Hawzah News Agency- In a recent analytical note, Iraqi writer and analyst Majid al-Shuwayli said Washington’s insistence on a so-called “government monopoly on arms” is less about strengthening Iraqi sovereignty and more about realigning Baghdad away from Iran and resistance movements, and toward US-aligned Arab states.
Over recent months, the United States has intensified pressure on the Iraqi government to curtail the role of armed resistance groups and push them toward disarmament. The issue has gained renewed attention amid reports of discussions between resistance factions and the Shiite Coordination Framework over whether weapons should be confined to state institutions.
In the past 48 hours, some media outlets have claimed that several Iraqi resistance groups—including the Imam Ali Brigades, Asaib Ahl al-Haq, Ansarullah al-Awfiya, and the Sayyid al-Shuhada Brigades—have expressed readiness to accept a disarmament framework. However, these reports have been met with denials and contradictory statements.
Kataib Hezbollah, one of the most prominent resistance factions, issued a statement rejecting disarmament, stressing that full sovereignty, national independence, and comprehensive security are prerequisites for any discussion of limiting weapons.
In his note, titled “Limiting Weapons to the Government Means Separating Iraq from the Unity of the Arenas,” Shuwayli argues that while the concept of a strong state is theoretically superior to armed factions, resistance weapons historically serve as a transitional tool toward true sovereignty.
“There is no doubt that the state has a higher and more profound role than resistance groups,” he wrote. “But resistance arms are meant to be handed over only to a state that itself embodies resistance—one capable of defending sovereignty, confronting occupation, and resisting foreign domination.”
Shuwayli noted that calls to restrict weapons intensified after elections, raising suspicions about political motives and external pressure. He warned that in Iraq’s current political structure—marked by consensus-based governance, a fragmented parliament, and a divided executive—the decision to monopolize arms could leave the country unable to confront regional aggression.
He questioned whether such a government would be capable of defending Lebanon, Palestine, Iran, or Yemen against Israeli or US aggression, or whether it would continue a policy of appeasement toward Washington.
“The weapons of the resistance are the link connecting Iraq to the wider resistance axis,” Shuwayli wrote. “Limiting arms to the government does not strengthen resistance—it separates Iraq from Iran and aligns it with the political trajectory of Arab regimes.”
Drawing a parallel with Lebanon, Shuwayli asked whether Hezbollah’s disarmament would turn the Lebanese government into a force capable of confronting Israel, or whether it is precisely resistance arms that have deterred Zionist aggression and foreign interference.
He concluded that the ultimate objective of the arms monopoly narrative is not to transform Iraq or Lebanon into resistance states, but to bring an end to the era of resistance altogether.
The analyst also criticized the timing of the renewed debate, suggesting it could be used as a pretext to avoid responsibility for supporting Lebanon or Palestine under the claim that war and peace decisions rest solely with the government.
Shuwayli further argued that such a move weakens Shiite communities across the region and exposes them to political and military vulnerability. He pointed to remarks by Ammar al-Hakim, who has consistently called for limiting arms to the state and keeping Iraq out of regional conflicts, as an indication of a broader political shift.
Meanwhile, the US pressure campaign appears to be escalating. A recent statement attributed to the US president’s envoy to Iraq dismissed political declarations as insufficient, insisting that disarmament must be “comprehensive,” while controversially suggesting that such steps align with religious authority—claims that resistance figures have rejected outright.
Observers say the unfolding debate reflects a deeper struggle over Iraq’s identity, sovereignty, and role in regional resistance dynamics, with far-reaching implications for the balance of power in West Asia.
Your Comment