Baghdad
“Independent Arabia” published a report claiming that the process of weapons containment may begin with ballistic missiles and drones before moving on to other types of weapons.
The report is not merely a passing piece of information. It is an indicator that a fundamentally strategic issue has now been placed on the negotiating table under direct external pressure.
1⃣ This Is Not Internal Discipline
What is happening has nothing to do with “internal discipline” or sovereign restructuring. The available information indicates that the process is being carried out under direct U.S. pressure.
A source in the Prime Minister’s Office confirmed that Washington informed the Iraqi government that everything taking place on this issue must be substantive, not merely symbolic, and that the United States has full knowledge of all the details, including the number and specifications of the weapons.
This is compelled disclosure under threat.
2⃣ Why Focus Specifically on Missiles and Drones?
Missiles and drones are strategic deterrent weapons, not internal-security weapons.
No one asks Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, or any other country to disclose the number of its missiles or where they are manufactured. Yet Iraq is being asked to do so.
Starting with these weapons specifically indicates that the objective is not to “control uncontrolled weapons,” but to strip the state of its strategic deterrent capability.
3⃣ Why Is Opening This Door a Disgrace?
Even if the weapons are never actually handed over, despite the very real pressure, simply opening the discussion over a strategic arsenal under U.S. supervision constitutes a surrender of defensive sovereignty. It will remain a stain on the record of the government and those who brought it to power, namely the Coordination Framework.
4⃣ The Real Objectives
The objectives are clear and exposed:
• Determine the actual number of missiles and drones
• Identify their manufacturing locations
• Determine their specifications and capabilities
This amounts to stripping Iraq of its independent deterrent capability. Once Washington and Iraq’s adversaries know every detail of its arsenal, Iraq becomes completely exposed in any future crisis.
5⃣ What If U.S. Forces Leave?
A debate has emerged over whether U.S. forces will leave Iraqi territory by the end of this month, September, and some have already begun prematurely celebrating this “achievement,” whose substance remains unclear.
But the question is not: “Have U.S. forces left?”
The real question is: “Has America left the region?”
The figures provide a clear answer: No.
Around 50,000 U.S. troops, two aircraft carriers, and more than ten warships remain in the region. These are not indicators of withdrawal, but of redeployment.
Washington is reportedly studying a restructuring of its military presence, including moving some sensitive facilities underground to protect them. In other words, it is strengthening its presence rather than retreating.
And this is the essence of the matter: even if U.S. forces withdraw from Iraq by September 30, the American capacity to intervene, exert pressure, and conduct strikes remains intact.
An Iraq stripped of its strategic weapons under such pressure would remain exposed to a regional power that has no intention of leaving the region, regardless of how many military bases it maintains inside Iraqi territory.
The irony is that talk of a U.S. military withdrawal coincides with talk of “weapons containment.” At the very moment when a “Day of Sovereignty” is being promoted, the issue of removing ballistic missiles and drones, strategic deterrent weapons, is being opened under U.S. supervision.
What kind of sovereignty is built on stripping the state of its deterrent capability while leaving the details of its arsenal exposed to the very power supposedly “leaving”?