Disengagement or local anesthesia? Ideological dimensions behind the refusal of Iraqi factions to surrender their weapons policy

The Iraqi army’s announcement that weapons would be restricted to the state opens sharp interactive questions about the realistic extent of this measure in ending one of the most complex files in two decades.

Despite the “Peace Brigades” handing over their headquarters and the start of disengagement procedures, the scene – according to analysts – is divided between reading the step as a proactive effort to consolidate institutions, and considering it a “local anesthesia” that collides with an ideological and regional complex represented by armed factions that mortgage their rifles with a cross-border fatwa.

The real complexity of the project lies in sorting the factions based on their doctrinal and field weight, as the current positive steps do not reflect full compliance.

Security expert Fadel Abu Ragheef deconstructs this puzzle by pointing out that the groups that merged and took the initiative to hand over their headquarters and weapons (as the Peace Brigades) did not essentially participate in any operations against American and Israeli interests during the recent war between Iran on the one hand and the United States and Israel on the other hand.

Abu Ragheef explains – during his talk to the “Beyond the News” program – that the two main factions that claimed responsibility for carrying out 600 missile and drone strikes during that confrontation completely refuse to disarm or submit to disengagement (referring to the Hezbollah Brigades and Harakat al-Nujaba, as well as other factions).

The roots of this rejection go back to ideological considerations. These factions – according to Abu Ragheef – do not follow the religious authorities inside Iraq, but rather owe their jurisprudential allegiance to the late Iranian leader Ali Khamenei and his son and successor Mojtaba, and place their guns willingly in Tehran’s hands to retreat and escalate immediately if Iran is exposed to any attack.

Concerns about disarmament

In the face of this complex division, the dilemma of actual implementation and insurance guarantees emerges, as Professor at the International Policy Institute, Paul Davis, points out that the process will be slow and complicated in light of the ongoing Iranian pressure and control over these groups.

Davis raises doubts about the safety of warehouses designated for collecting heavy and medium weapons (such as drones and ballistic missiles).

The crisis is compounded by the absence of security guarantees, as the opposition factions fear being exposed to direct American or Israeli targeting if they abandon their arsenal.

This field intractability – according to Abu Ragheef – imposes the conviction that these groups will not submit to Baghdad unless an explicit Iranian fatwa is issued ordering them to integrate, which means that the path of real persuasion and negotiation must go from the corridors of Iraq directly towards Tehran.

Political containment

In an attempt to surround this dilemma, the Iraqi government sought to support the measure with a broad local consensus that included the forces of the coordination framework, judicial and religious legitimacy, with the aim of withdrawing the pretexts.

In turn, Tariq Al-Zubaidi, professor of political science at the University of Baghdad, considers this move to be a smart, proactive step by Baghdad to block any pressure or demands that may be imposed by the newly appointed American envoy, Tom Barrack.

But Al-Zubaidi depends on dismantling the justifications for clinging to weapons on the necessity of achieving parallel political tracks that ensure transparency and continue implementing the agreement to withdraw and evacuate American forces from Iraqi bases by the end of next September, while reconsidering the strategic framework agreement.

Accordingly, it seems that the Iraqi government – according to the spokesman – will avoid an armed clash with the wing linked to Tehran, and instead adopt a policy of containment and enticement, in a long-term project that is supposed to expand in the future to include tribal weapons and organized crime to achieve comprehensive control.