Iraq faces crisis as Shia armed groups defy disarmament 

Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi is facing a mounting political and security crisis as a September 30 deadline to restrict all weapons to state control approaches.

While a number of armed groups, such as Saraya al-Salam, Asaib Ahl al-Haq and Kataib al-Imam Ali, have agreed to integrate into the state’s armed forces, the defiant stance of some powerful Shia paramilitaries threatens to derail the initiative.

Kataib Hezbollah, an Iran-aligned Iraqi paramilitary group and one of the country’s most heavily armed factions, has explicitly rejected the government’s mandate, pledging instead to retain what it calls “resistance weapons” and further develop its arsenal.

Similarly, the influential Harakat al-Nujaba has said the government’s push to confiscate arms should target illegal weapons causing chaos, not those held by fighters who “defended Iraq, its holy sites, and its people during the most difficult circumstances”.

The push for disarmament is heavily driven by pressure from the United States amid the war on Iran, as well as economic challenges associated with it and the need to attract foreign investment.

Oil revenues make up more than 90 percent of Iraq’s state budget, but the closure of the Strait of Hormuz sent oil exports down to roughly 600,000 barrels per day (bpd) in March, from 3.3 million bpd.

Some observers say the refusal to disarm by groups holding immense sway brings the very concept of the Iraqi government into question.

Speaking to Al Jazeera, Talib Mohammed Karim, a professor of political thought at Mustansiriya University, said maintaining armed factions outside state control undermines the constitutional order.

“When we talk about specific or defined factions … we will be facing a contradiction in confronting the state in its entirety and definition, meaning we need a new definition,” said Karim.

He also cast serious doubt on the groups that have reportedly agreed to disarm. “Even when we talk about some factions handing over weapons, the reality is that the talk might be closer to hypothetical procedures or it might be for the media,” said Karim.

Sovereignty concerns

Some factions justify their retention of arms by pointing to the presence of US troops and external threats. However, political analyst Kadhim al-Hajj argued that linking disarmament to foreign troop movements was no longer a valid excuse, given the current geopolitical situation amid the war on Iran.

“Talking about restricting weapons in exchange for the American withdrawal and ending the missions of the international coalition has become of no value, considering that the attacks are now coming from across the borders and without justification,” he said.

Al-Hajj also emphasised that the disarmament process must remain strictly sovereign and not appear as a US dictate. “The issue of weapons in the Iraqi state is an internal Iraqi matter, and therefore there must be a national approach in this direction.”

Looming deadline

With next month’s deadline approaching, experts believe the government is running out of viable options. Political analyst Omar al-Nasser framed the standoff as an existential moment for Iraq’s political future.

“Today we have reached the end of the virtual lifespan of the concept of state and non-state,” al-Nasser warned.

Highlighting the severe economic and international consequences of a potential failure, al-Nasser noted that Iraq’s ruling coalition has very little room to manoeuvre.

“Political blocs and forces affiliated with the State Administration Coalition face two choices: either going towards building a strong state and having weapons within the state framework, or there will be sanctions and a ban on oil exports,” said al-Nasser.

Despite the urgency, al-Nasser suggested that the government might be forced to push the timeline back to avoid an immediate clash.

“All the scenarios you mentioned are possible … it is possible that the deadline for restricting weapons to the state will be extended to the end of December,” he said.

Looking ahead at how the crisis might resolve, Karim outlined some potential paths, including the immediate integration of the armed groups into state institutions, or a gradual process through “calm dialogue outside the logic of victor and vanquished” – his preferred scenario.

“Or perhaps it will be a frank confrontation,” he warned.