Kurdish Policy Analysis

By Dr. Pshtiwan Faraj | Kurdish Policy Analysis  

The September Test: Can Iraq Disarm Militias Without Triggering War?

 Iraq is approaching a critical test as Iran-aligned armed groups resist growing demands to surrender their weapons, while Baghdad faces mounting pressure to prevent its territory from becoming a launchpad for attacks against neighboring states.

September could prove to be a decisive month for Iraq.

The country is entering an increasingly dangerous political and security phase as armed groups with close ties to Iran face mounting pressure to surrender their weapons and place their military capabilities under the authority of the Iraqi state.

What began as a political debate over the future of armed formations has increasingly become a question of state sovereignty, regional security and Iraq’s ability to prevent its territory from being drawn into wider conflicts.

The stakes could hardly be higher.

If the government succeeds in bringing weapons under state control through political and legal mechanisms, Iraq could take an important step toward consolidating state authority.

But if armed groups continue to reject disarmament—and Baghdad eventually attempts to impose it by force—the country could face a dangerous confrontation between state institutions and powerful militias.

That raises the specter of internal armed conflict.

At the same time, continued use of Iraqi territory for attacks against neighboring countries could expose Baghdad to direct foreign military action, placing Iraq between competing regional and international powers.

Baghdad Faces a Difficult Choice

The Iraqi government is now confronting a dilemma with few easy options.

The state is under growing pressure to demonstrate that it has a monopoly over the use of force, while armed groups possess substantial military capabilities, including medium and heavy weapons and drones.

Attempting to disarm such groups through force could trigger a confrontation that Baghdad may not be politically or militarily prepared to manage.

Yet allowing armed formations to retain independent military capabilities carries its own risks.

The continued existence of powerful armed groups outside the full control of the state weakens Iraq's sovereignty and creates the possibility that decisions made by non-state actors could drag the country into regional conflicts.

This is particularly sensitive as tensions across the Middle East remain high.

If attacks against neighboring countries are launched from Iraqi territory, Baghdad could face demands to act against the perpetrators—or risk being held responsible for failing to prevent its territory from being used for attacks.

The question is therefore no longer simply whether armed groups should surrender their weapons.

It is becoming a question of whether Iraq can maintain its sovereignty without triggering a confrontation that could destabilize the country.

The Economic Crisis Adds Another Layer of Risk

The security crisis is unfolding against an already difficult economic backdrop.

Iraq is facing significant financial pressure, with concerns over government finances and the possibility of delays to salaries affecting millions of public-sector employees.

That creates an additional vulnerability.

For a government attempting to impose a major security settlement, economic instability can quickly become political instability.

Any disruption to salaries, public services or government spending could increase public frustration and create an environment in which political and security tensions become more difficult to contain.

Baghdad therefore needs to manage several crises simultaneously: maintaining financial stability, preventing armed escalation, preserving political cohesion and responding to regional pressure.

A failure on one front could rapidly undermine the others.

Armed Groups Reject Disarmament

Several leaders of armed factions have again rejected demands that they surrender their weapons.

Their refusal creates one of the most difficult political challenges facing the Iraqi state.

These groups are not lightly armed political movements. Many possess significant military capabilities, including drones, medium weapons and other systems that could make any attempt at forced disarmament extremely dangerous.

Military experts have warned that an armed confrontation cannot be ruled out if political negotiations collapse.

The danger is particularly acute because the government cannot simply treat the issue as a conventional law-enforcement operation.

Any attempt to forcibly seize weapons from powerful armed formations could generate retaliation, fragmentation and a cycle of violence that could spread beyond individual militia-government confrontations.

That is why the political process remains critical.

The Shiite Political Establishment Moves Carefully

Within Iraq's political system, the Shiite Coordination Framework has called for accelerating efforts to resolve the weapons issue and protect the authority of the state.

But the political bloc has so far avoided publicly laying out detailed mechanisms for how disarmament should take place.

That caution is understandable.

The issue sits at the intersection of domestic politics, Iran's regional influence, Iraq's sovereignty and the security interests of neighboring states.

Any political settlement must therefore balance competing priorities.

The government needs to strengthen state authority without creating a confrontation that could fracture the political coalition supporting it.

