Armed groups resist disarmament
As the end-of-September deadline for Iraq to place all weapons under government control nears, many influential Shia paramilitary organizations continue to push back. Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi finds himself at the heart of a deepening political and security crisis. While some groups, such as Saraya al-Salam, Asaib Ahl al-Haq, and Kataib al-Imam Ali, have committed to merging with the state’s military forces, several others remain in open defiance. Kataib Hezbollah, one of the most powerful factions with strong ties to Iran, has explicitly rejected the government’s call to disarm. The group vows instead to keep what it terms 'resistance weapons' and continue building up its military strength.
Harakat al-Nujaba, a similarly prominent group, has countered the disarmament demand. They insist it should target illegal arms linked to lawlessness, not those in the possession of fighters. They argue that these fighters 'defended Iraq, its holy sites, and its people during the most difficult circumstances.' The campaign to consolidate weapons is largely fueled by growing pressure from the United States. This is amid tensions over the war on Iran, along with Iraq’s urgent need to stabilize its economy. The country also needs to draw foreign investment.
State survival in question
Critics argue that the continued refusal of these powerful groups to turn in their weapons seriously threatens the legitimacy and stability of the Iraqi state. Speaking in an interview with Al Jazeera, Talib Mohammed Karim, a professor of political thought at Mustansiriya University, warned that allowing armed factions to operate outside government control undermines the country’s constitutional foundations. He also expressed deep skepticism about the commitment of groups that have said they will lay down arms. He suggested that any disarmament process might be more symbolic or media-friendly than genuine.
Karim added that the presence of U.S. military personnel and ongoing regional threats complicates the situation further, as some groups use these as justification for retaining their weapons. However, political analyst Kadhim al-Hajj argued that such arguments have lost validity in the current geopolitical climate. Al-Hajj insisted that any disarmament steps must be viewed as a purely Iraqi effort, free from appearing as a demand from foreign powers. He stressed that the management of arms in Iraq is an internal matter and needs to be handled through a national framework.
Looming deadline and possible outcomes
With the September 30 cutoff date fast approaching, experts believe the government is out of time to maneuver effectively. Political analyst Omar al-Nasser described the standoff as a defining moment for Iraq’s future. He warned that the ruling alliance has little flexibility. Al-Nasser pointed out that failure to meet the disarmament requirements could result in international sanctions or restrictions on oil exports. These are vital to Iraq’s struggling economy. In light of the high stakes, al-Nasser suggested that the government might be forced to delay the deadline. This could be to avoid direct confrontation, potentially extending it to the end of December.
Looking ahead at how the crisis might resolve, Karim identified several possible scenarios. One is the immediate absorption of the armed groups into state institutions. Another, which he favored, is a slow, deliberate process that relies on 'calm dialogue outside the logic of victor and vanquished.' However, Karim also warned that the situation could escalate into a direct and open conflict if dialogue fails and tensions rise.