Sequencing and verification in bringing armed groups under state control
A sequencing shift in the Rome talks and Iraq's September 30 weapons deadline show how timetables, security transfers and verification shape efforts to place armed groups under state control.
Geopolitics··Evening
The order between the border file and weapons shifted in Rome
Lebanese and Israeli delegations completed the second day of US-mediated talks in Rome, the seventh round since their framework accord in June. Lebanese officials said the Israeli delegation had, for the first time, stepped back from insisting that Hezbollah's disarmament be settled before the border file. That shift does not mean the sides have agreed on the weapons themselves. The political and military tracks continued to cover Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon, security arrangements, verification methods, pilot zones where the Lebanese army would assume security, and Israeli demolitions in the south. Ali Taher Hill remains a separate point of dispute. Israel wants Lebanese forces to secure the hill, which it says contains Hezbollah command centres, and to dismantle the group's infrastructure. Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem urged the government to stop making concessions. US State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott said the talks focused on strengthening implementation of the framework accord. The concrete movement in Rome was therefore in Israel's position on the order of the files, rather than in a completed settlement; withdrawal, security transfer and field verification remained open issues.[1]
Iraq's September 30 deadline met different responses from armed groups
Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi faces a September 30 deadline for bringing all weapons under state control. Saraya al-Salam, Asaib Ahl al-Haq and Kataib al-Imam Ali have accepted integration into state forces, while the Iran-aligned Kataib Hezbollah rejected the mandate and said it would retain and expand the stock it describes as resistance weapons. Harakat al-Nujaba also argued that the government should target illegal weapons that cause chaos while excluding arms held by fighters who defended Iraq, its holy sites and its people. These responses show that groups subject to the same timetable do not agree on which weapons state control should encompass. Political analyst Omar al-Nasser said the government could be forced to postpone the deadline, possibly until December. The push follows US pressure and Iraq's need to attract foreign investment. Oil revenues account for more than 90 percent of the state budget, while exports fell from 3.3 million barrels per day to about 600,000 in March, partly because the Strait of Hormuz was closed. That economic setting places the state-control objective in a context extending beyond the security institutions alone.[2]
The shared problem: connecting transfer timetables to implementation
The Lebanon-Israel talks and Iraq's process are not parts of the same legal or political arrangement. The first concerns a border, withdrawal and security questions between two countries; the second concerns the integration of armed groups within Iraq into state forces. Even so, the two reports identify a shared implementation problem: an objective of bringing weapons under state control is not completed by announcing a deadline or a general principle alone. In Rome, Israel's retreat from insisting on disarmament first reopened the order in which the border file and the weapons question can advance. Pilot zones, the army's assumption of security and verification methods are being discussed as ways to connect that sequence to steps on the ground. In Iraq, the September 30 deadline operates amid acceptance of integration by some groups, rejection by Kataib Hezbollah, and Harakat al-Nujaba's argument that some fighters' weapons should fall outside the mandate. The current position in both processes is therefore a transition in which scope, order and implementation remain under discussion, not a completed transfer. Ali Taher Hill and Israel's withdrawal remain open in the Rome track, while Iraq faces differing group responses and the possibility that its timetable could be extended.[1], [2]
