Will the Iraqi militias truly disarm? |
For the first time, several well-known armed groups in Iraq have released statements supporting the idea of “the state’s monopoly on the use of force,” This idea calls for these groups to turn over their weapons to the government, dissolve their groups or merge with the military and security forces, and engage in political involvement. These statements were made in response to the election results, which showed that members of armed groups had won around 100 seats. At the same time, the United States was putting further pressure on Iraq to create a government that would not include militias, to increase economic sanctions to encompass official Iraqi institutions, and to initiate military strikes against militia groups. It also happened at a time when Iran’s clout to influence Iraq’s internal politics was waning.
The purpose of this analysis is to examine the reasons behind the militias’ action, its potential for actual implementation on the ground, and how it relates to the nature of the upcoming Iraqi government, whose job it will be to either put these statements into practice or deal with the possibility of direct confrontations with the militants.
In recent days, the leaders of five significant armed groups claimed that they had adopted the idea of “the state’s monopoly on the use of force,” Among these leaders were Qais al-Khazali, who led Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq; Shibl al-Zaidi, who led Kata’ib al-Imam Ali; Ahmed al-Asadi, who led Kata’ib Jund al-Imam; Abu Ala’ al-Walai, who led Kata’ib Sayyid al-Shuhada; and Haider al-Gharawi, who led Ansar Allah al-Awfiya. The majority of leaders in the dominant “Coordination Framework” on the political scene made similar sentiments, albeit in different ways, emphasising the need to assist the state in the upcoming period. Judge Faiq Zaidan, the head of the Supreme Judicial Council, expressed gratitude to the groups for “responding to his advice regarding the necessity of joint cooperation to enforce the rule of law, monopolise weapons in the hands of the state, and transition to political action now that the national need for military action has passed,” Several political forces also made similar declarations of support for these groups.
In contrast to the conventional rhetoric of earlier years that sought to sanctify the militias’ armament, the armed factions’ endorsement of the state’s right to a monopoly on weapons is, in theory, a significant shift. This acknowledgment may also be seen as a subtle departure from the Iranian axis, which promotes the creation of armed organisations outside of regional state frameworks. As a result, proposals for the surrender of weapons were flatly rejected by other armed groups, including the two most dangerous and heavily equipped, Kataib Hezbollah, commanded by Ahmed Mohsen Faraj al-Hamidawi, and Harakat al-Nujaba, led by Akram al-Kaabi. However, the media and political organisations associated with these two groups focused on disparaging other groups, using the US presence in Iraq as a justification for their ongoing actions. It further stated that any discussion of a disarmament accord with the government can only occur following the full evacuation of Turkish and NATO occupation forces from Iraqi territory.
READ: US envoy hails plans to disarm Iraqi armed groups, calls for ‘binding national framework’
Two different hypotheses are raised by this obvious difference in the armed factions’ positions: the first is that it is a true and fundamental split, raising the possibility that it will turn into a direct conflict between factions backed by the state and the United States and other factions backed by Iran. According to the second hypothesis, it is a planned and superficial division intended to distribute duties and buy time until the 2026 midterm elections and the 2028 presidential election cause changes in the American political scene.
Both of the above changes are supported by the current political landscape. On the one hand, constitutional and electoral law provisions that forbid the political wings of armed militias from participating in elections have led to legal and public opposition to the acquisition of numerous parliamentary seats by political forces representing armed factions. However, communications from the United States to the Iraqi government and the forces under the........