Iraqi militia leader says PMF disarmament possible with Iraq’s ‘full sovereignty’

BAGHDAD — Qais al-Khazali, leader of Asaib Ahl al-Haq, said the disarmament of the Popular Mobilization Forces is possible if Iraq fully restores its sovereignty, claiming that PMF weapons “have never been used against any Iraqi party.”

“These arms remain disciplined and do not pose a threat,” Al-Khazali said in an interview on Iraq’s state television, Al-Iraqiya. “If there were guarantees that Iraq faced no external dangers, then a discussion about the disarmament would be reasonable—on the condition that Iraq fully restores its sovereignty.”

The debate over militia disarmament has intensified following the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria and the decline in Iran’s regional influence. The Popular Mobilization Forces, a coalition of mostly Shia militias established in 2014 to combat the Islamic State, remains central to this discussion.

Formally integrated into Iraq’s armed forces in 2016, the PMF still operates with considerable autonomy and wields significant influence over Iraq’s political and security landscape. Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani has rejected external calls to dismantle the PMF, saying, “It is unacceptable to make demands and impose conditions on Iraq, especially when it comes to dismantling the PMF.”

Iraq’s Shia Coordination Framework denied reports that it had discussed integrating the PMF into the Ministry of Defense during its most recent meeting. Many of the militia groups have rejected the call as well.

On Jan. 16, Iraqi Foreign Minister Fuad Hussein told Reuters that armed groups operating independently in Iraq must disarm or integrate into the nation’s security forces.

Excerpt of Al-Khazali’s interview on Iraq’s state television Al-Iraqiya:

The weapons of the factions [Hashd Al-Shabi] have never been used against any Iraqi party, nor have they played a role in internal conflicts. They have only been deployed in times of external threats to Iraq and in support of Gaza, serving as a strategic reserve.

These arms remain disciplined and do not pose a threat. If there were guarantees that Iraq faced no external dangers, then a discussion about the disarmament would be reasonable—on the condition that Iraq fully restores its sovereignty. A key measure of this sovereignty would be the state’s ability to establish an air defense system, ensuring control over its airspace. As it stands, however, Iraq’s skies remain open to both Israel and Turkey.

As long as Iraq’s sovereignty and strategic decision-making are incomplete, and as long as the factions’ weapons are not directed internally, the country may still have a need for them. The Iraqi army, for example, is unlikely to stand against the Turkish military, given Turkey’s membership in NATO. Furthermore, Turkey has no intention of withdrawing from northern Iraq or relinquishing Kirkuk and Nineveh. So why the concern over these weapons?