Iraq’s Armed Factions Reject Weapons Handover as U.S. Withdrawal Deadline Nears

Talks over the future of Iraq’s armed factions have reached a deadlock, with influential groups refusing to surrender weapons as the September 30 deadline for the final U.S. withdrawal approaches. The impasse has cast doubt on government plans to mark the date as “Sovereignty Day.”

“

sanctity

A three-member committee formed by the Shiite Coordination Framework has failed to secure a breakthrough. The government of Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi had hoped the departure of U.S. forces would coincide with the transfer of factional weapons to state control. That prospect now appears increasingly remote.

Harakat al-Nujaba, along with former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Badr Organization leader Hadi al-Amiri, has maintained that no final deadline exists for handing over, restricting, disarming or freezing weapons held outside state control. Kataib Hezbollah and Harakat al-Nujaba have previously rejected any timetable, arguing that their weapons are ideological and not confined within national borders.

“

preserving the Popular Mobilization Forces as a national body that cannot be compromised

Ali al-Asadi, head of Nujaba’s Political Council, said the movement would continue to defend what he called the “sanctity” of the resistance’s weapons. In a post on X, he also backed preserving the Popular Mobilization Forces as a national body and reiterated Nujaba’s refusal to participate in the political process.

“

This responsibility will remain on our shoulders until comprehensive change is achieved, ensuring sovereignty, security and prosperity, freeing our economy from American domination and stabilizing the domestic situation.

“This responsibility will remain on our shoulders until comprehensive change is achieved, ensuring sovereignty, security and prosperity, freeing our economy from American domination and stabilizing the domestic situation,” Asadi said. The government responded through military spokesman Sabah al-Numan, who warned against what he called alarmist campaigns funded by suspicious sources. He said no force or regional circumstance could break a state whose people rallied around its institutions.

“

no force in the world and no regional circumstances can break a state whose people, in all their components and communities, rally around its institutions.