Factions’ Militias Demand the Disarmament of Tribes Before Giving Up Their Own Weapons
Armed groups are proposing that tribal weapons in southern and western Iraq be included, alongside weapons held by other formations, in reference to the Peshmerga, as well as the arsenal of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, as part of efforts to place weapons under state control in a new move that could make the process virtually impossible.
Leaders of Iraqi armed factions have called for the adoption of comprehensive legislation governing the issue of bringing weapons under state control, covering all actors and regions. The move reveals a tendency within the factions to redefine the terms for addressing the demand for disarmament and link it to broader legal and political measures, according to a source familiar with the work of the committee established by the Coordination Framework to negotiate with the factions.
The source told the Iraqi Kurdish website Shafaq News on Friday that faction leaders had informed officials from the Coordination Framework that addressing the issue of weapons should not be limited to Shiite forces, but should encompass every armed formation or entity retaining weapons outside state institutions. The proposal calls for referring the issue to parliament to enact legislation defining mechanisms for bringing weapons under state control, regulating them and managing them, rather than leaving the matter to direct government measures.
Expanding the scope of the issue appears to be one of the conditions being advanced by the factions during negotiations. They are proposing the inclusion of weapons held by tribes in southern and western Iraq, alongside weapons held by other formations, as well as the arsenal of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party. Positions circulating within the debate also suggest that the weapons of the Peshmerga and Kurdish forces should be incorporated into any comprehensive arrangement, thereby broadening the circle of parties involved and making implementation of the requirement even more complicated.
These demands appear to reflect an attempt to shift the debate from the fundamental question of the future of the factions’ weapons toward a broader national issue, allowing responsibility to be redistributed among different forces and regions. Such a process could give the factions room to delay implementation or negotiate new details, particularly if bringing weapons under state control becomes a lengthy legislative process within parliament.
According to the source, a specialized committee is expected to begin drafting a bill addressing the placement of weapons under state control, their regulation and management. The draft will then undergo legal review before being presented to parliament, with political forces involved in its drafting. This mechanism opens the door to broad debates over the definition of weapons outside state control, the parties covered by the measures, and the timetable for implementation.
This comes as the deadline set by Iraqi political forces for placing weapons under the authority of official institutions draws closer. September 30 therefore represents a political deadline after which the state is expected to enter a more decisive phase in dealing with any armed activity outside its institutions.
Alongside the political process, Iraqi security agencies have raised their level of readiness in anticipation of the possibility that the dispute over weapons could turn into a confrontation. The measures include strengthening preparedness and canceling the leave of certain commanders and officers, while the government seeks to avoid a direct clash with the factions while insisting on the principle that the state must retain an exclusive monopoly over weapons.
The differences in the factions’ positions reveal the difficulty of reaching a final agreement. While some forces have shown a willingness to reorganize their military status within state institutions, Hezbollah Brigades, the al-Nujaba Movement and the Sayyid al-Shuhada Brigades refuse to relinquish their capabilities and tie the future of their weapons to the withdrawal of foreign forces and guarantees regarding the state’s ability to protect Iraq.
Some factions are also attempting to link the issue to the military presence of the international coalition, whose withdrawal date coincides with the deadline for bringing weapons under state control. This reflects an effort to make the relinquishment of military capabilities part of a broader political and security deal, rather than implementing it as a separate obligation toward state authority.
Thus, the dispute does not appear to be confined to the principle of bringing weapons under state control, which enjoys declared political consensus, but rather concerns the conditions, scope and timing of its implementation. The more factions seek to bring additional actors into the equation, from tribes to Kurdish forces, the more difficult it becomes to turn the political principle into practical measures capable of ending the existence of multiple centers of armed power in Iraq.