At the same time, political leaders must convince armed groups that surrendering or restructuring their weapons will not leave them politically exposed.

A Growing Call for Iraqi Sovereignty

Civil society and political figures are also increasingly emphasizing the principle that Iraqi territory must not be used to threaten neighboring countries.

In an open message, the Iraqi Initiative, which includes prominent political, academic and civil society figures, called for respect for Iraqi sovereignty and rejected the use of Iraqi territory as a platform for threatening neighboring states.

The message reflects a growing concern that Iraq could become a battlefield for conflicts that it does not control.

For many Iraqis, the fundamental issue is straightforward: decisions over war and peace should belong to the Iraqi state rather than to individual armed organizations.

The challenge is translating that principle into political reality.

State Authority or Parallel Power?

Wahib Abdul Razzaq, spokesman for the National Coalition, argued that the state's seizure and control of weapons is not merely a political decision but a constitutional right and a direct popular demand.

He said the coalition supports the decisions of the State Administration Coalition and the judiciary aimed at establishing an Iraq governed by the rule of law.

The argument goes to the heart of Iraq's political dilemma.

A state cannot exercise full sovereignty if powerful organizations possess independent military capabilities that can operate outside its effective control.

At the same time, Iraq's political system has historically depended on accommodation among competing armed and political actors.

Breaking that arrangement without a negotiated alternative could produce instability rather than strengthen the state.

The central challenge is therefore not simply disarmament.

It is the creation of a political and security framework in which armed groups no longer believe that independent military power is necessary for their survival or political influence.

Why September Matters

The coming months could determine whether Iraq manages to resolve the issue through negotiation or moves toward a much more dangerous confrontation.

If armed groups refuse all meaningful steps toward integrating their weapons and military structures into the state, pressure on Baghdad will intensify.

If the government chooses coercion, armed factions could resist.

If Baghdad does nothing, neighboring states may conclude that Iraq is either unwilling or unable to prevent attacks originating from its territory.

That creates a dangerous three-way dilemma:

Confront the armed groups and risk internal conflict.

Allow them to retain their weapons and risk further erosion of state authority.

Fail to prevent attacks from Iraqi territory and risk foreign military intervention.

None of these outcomes serves Iraq's interests.

Iraq Cannot Afford Another War

Iraq has already endured decades of war, sanctions, insurgency, terrorism and political violence.

Its economy remains heavily dependent on oil revenues, its institutions are still struggling to consolidate authority, and millions of Iraqis remain vulnerable to economic shocks.

Another major internal conflict would threaten reconstruction, investment and political stability.

Likewise, becoming the arena for another regional confrontation could expose Iraqi infrastructure, energy facilities and cities to attack.

The country therefore faces a narrow path.

The government must assert the constitutional authority of the state while avoiding a confrontation that could destroy the political balance it is trying to protect.

That requires negotiations, political guarantees, judicial mechanisms and a credible process for integrating or restructuring armed formations.

Most importantly, it requires a clear understanding among Iraq's political forces that the country's sovereignty cannot remain permanently divided.

The Real Test Is State Authority

The debate over weapons is ultimately a debate over the nature of the Iraqi state.

Can Baghdad determine when and where military force is used?

Can the government prevent Iraqi territory from being used to attack neighboring countries?

Can political parties and armed organizations accept that the state's security institutions—not independent factions—must ultimately control weapons?

And can this transition occur without triggering another cycle of violence?

The answers will determine Iraq's trajectory over the coming months.

September may not automatically bring civil war, nor does foreign intervention necessarily follow if armed groups refuse disarmament.

But the risks are becoming harder to ignore.

Iraq is approaching a moment when ambiguity may become more dangerous than confrontation.

The longer the country maintains a system in which state institutions coexist with heavily armed actors operating with varying degrees of autonomy, the greater the possibility that an external crisis will turn an unresolved domestic issue into a national emergency.

The real question facing Iraq is no longer whether the state should control weapons. It is whether Iraq can achieve that objective peacefully—before someone else decides to enforce the consequences.

#Iraq #IraqiPolitics #Militias #Iran #Security #Geopolitics #MiddleEast #IraqSecurity #Disarmament #Baghdad #Sovereignty #MiddleEastSecurity #IranIraq #CivilWar #ForeignIntervention