Iraq’s Resistance between Maintaining Arms and Handing Them Over: Will the US Project Pan Out?"

Alwaght- While in Lebanon Hezbollah has maintained its weapons of resistance against all of the Israeli and American pressures for disarming, in another part of Axis of Resistance something different is happening and the firm forte of the Iraqi resistance weapons is being penetrated not by foreign attacks by the Trojan Horse of the internal competitions.

After a recent statement by Muqtada al-Sadr about dissolution of the Saraya Al-Salam and handover of its weapons to the government and calling on other resistance groups operating under Public Mobilization Forces (PMF) to follow on their footsteps, in recent days conflicting reactions have been made by these groups.

Three groups, Saraya al-Salam, Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq, and Kata'ib Imam have officially agreed to hand over their weapons and integrate into state institutions. But six factions linked to the PMF, including Kata'ib Hezbollah Iraq, Kata'ib Sayyid al-Shuhada, Harakat al-Nujaba, Saraya Awliya al-Dam, Ashab al-Kahf, and Kata'ib Karbala, have flatly refused to disarm.

This sharp divide has some political observers and analysts calling it the first sign of a new internal rift within Iraq’s Shiite political sphere, especially among groups that define themselves through the lens of resistance ideology.

Of course, competition for a stronger foothold in the cabinet and parliament is nothing new. But it should be kept in mind that the deep ideological and doctrinal ties binding all these factions to the core tenets of armed resistance remain rock solid. Handing over weapons, for those who do, does not necessarily mean abandoning those goals, or signing on to US’s project for Iraq.

Argument of the resistance leaders

Currently, all of the resistance factions have accepted the principle of restriction of arms to the government, but given the security conditions of Iraq and the regional developments having happened over the past few months, they believe that such a move in the current conditions does not serve the country's security interests and stability.

Resistance leaders have made their reasons for refusing to hand over weapons to the government crystal clear. Abu Mujahid Assaf, security chief of Kata'ib Hezbollah, stated flatly that as long as foreign occupation persists in Iraq's land and skies, his group will not disarm. Assaf vowed that the factions will remain united and keep fighting until the country is fully liberated.

Sheikh Kazem al-Fartousi, spokesman for Kata'ib Sayyid al-Shuhada, was just as blunt, saying that resistance groups will never give up their weapons. Selling off military gains for government posts, he charged, amounts to national treason. His remarks come as the US has made clear it will veto any role for resistance factions in Iraq's political arrangements.

Meanwhile, Nazim al-Saedi, head of al-Nujaba's executive council, insisted that any discussion on weapons must be comprehensive, fair, and based on a single standard. Recalling that Iraq's Shiites have always been targets of hostile schemes, he warned: "Today they are targeting the resistance groups. Tomorrow it will be the Popular Mobilization Forces. Then they will go after the army itself, until nothing is left to defend Iraq."

PMF, impenetrable in security and military structure

The stances of the resistance leaders of Iraq show that all of them share the opposition to the American-Israeli project to undermine the PMF.

They are united in their voice that the PMF is an official and legal institution in the Iraqi armed forces operating under the command of prime minister as the commander-in-chief and has become part of the country's defense structure. This military institution has played a big role in the Iraqi security, turning into one of the firm pillars of the Iraqi security by launching tens of operations against terrorism factions, including those of ISIS. The PMF has also had effective role in protecting security of various regions and providing services to the Arbaeen pilligrims.

Countering the American occupation

For all resistance factions, staying committed until the complete end of US military occupation in Iraq is another non-negotible principle. On that front, Nazim al-Saedi traced their refusal to disarm directly back to continued US influence. He stressed that as long as Iraq does not exercise full sovereignty over its own decisions and territory, the resistance’s weapons will remain a deterrent and a guarantee of national security.

The core belief driving the factions is clear: until the US military presence ends entirely, resistance is a legitimate right, and a national and religious duty. So any plan to monopolize weapons, they argue, cannot be allowed to clear the way for eliminating the resistance and bringing the US back to run Iraq under a NATO cover. That concern comes as a senior NATO commander recently raised the possibility of expanding the Western alliance’s mission inside Iraq. Yet the Iraqi government spokesman said Saturday that the foreign coalition’s mission will end in September, and all foreign troops must withdraw.

Iraqi resistance an extension to regional resistance

Using economic pressure including threats to cut off Iraq's access to its oil revenues and imposing financial and banking sanctions, the US maintains constant pressures on the Iraqi government to isolate the resistance factions and finally separate Iraq from its main cradle the Axis of Resistance and Iran for Washington to advance its West Asian plots with wider open hands.

However, resistance factions of Iraq still express commitment to their responsibilities. They firmly cling to their involvement in regional developments, saying that they do not forsake their principles and beliefs for short-term political reservations or benefits including eased foreign pressures or temporary privileges from the US.

In general, the case of disarming the resistance groups is not a simple issue, but directly related to the balance of power in Iraq, the degree of independence of decision-making, and the future of the security structure of the country. As regional tensions and active intervention of foreign actors continue, observers suggest that any decision on the issue should be made within the framework of inclusive dialogue among all political currents and with regard of field realities.

So, as long as American forces are present in Iraq and the Israeli regime is pursuing its expansionist plans in the region, the main aim of the restriction of the arms, namely partition of Iraq and isolation of its resistance factions, will not produce Washington's favorable outcome.