Sovereignty before weapons: The resistance presents Washington and Ankara with the equation of withdrawal.
Sovereignty before weapons: The resistance presents Washington and Ankara with the equation of withdrawal.
8-18-2026
Information/Report…
The political and security debate continues in Iraq regarding the issue of restricting weapons to the state, amidst escalating stances from resistance factions and political forces rejecting any move towards surrendering weapons while the American and Turkish military presence remains on Iraqi soil. They maintain that addressing this issue must begin with ending the foreign presence and achieving full sovereignty, not with disarming the factions.
This debate coincides with official and political calls to regulate weapons outside the framework of security and military institutions. In contrast, political forces and resistance factions assert that the conditions that compelled them to take up arms have not completely disappeared, and that the continued presence of foreign forces is, in their view, a primary reason for refusing to surrender their weapons.
Abu Mujahid al-Assaf, the security official for Kataib Hezbollah, affirmed that any approach with the government regarding regulating the weapons issue must be based on fundamental conditions, foremost among them the “complete and genuine withdrawal” of American forces from Iraqi land and airspace and a guarantee against their return.
Al-Assaf clarified that the resistance’s position is not limited to the American presence, but also includes the withdrawal of Turkish forces from northern Iraq, in addition to liberating political and economic decision-making from American hegemony.
This stance reflects the view of the factions that weapons are part of the deterrence equation, and that demanding their surrender before the end of the foreign military presence would lead to an imbalance of power without achieving the full sovereignty the government speaks of.
For his part, Ali al-Fatlawi, a leader in the Reconstruction and Development Alliance, emphasized that the monopoly on weapons should not be directed against any specific Iraqi party while overlooking violations of national sovereignty.
Speaking to Al-Maalomah, al-Fatlawi said, “The Islamic resistance factions do not pose a threat to the government or the political process; rather, they are a safety valve.” He explained that the factions support the monopoly on weapons, but only “within the framework of achieving genuine Iraqi sovereignty from any occupying forces.”
He added that this demand is “legitimate, ethical, and patriotic,” calling on the government to consider it when dealing with the issue of weapons.
Al-Fatlawi pointed out that, in his view, Iraqi sovereignty is not limited to American and Turkish forces, but also includes what he described as violations of Iraqi territory, issues related to resources and borders, as well as attacks targeting Iraqi security forces.
While much of the discussion focuses on US forces, the Turkish military presence in northern Iraq stands out as another issue used by those refusing to disarm.
A member of the Coordination Framework, Uday Abdul-Hadi, warned of the dangers of the Turkish presence, pointing to the deployment of Turkish forces in dozens of locations within the governorates of Dohuk, Erbil, and Sulaymaniyah, particularly in mountainous areas.
Speaking to Al-Maalomah, Abdul-Hadi stated that, according to his information, Turkish forces are actively constructing cellular and wired communication bases and towers with extensive reach, exploiting civilian infrastructure. He considered this a “serious issue” and a “red line,” as it leads, in his words, to further territorial control.
He called for a comprehensive national review of the Turkish military presence, emphasizing the necessity of demanding the withdrawal of Turkish forces to the internationally recognized borders and the end of their presence within Iraqi territory.
The resistance factions argue that demanding they surrender their weapons while foreign forces remain is incompatible with the concept of sovereignty, which should be the foundation of any political and security settlement.
According to this view, weapons are not merely military tools, but rather part of a deterrent system built up over the years to counter external threats. They maintain that dismantling this system requires, first and foremost, ensuring the absence of foreign forces capable of conducting military operations within Iraq or influencing its security decisions.
The factions believe that any agreement regarding weapons should be part of a comprehensive national deal that includes the withdrawal of American and Turkish forces, guarantees against their return, and the end of any form of external tutelage or influence on Iraqi decision-making.
In another aspect of the debate, political analyst Ali Fadlallah criticized the government’s media discourse, arguing that it attempts to portray the issue of weapons as the primary problem plaguing Iraq.
Fadlallah told Al-Maalomah that “the current government media in Ali al-Zaidi’s government is trying to portray the problem that Iraq is suffering from as being limited to weapons,” indicating that going down to the street and listening to citizens reveals the existence of other more urgent issues, foremost among them corruption, poor services and appointments.
He added that “portraying Iraq’s problem solely as weapons, and that the country cannot recover except by confiscating them, is far removed from reality.” He emphasized that addressing the crises requires focusing on combating corruption, improving services, and addressing economic and living conditions, in addition to tackling the security situation within a comprehensive vision.
This position adds another dimension to the debate, as it suggests that an excessive focus on weapons could lead to the marginalization of economic and service-related issues that are a direct priority for Iraqi citizens.
Amid these divergent positions, the equation of confiscating weapons appears directly linked to the fate of American and Turkish forces.
While the government is pushing to strengthen the state’s monopoly on security and military decision-making, resistance factions maintain that surrendering weapons cannot be a unilateral step, and that any discussion on this matter must be preceded by a complete withdrawal of foreign forces.
According to statements from its leaders, the resistance has established a clear equation: sovereignty comes first, then the future of weapons can be discussed. They believe that ending the American and Turkish presence would remove one of the most prominent justifications they use to retain their weapons.
As the dispute continues, the issue of disarming militias remains one of the most complex in the Iraqi landscape, particularly given its connection to sovereignty, the foreign presence, and the future relationship between the state and resistance factions.
While the government and its supporters assert that the state cannot complete the building of its institutions while armed groups remain numerous, resistance factions believe that disarming militias under the current circumstances is premature, as long as American and Turkish forces are present on Iraqi soil.
Therefore, any future settlement of this issue will depend on the parties’ ability to reach a formula that combines protecting state sovereignty, ending the foreign military presence, and determining the future of the factions’ weapons, avoiding unilateral approaches that could exacerbate the political and security divisions.
almaalomah.me
