As the Iraqi government moves to consolidate all weapons under state control, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has intervened in the dispute, urging Shiite armed factions to reject any process that would require them to hand over their arsenals to Baghdad.
Political and security sources familiar with the matter told Alhurra that figures linked to the IRGC conveyed an Iranian message to leaders of Iraqi armed groups days after Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi’s government won parliamentary confidence in May, making clear that Tehran rejects treating the issue of weapons as an internal Iraqi matter open to negotiation.
According to the sources, Iran views the issue as part of the broader regional “Axis of Resistance” rather than a domestic file that Baghdad can resolve on its own.
A source within the government team responsible for communicating with armed factions told Alhurra that the IRGC informed militia leaders that Tehran would “do everything in its power” to prevent their weapons from being surrendered to the Iraqi state.
“The Iranian message was direct,” the source said. “These are not your weapons, and you have no right to hand them over.”
The source added that some militia leaders are facing significant Iranian pressure that prevents them from transitioning from military activity into politics. As a result, the factions now find themselves caught between competing pressures: American demands to surrender their weapons and Iranian insistence that they retain them.
After taking office, Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi declared that placing all weapons under state control would be a top priority that could not be delayed.
For months, Washington has pressed Iraqi authorities and leaders of the ruling Coordination Framework, the country’s dominant Shiite political alliance, to take a tougher stance toward Iran-backed armed groups and ensure they are not represented in Zaidi’s government.
Those pressures intensified after war broke out between the United States and Israel on one side and Iran on the other on February 28, when Iraqi militias aligned with Tehran targeted U.S. diplomatic facilities in Iraq in support of Iran.
More recently, two Iran-linked factions, Asaib Ahl al-Haq and Kataib al-Imam Ali, both designated by the United States as terrorist organizations, announced that they had transferred command of their armed brigades within the Popular Mobilization Forces to the state, reflecting the mounting pressure surrounding the weapons issue.
The Popular Mobilization Forces include brigades affiliated with pro-Iran factions that operate with varying degrees of independence, despite being formally incorporated into Iraq’s military establishment since 2016. Many of these groups also maintain political wings within the Coordination Framework and secured significant parliamentary representation following the November 2025 elections.
Iran’s rejection of disarmament has deepened divisions among Shiite armed groups. Some factions see Iraq’s evolving political and economic landscape as an opportunity to reposition themselves within state institutions, while others continue to regard their weapons as the core of their political and ideological identity.
Against that backdrop, groups such as Asaib Ahl al-Haq and Kataib al-Imam Ali have moved toward gradual integration into the state, seeking to preserve their political and economic influence by adapting to changing circumstances, particularly amid growing international pressure and government efforts to redefine relations between the state and armed groups.
By contrast, Kataib Hezbollah and Harakat al-Nujaba have adopted a harder line, arguing that any discussion of disarmament while what they describe as a “foreign military presence” remains in Iraq constitutes a direct attack on the “resistance project.”
For those factions, the issue extends beyond weapons. They see disarmament as threatening the political and ideological identity from which they derive much of their power and influence.
One former militia member who left the armed groups several years ago for politics and now leads a political movement described the current developments as little more than a “division of roles.”
“I don’t believe those giving up their weapons are abandoning the resistance,” he told Alhurra. “Those surrendering their arms and those holding onto them are playing the same role. Their goal is to preserve and protect the Shiite community.”
That interpretation, however, does not suggest the factions have reached an internal consensus over the weapons issue. The divisions have become increasingly visible, particularly after Alhurra learned from a security adviser who served in the previous Iraqi government that communication has largely broken down among faction leaders because some groups have embraced the disarmament project.
The split has also spilled into the media and social media platforms. Factions that signaled a willingness to cooperate with the government’s plan to centralize weapons under state control have been subjected to criticism and ridicule by media outlets and online accounts aligned with hardline groups, portraying any cooperation as capitulation to U.S. pressure and an abandonment of what they call the “duty of resistance.”
Iraqi security analyst Fadel Abu Ragheef described the Iranian pressure on the armed factions as “expected.”
“Iran does not want the resistance project to erode,” he told Alhurra. “For Tehran, the weapons issue is existential.”
Caught between these competing pressures, Zaidi’s government is attempting to avoid direct confrontation with Iran-backed factions while maintaining its stated objective of placing all weapons under state control.
At the same time, the government has signaled that it may adopt tougher measures, including classifying any group that refuses to submit to the law and retains weapons outside the state’s authority as an illegal organization subject to judicial and security prosecution.
Adapted and translated from the original Arabic.
