Iraq’s Supreme Judicial Council President Faiq Zidan has stressed the judiciary’s support for government efforts to bring weapons under state control based on a plan adopted by the Coordination Framework.
Zidan made the remarks during a meeting Monday with the new US chargé d’affaires in Iraq, Steven Fagin. A statement from the Supreme Judicial Council said the two discussed the judiciary’s role in supporting the government’s program to restrict weapons to the state.
The process will proceed under “a well-studied plan” adopted by the Coordination Framework, with a committee established by the alliance tasked with preparing it and announcing it once completed and at the appropriate time. The plan is intended to uphold Iraq’s positive relations with the international community and ensure compliance with the constitution and the law.
Legal and political sources have previously indicated that the Iraqi judiciary is determined to designate militias as terrorist organizations if they refuse to disarm by the deadline for the withdrawal of international coalition forces.
Coordination Framework leaders were also expected to hold their weekly meeting Monday to discuss several issues, foremost among them bringing weapons under state control, completing the government lineup and proposed amendments to the Popular Mobilization Forces law.
Coalition withdrawal
With the Sept. 30 deadline for the withdrawal of US-led international coalition forces approaching, uncertainty continues to surround key political and security issues, particularly efforts to disarm Iran-aligned factions.
Washington has repeatedly pressed Baghdad in recent months to resolve the issue, warning that failure to do so could expose Iraq to economic and political sanctions at a time when the country is already facing financial strains.
A source close to the Coordination Framework told Asharq Al-Awsat that Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi’s government had softened its previously firm rhetoric on disarming the factions, while armed groups had become increasingly vocal in rejecting the demand.
The source attributed the shift to tense discussions within the Coordination Framework and between its leaders and al-Zaidi. The prime minister has repeatedly warned of the risks of failing to disarm and pointed to US demands, while some Framework leaders believe there is room to maneuver with Washington.
Conflicting statements by Framework leaders are also part of an effort to buy time, the source added, as the alliance faces pressure from two sides: Washington, which wants the issue resolved, and Tehran, which opposes disarmament.
State of Law Coalition leader Nouri al-Maliki recently raised the possibility of distinguishing between heavy, medium and light weapons, questioning whether restrictions should cover all arms or only weapons capable of striking domestic or foreign targets.
His comments were widely interpreted as a shift toward opposing comprehensive disarmament, prompting his office director, Hisham al-Rikabi, to say they had been “misunderstood.”
Factions resist disarmament
Kataib Hezbollah, Harakat Hezbollah al-Nujaba and Kataib Sayyid al-Shuhada are among the most prominent Iran-aligned factions strongly resisting disarmament. Their demands have included the withdrawal of Turkish forces from northern Iraq and placing Kurdish Peshmerga forces under the commander-in-chief of the armed forces.
Firas Elias, a political science professor at the University of Mosul, told Asharq Al-Awsat that Sept. 30 was unlikely to mark a comprehensive handover of weapons.
Instead, he expects the deadline to begin a lengthy process involving the coalition’s withdrawal, a transitional period, the classification of factions and weapons, and the integration or redistribution of some fighters, alongside efforts to place heavy weapons, drones and missiles under state supervision.
The factions’ stringent conditions may indicate a shift from rejecting disarmament outright to negotiating the price of surrendering their weapons autonomy, Elias said.
The equation, he added, is moving from “weapons versus the state” to “weapons versus guarantees,” with factions setting demands Baghdad cannot fully meet so they can later concede some conditions while retaining part of their power and influence.
