Iraq’s government is approaching a September 30, 2026, deadline for bringing weapons held outside state institutions under state control, but some of the country’s most powerful Shia armed groups have rejected full disarmament. Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi has said Iraqi security forces will be capable of protecting the country after the deadline and that factions entering political life will be supported.
The standoff places al-Zaidi between competing pressures: Washington wants Baghdad to curb armed groups, while the factions say retaining weapons is necessary for resistance and national sovereignty. A direct enforcement attempt could risk internal unrest; delaying the process could weaken the government’s authority and complicate Iraq’s relations with the United States.
At a glance:
- The September 30 deadline is tied to the planned end of the US-led international coalition’s military mission in Iraq.
- Saraya al-Salam, Asaib Ahl al-Haq and Kataib al-Imam Ali have taken steps toward state integration or weapons transfers, according to Iraqi and regional reporting.
- Kataib Hezbollah and Harakat al-Nujaba reject the government’s interpretation of disarmament and distinguish between illegal weapons and what they call resistance weapons.
- Iraq depends on oil for roughly 90 percent of government revenue, increasing the economic importance of political and security stability.
What the government is demanding
The government’s stated objective is a state monopoly over weapons and the security decision-making process. Iraqi officials have described the September 30 date as the point after which weapons retained outside the state framework would be treated as irregular or unlicensed.
Related coverage: US and Saudi forces respond to Iranian missile barrage with strikes on Iraq targets.
The deadline overlaps with the scheduled completion of the international coalition’s military mission in Iraq. Al-Zaidi has presented the transition as a sovereignty measure, arguing that Iraqi forces can protect the country and that armed factions should either operate fully within state institutions or move into political activity.
Which groups are cooperating — and which are not
Several factions have signalled cooperation. Saraya al-Salam, Asaib Ahl al-Haq and Kataib al-Imam Ali have been linked to steps separating their formations from party structures, transferring weapons or integrating fighters into state institutions. The government has also established mechanisms to manage transfers of weapons, equipment and bases.
The resistance is concentrated among factions closest to Iran. Kataib Hezbollah has rejected full disarmament and says it will retain what it calls resistance weapons. Harakat al-Nujaba has similarly argued that the campaign should target weapons causing lawlessness, not arms held by fighters who defended Iraq and its holy sites.
Why enforcement is difficult
The Popular Mobilization Forces are formally part of Iraq’s security architecture, but analysts and outside observers say several component factions retain autonomous command structures. That makes the government’s central question more complicated than simply collecting firearms: it must determine who commands the fighters, which units qualify for integration and what happens to groups that refuse.
The economic stakes add pressure. Oil supplies about 90 percent of Iraq’s government revenue, according to the US Energy Information Administration, while the government is seeking foreign investment and stronger economic ties with Washington. Iraqi officials therefore face a narrow path between enforcing the deadline, preserving domestic stability and avoiding a confrontation that could further damage confidence in the state.
Questions readers ask
What happens after September 30?
The government has warned that weapons remaining outside state institutions will be classified as irregular or unlicensed, but officials have not publicly detailed how refusal by powerful factions will be enforced.
Why do some armed groups reject disarmament?
The holdouts cite foreign troop presence, regional threats and their role in fighting Islamic State. They argue that the state’s weapons policy should not apply to what they call resistance arms.
Related coverage:
No comments yet. Start the discussion.