2026-01-03T19:15:18+00:00
font
Enable Reading Mode
A-
A
A+
Shafaq News
Iraq headed into 2026 with unresolved
concerns over the future of armed factions operating outside full state
control, as competing domestic positions intersect with sustained international
pressure. Security specialists, political researchers, and armed faction
representatives describe to Shafaq News a narrowing set of options, shaped by
regional dynamics, internal political calculations, and diverging views on
whether the weapons file can be settled internally or dictated by external
actors.
Read more: Iraq’s armed factions and the disarmament debate: Why unity masks deep divisions
Security analyst Mukhallad Al-Darb
explained that US calls to disarm Iran-backed armed groups are part of a
broader effort to confine weapons exclusively to state authority, noting that
the approach does not single out any one group but targets the existence of
armed factions as parallel forces. “The issue concerns dissolving these
factions from the armed resistance sphere,” he remarked.
Under this framework, Al-Darb noted,
factions face limited choices. One path involves integration into civilian or
military state institutions; the other entails continued exposure to escalating
external pressure. Political participation, he added, does not protect this
process.
As evidence, Al-Darb pointed to Asaib
Ahl Al-Haq, led by Qais Al-Khazali, which holds parliamentary and ministerial
representation yet remains subject to pressure. Regional and international
actors, he confirmed, reject the presence of forces that rival the state’s
monopoly on arms, particularly when such forces could confront official
institutions, as seen in Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen.
Al-Darb questioned whether there is
sufficient internal Iraqi resolve to negotiate and settle the weapons issue
before external actors impose their will by military force, or whether options
will remain limited under “external threats.”
From the political arena, researcher
Ramadan Al-Badran described the outlook for armed factions as uncertain and
offering no reassuring indicators. He noted their influence varies widely,
ranging from factions deeply embedded within state institutions to others with
far less leverage.
According to Al-Badran, all decisions
remain tied to overlapping and volatile factors, particularly developments in
Iran and its relationship with the international community, “keeping the
situation tense and outcomes unpredictable.”
Within the factions themselves, Firas
Al-Yasser, a political council member of the US-sanctioned Harakat Hezbollah
Al-Nujaba, accused the United States of seeking to weaken Iraq and strip it of
sources of strength. Dismissing the claims linking the recent parliamentary
gains to armed activity, he argued the electoral rise to “resistance-aligned
forces, with no connection to weapons.”
Debates over disarmament, Al-Yasser
added, “carry no value” within the resistance’s framework, further urging
lawmakers to concentrate on legislative responsibilities and serving the Iraqi
public.
US pressure, meanwhile, follows a
clearer approach adopted in 2025, according to security and strategic expert
Ahmed Al-Sharifi. He outlined that the US policy aims at reducing Iranian
influence in Iraq, presenting Iran-aligned factions with two options:
containment or confrontation.
Containment, Al-Sharifi detailed,
requires disarmament in exchange for integration into political and social
life. ‘’Any breach could trigger economic sanctions or military action,’’ he
added, underscoring that Washington opposes the armed factions’ control over
“sovereign institutions, particularly the defense and interior ministries,
along with national security and intelligence bodies.’’
Beyond security measures, Al-Sharifi
noted the reopening of corruption files and detailed investigations as
additional pressure tools. These factors, he added, have made factions
reluctant to relinquish power due to fears of losing economic influence or facing
legal accountability.
Written and edited by Shafaq News
staff.
