Shafaq News

Iraq’s post-election political landscape is being reshaped by a renewed push to restrict weapons to state control, as armed factions split over disarmament under mounting international and US pressure.

The political and security landscape is witnessing an unprecedented movement, accompanied by divergent positions among armed factions and within the Coordination Framework (CF), the umbrella grouping of ruling Shiite political forces.

The issue of limiting arms to the state has become a central file in negotiations to form the next government, amid international warnings and growing, direct US demands to end the role of weapons operating outside state authority.

Over the past hours, signs have emerged of shifts within some armed factions, while others have maintained firm opposition to disarmament, linking any such step to the achievement of what they describe as “full sovereignty” for Iraq.

The Iraqi Challenge

Political analyst Imad Al-Musafir, who is close to the Framework, said that some armed factions’ inclination toward restricting weapons to the state aligns with calls from the religious authority and the judiciary, both of which have welcomed such a move.

Al-Musafir told Shafaq News that political entities moving in this direction “believe they now represent the state following the recent election results, which produced a Shiite bloc of more than 90 lawmakers from Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF)-affiliated groups in parliament.” These forces, he said, see no issue with weapons remaining in the hands of a state they consider themselves to represent politically.

By contrast, Al-Musafir noted that the two main factions rejecting disarmament—Kataib Hezbollah and Harakat Al-Nujaba—tie their weapons to the realization of complete sovereignty over Iraqi land and airspace, as well as full political and economic independence. He added that the linkage of Iraqi funds to the US Federal Reserve is viewed by these groups as another form of sovereignty violation, making their weapons, from their perspective, connected to unresolved core issues.

Read more: Diverging views emergeon disarming Armed Factions in the Middle East

Diverging Faction Positions

Several armed factions have announced their approval of calls to restrict weapons to the state, including Kataib al-Imam Ali, Asaib Ahl al-Haq, Ansar Allah al-Awfiya, and Kataib Sayyid Al-Shuhada.

In contrast, Kataib Hezbollah has reiterated its rejection of disarmament, stating that sovereignty, security control, and preventing foreign interference are prerequisites for discussing weapons restrictions. Al-Nujaba Movement has also emphasized its “continued resistance to the US presence.”

Earlier, Supreme Judicial Council head Faiq Zaidan announced that armed factions had responded positively to the principle of limiting weapons to the state, at a time when the United States has intensified pressure on Baghdad to end the role of armed factions and prevent their participation in the new government, following their significant electoral gains.

Between Compliance and Escalation

Security and political expert Ali Al-Maamari said the incidents after October 7, 2023, in Gaza altered the balance of power in the Middle East, adding that “the dominance once enjoyed by the axis linked to armed factions is no longer the same.”

Speaking to Shafaq News, Al-Maamari said US pressure related to the formation of Iraq’s government has become directly tied to the issue of factions that do not operate under the authority of the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. He also noted that “Kataib Hezbollah and Harakat Al-Nujaba possess advanced military capabilities.”

According to Al-Maamari, all Shiite blocs within the CF appear ready to meet US demands, provided they are allowed to form the government in line with their political interests. What is currently unfolding, he said, involves efforts to persuade factions—through their political parties and fronts—to accept US requirements in exchange for securing the premiership and key sovereign ministries.

He pointed out that the United States has stated clearly that the three presidencies, sovereign ministries, and even the governor of the Central Bank would fall within its sphere of influence. These pressures, he said, “aim to force factions to disarm with the consent of Shiite blocs themselves, within the framework of a comprehensive settlement involving the United States, the factions, Iran, and the Iraqi government.”

A Dual Crisis

Security expert and strategic analyst Alaa Al-Nashou said the Iraqi government is currently unable to resolve the issue of armed factions without direct international intervention led by the United States and the Global Coalition.

Al-Nashou told Shafaq News that “this stems from the factions’ superiority over Iraq’s regular forces in terms of weaponry, influence, and control over political, economic, security, and intelligence institutions,” adding that the factions possess advanced cybersecurity systems and information networks not even available to the Ministries of Defense and Interior.

He further argued that political, security, and military decision-making is concentrated within Iran-aligned factions, “supported by advisers and experts from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Quds Force, under the direct supervision of the office of Iran’s Supreme Leader.”

According to Al-Nashou, the next government—still in the process of formation—is facing simultaneous US and Iranian pressure, preventing it from taking an independent national decision, while political parties seek to remain in power at any cost by aligning with the strongest side.

“Factions now recognize they are facing US, Israeli, and Western pressure that can no longer be confronted as before, amid a new Middle East project taking shape,” he concluded.

Read more: “A Much DifferentPlace”: Trump’s tone reshapes Iraq’s political calculus

Divergent Paths Among Factions

Iraqi politician based in Washington, Nizar Haidar, divided armed factions into two categories. The first includes factions that have integrated into the political and electoral process over multiple stages, most recently the latest parliamentary elections, and have previously participated in governments with one or more ministers.

“These factions are seeking to transition from armed groups outside state authority into components of state institutions, which explains their current support for restricting weapons to the state to gain international and regional acceptance, particularly from the United States.”

The second category, Haidar explained, consists of factions that do not yet see themselves fully within the political process, despite participating in recent elections. “These groups employ resistance rhetoric in an effort to secure the largest possible political, financial, and security gains before fully integrating into the state.”

Haidar told Shafaq News that political forces and factions alike have begun to sense the seriousness of the US position against engaging with a new government that includes armed factions, noting that these factions “are now racing to demonstrate goodwill to Washington ahead of the arrival of its special envoy in Baghdad.”

He warned that, from this point forward, any armed faction that refuses to hand over its weapons and dismantle its armed structures will face the judiciary, noting that the issue has now become a formal state decision.

Written and edited by Shafaq News staff.