Having subjected Iraq to military, political, and economic occupation since 2003, the US continues to describe the country as one of its most important focal points in the region. Yet for the past 18 months, Washington has refrained from appointing an ambassador to Baghdad. During this period, the massive US embassy in Iraq has been managed primarily by chargés d’affaires and interim representatives. In a sudden move, Tom Barrack, whose mission in Syria and Lebanon was reportedly coming to an end, was appointed as the US representative for Iraqi affairs.
At a time when Iraq continues to face the absence of a US ambassador while the process of forming a new government under Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi is underway, this contradictory behavior, declining to appoint an ambassador while naming a special envoy, can be interpreted as a reflection of Washington’s failure to achieve its previous hegemonic objectives, particularly during the Ramadan War, and as part of a new scenario aimed at preventing the implementation of legislation calling for the complete withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. This is especially significant given Barrack’s close ties to terrorist groups such as al-Julani’s faction and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham in Syria.
Iraq: A Theater of US Strategic Failures and Unfinished Objectives
A review of the US record in Iraq since 2003 shows that Washington sought to transform the country into a launchpad for its “New Middle East” project based on its own hegemonic interests and ambitions. From the outset, it dismantled Iraq’s military and intelligence institutions, created conditions that facilitated the rise of terrorist groups such as ISIS, and established dominance over key economic structures, including financial resources and the Central Bank of Iraq, placing the country in a position of economic dependency. Later, through the Baghdad–Washington Security Agreement, which ostensibly outlined a timetable for US withdrawal but in practice contained renewable provisions, it sought to preserve its presence while advancing its broader regional objectives.
Despite extensive interventions and sustained economic, political, and security pressure, the spirit of independence within significant segments of Iraq’s political establishment, the emergence of popular national resistance movements under the guidance of the religious authorities, Baghdad’s strategic relations with independent countries such as Iran, and Iraq’s balanced engagement with a wide range of international actors, including China and Russia, have all posed serious challenges to Washington’s plans.
With Trump’s return and his claims that he can achieve goals that previous US presidents failed to realize over decades, the absence of a US ambassador to Iraq over the past 18 months appears to be a clear sign of Washington’s inability to advance its objectives in the country. This can be viewed as a form of diplomatic hostage-taking designed to pressure Baghdad. At a time when the US maintains ambassador-level relations with other Arab states in the region, such behavior reflects a policy of intimidation, coercion, extortion, and leverage-building toward Iraq.
Ramadan War: Exposing America’s Influence Crisis and Hidden Scandals in Iraq
A noteworthy point is that while the US effectively maintains control over Iraq’s territory and airspace through the Baghdad–Washington Security Agreement and by preventing Iraq from achieving independent air-defense capabilities, it used that very position during the Ramadan War to facilitate its own aerial operations and those of the Zionist regime against Iran. Yet the conflict also exposed new dimensions of America’s deteriorating position in Iraq.
On one side, despite all pressures, Iraqi resistance groups, supported by popular backing and independent factions within Iraq’s political system, formed part of the broader Resistance Front during the Ramadan War, placing US and Israeli targets within range of their missiles and drones. The situation reached a point where Trump was reportedly compelled to seek a unilateral ceasefire with the Iraqi resistance.
The Ramadan War demonstrated that threats, pressure, economic, political, and security sanctions, disruption of Iraq’s internal order through ISIS, and even control over financial resources have failed to divert Baghdad from the path of independence and from playing a role beyond Washington’s preferred framework.
Another major aspect of the conflict was the exposure of Israeli bases operating in areas under US control. The scandal suggested that Washington, while undermining Iraq’s political order, including through its refusal to appoint an ambassador, has sought to consolidate the Zionist regime’s foothold in Iraq and use it against Iran’s security. This further strengthened public demands and official calls for the complete withdrawal of US forces from all Iraqi territory, including the northern regions.
Tom Barrack: New Face of Maximum-Pressure Project Against Baghdad
While Trump continues to withhold the appointment of an ambassador to Iraq, the selection of a figure such as Tom Barrack, given his record in Syria and Lebanon, carries significant implications.
Barrack, who considers himself among Trump’s most loyal allies, has repeatedly displayed a dismissive attitude toward Islamic countries and the region. During a meeting with Lebanese journalists, he reportedly made insulting remarks, urging them to “behave in a civilized manner and not like animals.” He has also maintained close ties with groups such as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and al-Julani, while openly pursuing the issue of Hezbollah’s disarmament in Lebanon.
His primary mission in Syria was to consolidate the power of terrorist groups and pave the way for normalization between Damascus, Beirut, and the Zionist regime. Although he failed to fully achieve these objectives, he succeeded in creating conditions that facilitated Israeli escalation and the expansion of occupation policies.
Given statements by US officials that the appointment of an ambassador depends on steps to be taken by the new government under Prime Minister al-Zaidi, Barrack’s mission can be understood as applying pressure on Baghdad to disarm resistance groups, confront what Washington describes as “corruption” and “economic challenges,” strengthen the position of US companies in Iraq, compel Baghdad to extend the presence of US forces—which, according to Ammar al-Hakim, is scheduled to end in September—align Iraqi and Syrian positions within the framework of US regional designs, facilitate the activities of terrorist groups transferred from Syria into Iraq, distance Baghdad from Tehran, and restrict Iraq’s independent regional role in favor of projects such as normalization with the Zionist regime.
In other words, Tom Barrack is not a facilitator for the return of a US ambassador to Baghdad after 18 months; rather, he represents a new instrument of pressure on Iraq along a path that promises nothing but deeper crisis and destruction for the country.
Baghdad’s Strategic Vigilance: Need to Avoid Trap of Pressure, Compromise
America’s conduct toward Iraq, including its 18-month refusal to appoint an ambassador, demonstrates that Washington structures its relations with countries not on the basis of international law, diplomatic norms, or friendly relations, but according to a logic of domination and pressure. Iraq, because of its efforts to preserve structural independence, expand regional and international engagement based on national interests, maintain resistance groups, and continue relations with Iran, has become a target of US pressure and hostility.
Washington’s decision not to appoint an ambassador while assigning Tom Barrack, with his controversial record, as a special envoy should be viewed as a serious warning sign for Iraq’s new government, one that demands heightened vigilance.
The bitter experiences of the past, including the unfavorable situation of some Arab states on the southern shores of the Persian Gulf that fell victim to reliance on US promises and the “Israel First” principle, offer an important lesson for Iraqi policymakers about the consequences of alignment with Washington. By contrast, an independent approach, reliance on domestic capabilities, and expanded cooperation with independent countries such as Iran, Russia, China, and other autonomous global actors could not only help realize the declared goals of the al-Zaidi government but also strengthen Iraq’s regional and international standing.
NOURNEWS