Disarming the Resistance Creates a Security Void
TEHRAN (Defapress) - The Debate on "Monopolizing Weapons in the Hands of the State" in Iraq is among the issues that have always been a point of contention between the country's political and security factions. Some political forces believe that concentrating weapons within the official state structure can help strengthen sovereignty, security, stability, and attract investment. In contrast, many Resistance groups emphasize that Iraq's security conditions and external threats still necessitate that Resistance weapons remain part of the deterrence equation.
In this regard, Defapress correspondent interviewed Sabreen Al-Akili, an expert on the Resistance front and a reporter for Kata'ib Sayyid al-Shuhada, a group within the Popular Mobilization Forces. The full text of the interview follows.
The Complex Equation of Weapons Monopolization in Iraq
Al-Akili began by stating: The project of 'monopolizing the weapons of Resistance groups' in Iraq is a complex equation involving two main factors: first, the internal need to strengthen state authority, and second, external pressures, particularly from the United States and some Western countries.
He continued: From an internal perspective, concentrating weapons in the hands of official institutions can help enhance security and political stability, and provide the necessary groundwork for economic development and investment attraction. However, on the external level, this same issue overlaps with the efforts of the United States and its allies to limit the influence of Resistance groups close to Iran and to secure the safety of foreign forces and interests in Iraq.
According to him, the success of any plan in this area will only be possible when this issue is removed from the framework of external pressures and transformed into a national strategy to strengthen the state and protect Iraq's interests.
Efforts to Weaken the Resistance
The reporter for Kata'ib Sayyid al-Shuhada added: Raising the issue of monopolizing Resistance weapons is not merely an administrative or security measure; rather, in many cases, it is a suspicious project proposed under American pressure to weaken Iraq and empty it of its sources of strength.
Al-Akili clarified: The Resistance's weapon is not an "unregulated weapon"; rather, it is the same weapon that defended the land of Iraq, its sanctuaries, and its people under the harshest conditions and prevented the advance of terrorism. According to him, equating this weapon with those of outlaw groups overlooks the sacrifices of forces that played a decisive role in the war against ISIS.
Resistance Weapons as a Deterrent Against Threats
This Resistance front expert argued: Examining the issue of weapons monopolization without considering the existing threats against Iraq is an incomplete analysis. The experience of past years has shown that the Resistance's weapon has not only failed to rival state sovereignty but has also, in many cases, been the main pillar of its preservation.
He continued: Disarming the Resistance while external threats and the risk of terrorism's return still exist could create a dangerous security vacuum and render Iraq vulnerable to external threats. This weapon is part of Iraq's strategic deterrence power.
Reasons for Resistance Groups' Opposition to Disarmament
Al-Akili further stated: The most important reason for the Resistance groups' opposition to the disarmament plan is the concern over external threats and the lack of complete trust in the ability of official security structures to counter these threats on their own.
He added: Moreover, many Resistance forces do not see the weapon merely as a military tool but consider it a symbol of Resistance and part of their political and ideological identity.
Resistance's Conditions for Any Dialogue
The reporter for Kata'ib Sayyid al-Shuhada added: Some groups do not reject the principle of dialogue about regulating the status of weapons, but they have set specific conditions for it.
According to him, the most important condition is the complete withdrawal of foreign forces, especially American forces, from Iraqi soil. Furthermore, these groups believe that any discussion about the status of weapons must take place within the framework of a national defense strategy that preserves the role of the Resistance and does not merely lead to its dissolution or weakening.
Divergent Views on the Concept of Weapons in Iraq
Al-Akili continued: There are two different perspectives on the weapons issue in Iraq. On one hand, the Resistance groups and their supporters view the weapon as a defensive tool and a complement to official security forces, playing a deterrent role against internal and external threats.
According to him, on the other hand, some political and civil currents believe that the multiplicity of military power centers weakens state authority and leads to political and economic instability, and therefore, weapons should be entirely in the hands of the state.
The Role of Resistance Group Weapons in Security Equations
This Resistance front expert stated: The weapons of Resistance groups are part of Iraq's regional and internal deterrence equation and act as a factor in curbing the movements of the United States, the Zionist regime, and also preventing the return of ISIS.
He warned that if these weapons are removed without a suitable alternative, Iraq will face a serious security vacuum, especially in border and desert areas where factions play a significant role in securing them.
The Relationship Between Resistance Weapons and State Sovereignty
Al-Akili further said: The Resistance's weapon is not in conflict with state sovereignty; rather, in many cases, it has acted as a support base to strengthen it.
According to him, within the framework of the Popular Mobilization Forces, this weapon has become part of Iraq's official security structure and operates under the command of the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces; therefore, it cannot be considered illegal or a rival to the state.
The Link Between Resistance Weapons and the US Presence
The reporter for Kata'ib Sayyid al-Shuhada added: There is a direct relationship between the American military presence in Iraq and the continued activity of Resistance groups. According to him, the presence of foreign forces gives Resistance groups legitimacy to retain their weapons under the banner of Resistance.
He continued: Conversely, the United States also uses the existence of these weapons as a pretext to continue its military presence in Iraq, and this has created a reciprocal cycle.
Categorical Opposition of Some Factions to Disarmament
Al-Akili emphasized: Groups such as Kata'ib Sayyid al-Shuhada, Kata'ib Hezbollah, al-Nujaba, and Saraya Awliya al-Dam have categorically opposed any pressure to disarm the Resistance.
He continued: These groups believe that Resistance weapons guarantee Iraq's sovereignty and that as long as the foreign military presence in the country has not ended, one cannot talk about setting them aside.
Political Exploitation of the Weapons Monopolization File
Al-Akili stated elsewhere in his remarks: In many cases, the 'weapons monopolization' file in Iraq turns into a tool of political pressure, especially used by political currents around election time.
According to him, some currents exploit this issue to weaken their rivals while, at the same time, trying to gain the support of public opinion as well as some foreign actors by raising this slogan.
Potential Consequences of Enforced Implementation of the Plan
This Resistance front expert warned in conclusion: Implementing the weapons monopolization plan under pressure or by force could have dangerous consequences for Iraq.
He continued: Such an action could lead to tensions and even clashes between factions and security forces, consequently creating a security vacuum, conditions that could provide a suitable opportunity for the resurgence of terrorist groups like ISIS.
Al-Akili concluded: Maintaining stability in Iraq requires a comprehensive national agreement that both strengthens state authority and considers the role of Resistance forces in defending the country within the framework of national interests.
