Abu Mujahid Al-Assaf to Al-Zaydi

In one of the most hard-hitting statements to emerge from the Iraqi scene in recent weeks, Abu Mujahid Al-Assaf, the security official of the Islamic Resistance – Hezbollah Brigades in Iraq, delivered a direct message to Prime Minister-designate Ali Al-Zaydi, placing the relationship between the government and the Resistance within a new equation: sovereignty first, and the Resistance’s weapons cannot be separated from the American and Turkish military presence or Iraq’s internal balance of power.

The statement is not merely a political objection. Its language carries a clear security warning, while at the same time leaving a window open for a political solution if the course is corrected.

First: These are the resistance’s Conditions

According to Al-Assaf’s statement, any government approach toward regulating relations with the Resistance over the issue of the

“Weapons of Dignity”

must begin with three fundamental issues:

1️⃣ Ending the American Presence

The Resistance demands the complete withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraqi territory and airspace, with guarantees that they will not return. It also calls for ending what it considers American domination over Iraq’s political and economic decision-making.

2️⃣ Removing Turkish Forces

The Resistance considers the Turkish military presence in northern Iraq an occupation and demands its complete withdrawal.

3️⃣ Dissolving the Peshmerga

The statement calls for the dissolution of the Peshmerga forces, describing them as among the most heavily armed and dangerous formations threatening Iraq’s unity, while criticizing what it considers their links to the Zionist-American axis.

And here, the strategic message becomes unmistakable:

The Resistance rejects reducing the weapons issue to one question:

“When will the factions hand over their weapons?”

For the Resistance, the prior questions are:

Who controls Iraqi sovereignty? Who determines the structure of the security system? And who guarantees that Iraq does not become an arena for American or Turkish influence?

Second: More Than 100 Days of Patience

Al-Assaf says the Resistance has exercised patience for more than 100 days in the face of what he described as Al-Zaydi’s

“empty bravado,”

criticizing what the statement portrays as his failure to understand the complex internal, regional, and international circumstances surrounding Iraq.

But the sharper escalation came with his accusation that the government is listening to Tom Barrack, whom the statement portrays as hostile to the Resistance and its social base.

At this point, the dispute is no longer purely an internal Iraqi matter.

The statement places the Al-Zaydi government before a larger question:

Is Baghdad making its own security decisions, or does Washington still exercise decisive influence over them?

Third: the Most Dangerous Red Line — the Families of Martyrs and Resistance Fighters

The most serious element of the statement is not its criticism of the Americans, Turks, or Peshmerga, but the accusation that the government has carried out raids on homes and intimidated the families of martyrs, wounded personnel, Resistance fighters, and clerics, allegedly under American supervision.

Al-Assaf directly links these actions to the history and sacrifices of the Resistance, reminding readers that, according to his account, its men were fighting and shedding blood while others were living in greater security and comfort.

Then comes the phrase that cannot simply be dismissed as political rhetoric:

“An eye for an eye, and the aggressor is the more unjust.”

This is the point where the statement moves from political pressure to security deterrence.

The message is clear: continued targeting of the Resistance’s social environment could provoke a response, and the Resistance does not want its restraint to be interpreted as weakness.

Fourth: Why does This Statement Matter Now?

Because Baghdad is facing an extremely sensitive equation:

A government seeking to consolidate its security authority; a Resistance refusing to surrender its weapons under external pressure; an American presence that remains contested; a Turkish military presence in the north; and internal disputes over the structure of the state and its security apparatus.

This makes the weapons issue part of a broader struggle over sovereignty, rather than merely a technical security question.

From the Resistance’s perspective, any attempt to impose disarmament before addressing foreign military presence and security imbalances will be interpreted as restructuring Iraq according to Washington’s conditions — not building an independent Iraqi sovereignty.

Fifth: the Door is Not Closed

Despite its harsh tone, the statement does not explicitly call for an open confrontation.

Instead, it appeals to the

“senior brothers and their wise men”

to intervene and correct what it describes as the

“security deviation,”

with the stated aim of preventing the country from sliding into an internal confrontation.

This is important.

The message is not:

“Confrontation is inevitable.”

It is closer to:

“Correct the course now, before escalation becomes harder to contain.”

Strategic Bottom Line

The statement by Abu Mujahid Al-Assaf significantly raises the political and security pressure on the government of Ali Al-Zaydi, while simultaneously leaving a window open for a political settlement.

The central message is blunt:

The Resistance will not accept a formula in which its weapons are targeted while foreign military forces remain on Iraqi soil and Iraq’s strategic decision-making remains contested.

For Baghdad, this is no longer simply a debate over weapons.

It is becoming a much larger battle over sovereignty, the chain of command, foreign influence — and ultimately, who gets to decide Iraq’s future.

The equation presented by the statement is clear:

No disarmament while American influence remains.

No full sovereignty while the Turkish military presence continues.

No internal stability while the Resistance’s social base and the families of martyrs are being targeted.

And the Resistance’s patience cannot be tested indefinitely.

Most importantly, the statement sends a message to both Baghdad and Washington:

The Resistance will not accept the slogan of

“placing all weapons under state control”

being turned into a tool for placing Iraq’s decision-making under foreign control.

In Iraq, the next battle may not simply be about who possesses the weapons, but about a deeper question:

Who controls the decision to use force… and who controls Iraq’s decision-making?