At a time when Iraq is on the cusp of one of its most sensitive political periods, Donald Trump’s statements and subsequent media backtracking regarding the potential return of Nouri al-Maliki to the premiership once again revealed a recurring pattern in U.S. foreign policy: a pattern based on overt interference in the internal processes of countries, direct pressure, and the use of threats as a tool to engineer political outcomes. The fact that the U.S. president allows himself to speak about what “should not” be in the domestic policy of an independent country and simultaneously threatens to cut aid as a means of pressure, is more than a one-off position; it reflects a structural perspective.
The subsequent deletion of Trump’s tweet does not change the core message. The message, before deletion, was clearly received: Washington considers itself entitled to make decisions about the composition of power in Baghdad. This logic is not limited to Nouri al-Maliki or to Iraq. What is inherent in this approach is the denial of the practical right of national sovereignty of countries and the reduction of elections and legal processes to variables dependent on U.S. approval.
Within this framework, a number of Iraqi politicians have explicitly warned that the goal of these pressures is not merely one person or one candidate, but the very principle of Iraq’s independent decision-making. In their view, accepting such interference means opening a dangerous path; a path that begins today with opposition to a political figure and tomorrow will encompass any option that is not aligned with Washington’s interests. These positions demonstrate that the sensitivity of Iraqi political thought is, above all, focused on the issue of independence, sovereignty, and national dignity.
The key point is that Trump’s interventionist approach, regardless of its short-term outcome, leaves deep psychological and social impacts on target countries. The blatant disregard for democratic processes and the threat of economic sanctions, in practice, convey the message to societies that you do not have the competence to decide your own destiny. Such a message, even if it intimidates some political elites, translates into accumulated anger and a persistent distrust of the United States at the public level.
Europe’s experience during the Trump era is a telling example. The disrespectful treatment of traditional allies, repeated threats against NATO, and attempts to impose economic and security decisions not only failed to strengthen transatlantic solidarity but also exacerbated feelings of humiliation and distancing from the United States in European public opinion. This trend was repeated in Canada, where trade pressures and insulting rhetoric turned a close partner into a symbol of resistance against U.S. bullying.
In Mexico, the border wall policy and economic threats exacerbated feelings of injustice and national humiliation rather than solving the immigration issue. In Latin America, direct interventions in Venezuela and the continued pressure on Cuba demonstrated that determining a preferred president from the outside not only fails to lead to changes in government behavior but also strengthens the discourse of resistance and hostility towards the United States. The result of these policies has been a reduction in America’s soft power and an increase in public skepticism about its intentions.
In this context, Trump’s intervention and even the U.S. Secretary of State’s contact with the Iraqi Prime Minister, under the pretext of “controlling Iran,” is more than a concern for Iraq’s stability; it is an attempt at political engineering from the outside. This approach views Iraq not as an independent actor, but as a stage for power competition; a perspective that ultimately leads to the weakening of state institutions and the exacerbation of internal divisions.
Trump’s naked interference in the internal affairs of countries is not a sign of America’s strength, but a reflection of a crisis in the legitimacy of its foreign policy. A policy built on humiliation, threats, and disregard for the will of nations will ultimately face public anger and political resistance. Iraq today is only one example of this costly pattern; a pattern that has previously been tested in Europe, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, and Cuba, and the negative consequences of which are clearly evident.
NOURNEWS