a confrontation with powerful armed groups.

The risk for Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi’s government is that regulating or freezing weapons could become a temporary mechanism for managing the dispute rather than resolving it, leaving multiple centres of military power in place and weakening Baghdad’s ability to provide clear guarantees that the state has a monopoly on armed force.

A failure to implement commitments on weapons could also strain relations between Baghdad and Washington, with the United States insisting that Iraq’s official institutions must be responsible for security and military decisions and that armed factions should not operate independently of the state.

Failure to resolve the issue could increase US pressure on the Iraqi government, particularly if Washington concludes that political understandings have failed to address the influence of armed factions or that proposed alternatives merely reorganise their weapons rather than placing them fully under state authority.

At the same time, al-Zaidi is aware that a direct confrontation with the militias could threaten domestic stability, helping explain the preference for negotiated and phased arrangements.

The dispute comes against the backdrop of a broader debate over what should happen to armed factions after the US withdrawal.

Military and strategic expert Mukhlad Hazem told Asharq Al-Awsat that political blocs often made statements to their supporters that did not necessarily reflect their positions in closed-door discussions.

“Everyone knows that their options are limited and that they could lose these gains, spoils, prestige and power at any moment,” Hazem said.

“Everyone agrees that the issue of bringing weapons under state control must be resolved because it is no longer a matter of domestic will alone, but also of external will. It is a trade-off between remaining in power and heading into the unknown,” he added.

Hazem said some politicians addressed their supporters merely to provide political cover while trying to appease the factions.

“The reality has been imposed not only on Iraq, but also on Syria, Lebanon and Yemen: No weapons can remain outside the authority of the state, and armed groups cannot be allowed to control decisions of war and peace,” he said.

“Everyone now has few options left in this regard. A decision on bringing weapons under state control has been made conclusively and finally.”

The State Administration Coalition, which includes major Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish political forces, has warned that any armed activity outside state authority after September 30 would be dealt with under the counter-terrorism law, underscoring the risks if negotiations fail to produce a final formula.