Rubio warns of Iraq ‘Balkanisation’: Is that a real threat?

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has warned that Iraq risks “Balkanisation” unless its armed factions are brought under state control.

He made the remarks to reporters at the Palace Hotel in New York City on Wednesday, on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly, after meeting Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi Tuesday night.

Rubio said Washington had no doubt about al-Zaidi’s commitment to disarming Iraqi armed groups, but called it a massive and difficult challenge.

He said at least three armed groups had disarmed and joined the national government, while at least one had been far less cooperative.

Bringing all weapons under state control, he said, would mean Iraq no longer had “independent forces operating and balkanising the country”.

So what does Rubio really mean? And is the breakup of Iraq a real threat? Here’s what you need to know:

What does ‘Balkanisation’ mean?

It means a country breaking up into smaller, rival units, usually along ethnic or religious lines.

The term comes from the fragmentation of the Balkans as the Ottoman Empire collapsed in the early 20th century.

In Iraq’s case, it has often been used to describe concerns that the country could split along ethnic and sectarian lines.

However, what Rubio was pointing to was “fractures within the Iraqi state system” caused by Iran-aligned armed groups, Burcu Ozcelik, a senior research fellow for Middle East Security at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), told Al Jazeera.

These groups act as rivals to one another, “but also by serving as arteries for pro-Iranian regime interests inside Iraq by wielding parallel economic channels, political influence, and oil smuggling networks”, she said.

Is Iraq at risk of breaking up?

Not imminently, although interpretations differ on how seriously to take Rubio’s warning.

“Balkanisation as Rubio framed it means more that Iraq risks failing to become a centralised, stable state that can wean off Iranian interference – not that it faces imminent territorial partition,” Ozcelik said.

She described the armed groups as a “festering, now structural” challenge, and said they have “operated inside federal Iraq with near impunity”.

Zeidon Alkinani, a Middle East political analyst and founding director of the Arab Perspectives Institute, was more sceptical.

He told Al Jazeera that Rubio’s remark could be read “either as a pressure tactic to push the Iraqi government forward on the disarmament process, or as a sign of the administration’s limited understanding of Iraq and the wider region”.

He said disarmament was “a major turning point” in Iraq’s post-2003 politics, but “far from the greatest challenge Iraq has faced”, pointing to the 2003 United States invasion, the sectarian strife of 2006–2007, the war against ISIL (ISIS) from 2014 to 2017 and the 2017 Kurdish independence referendum as far graver threats to the country’s unity.

What do we know about Trump and Rubio’s meetings with al-Zaidi?

Very little.

Rubio told reporters he first met with the Iraqi prime minister, and then US President Donald Trump met with him on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York on Tuesday evening.

Al-Zaidi’s office said in a statement that they discussed political, economic and investment cooperation as well as regional security.

Why is the timing of the meeting important?

It was the second meeting between the two leaders since July, when al-Zaidi promised at the White House that armed factions would have no justification after September 30.

That deadline has since slipped; al-Zaidi told The New York Times that disarmament would now run until June 30, 2027.

Alkinani said that the government is in “a highly delicate position”, as many Iraqis strongly support disarmament, having long seen armed groups outside state institutions as a central pillar of corruption, and as a way to curb Iranian influence.

That could give Baghdad “some breathing room” from both Washington and Tehran, he said, but “it remains an extremely difficult transformation that demands patience and political sensitivity; without them, the process could quickly unravel”.

The meeting also came days before the remaining few hundred US troops are due to leave Iraq on September 30.

Rubio told reporters on Wednesday that “there’s been no discussion” on extending that timeline.

Who are Iraq’s armed groups?

Most of Iraq’s armed groups come under the umbrella of the Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF), a mostly Shia body formed to fight ISIL (ISIS).

The PMF was formally brought into Iraq’s security forces a decade ago, but many of its factions keep their own command structures and maintain close ties to Iran.

Several groups say they have complied with the government’s push.

Saraya al-Salam, Asaib Ahl al-Haq and Kataib al-Imam Ali have reached understandings with Baghdad to hand over their weapons or regularise their status.

Saraya al-Salam, the armed wing linked to Shia leader Muqtada al-Sadr, was formally integrated into the security forces at a ceremony in Samarra in June.

But Ozcelik cautioned that “full disarmament of any group has not really been fully, successfully implemented yet”.

The most powerful Iran-aligned factions have refused. Kataib Hezbollah and Harakat al-Nujaba say they will keep what they call “resistance weapons”.

Hadi al-Amiri, the leader of the Badr Organisation, one of the oldest and largest factions, said last month that bringing weapons under state control was an Iraqi decision, not one imposed from outside, and ruled out any clash between the state and “the resistance”.

Ozcelik said the challenge now is “discerning which of these groups – they have their own sets of interests, pockets, and incentives – can credibly be incorporated and which cannot by the disarmament deadline”.

A key test, she added, will be whether al-Zaidi can “Iraq-ify these groups, meaning a transition to an Iraq-first or Iraqi-Shia identity”.

Have the armed groups played a role in the Iran war?

Yes.

Kataib Hezbollah and Harakat al-Nujaba have both previously targeted US forces in Iraq and have attacked Gulf states during the US-Israel war on Iran.

On Wednesday, Rubio said recent strikes on energy infrastructure in the region were probably carried out in part by Iran-backed armed groups in Iraq, not only by Yemen’s Houthis.

“Pro-Iran militias have directly played a destabilising role in the US-Iran confrontation,” said Ozcelik, citing reports that Saudi Arabia’s East-West Pipeline was targeted from southern Iraq.

Are Iranian airlines still flying to Iraq?

Not entirely.

New US sanctions threaten to cut off any airport or company that refuels, services or sells tickets for Iranian airlines.

Iran says Baghdad has stopped accepting its flights and is trying to reroute them to Najaf, where flights to Iran are continuing, and no suspension order has been received.

Najaf, home to the shrine of Imam Ali, is a major destination for pilgrims, and local travel companies depend heavily on routes to Iran.