Nournews: Despite widespread optimism regarding the completion of Iraq’s government structure under Prime Minister-designate Al-Zaidi, the process remains surrounded by uncertainty and serious obstacles. While internal political disputes and competition among political factions for influence cannot be ignored as contributing factors to the delay, the emphasis by most Iraqi political forces on accelerating cabinet formation—as well as the Coordination Framework’s effective role in nominating the prime minister—suggests that the situation extends beyond Iraq’s domestic dynamics. Iraqi experts and officials have increasingly referred to this obstacle as the “American veto.”
The United States, which justified its 2003 invasion of Iraq with promises of democracy, freedom, and transforming the country into a regional model, has in practice demonstrated an unwillingness to accept genuine Iraqi independence. Washington has consistently pursued a dual-track policy toward Iraq. On one hand, it has sought to maintain political and economic dominance by weakening Iraq’s security and defense institutions. On the other, it has hindered the development of Iraq’s political structure and created economic obstacles in an effort to prolong its influence and prevent Iraq from achieving full security and defense independence.
Iraq’s bitter experience during the Ramadan War, when its airspace became a corridor for American and Israeli military aircraft and was allegedly used to facilitate Israeli activities inside the country, serves as a clear example of this strategy. From the failure to appoint an ambassador for eighteen months to the dispatch of Barrack and continued influence over Iraq’s financial and monetary resources, alongside claims of combating terrorism and maintaining military forces under the Baghdad–Washington Security Agreement, all reflect Washington’s efforts to justify extensive intervention in Iraq’s internal affairs.
This trend entered a new phase during the Trump administration. The U.S. Treasury imposed multiple sanctions on Iraqi officials, particularly in the oil and security sectors, effectively exerting leverage over Iraq’s Central Bank. Simultaneously, diplomatic pressure and political interference intensified. The United States refrained from appointing a new ambassador to Iraq for eighteen months, a move many viewed as a form of political coercion and humiliation. This process entered a new stage with the appointment of Barrack, who previously served as a U.S. special envoy in Lebanon and Syria.
Barrack has demonstrated little commitment to conventional diplomatic frameworks or mutual engagement, instead pursuing an approach based on pressure and imposition. This perspective views West Asian countries as subordinate to American interests and seeks to secure compliance through all available means.
Reviving Washington’s Failed Projects in Iraq
Although the United States sought after 2003 to consolidate its dominance over Iraq through the dismantling of intelligence and security institutions and control over economic resources, the efforts of independent Iraqi movements to achieve genuine sovereignty—particularly following the historic fatwa of Iraq’s religious authority and the emergence of resistance groups against terrorism and foreign occupation—posed serious challenges to these objectives.
By relying on domestic capacities, particularly indigenous security structures rooted in resistance, and by expanding strategic relations with Iran and the broader Axis of Resistance—especially through the efforts of the late General Qassem Soleimani—Iraq was able to move contrary to Washington’s vision of a dependent Iraqi model and instead emerge as an example of independence for Arab countries. Support for resistance movements and the Palestinian cause, as well as closer cooperation with Iran, enhanced Baghdad’s regional and international standing.
Today, the United States is employing a combination of threats, pressure, incentives, and political and security obstruction in an effort to achieve goals that have remained elusive for years. Washington’s primary strategy centers on disarming and marginalizing resistance groups, weakening Iraq’s defense capabilities, and generating political and economic instability through disruptions to the government formation process.
A Multi-Layered Strategy: From Security Vacuums to Social Crises
The U.S. record in many parts of the world—from Latin America to West Asia—suggests that under the banner of assistance, development, and reconstruction, Washington has often pursued a multi-dimensional strategy that begins with creating security vacuums and extends to fostering social discontent, unrest, and instability.
This pattern is also visible in Iraq. The ministries that remain without permanent leadership and continue to face pressure or disputes linked to foreign interference are precisely those directly connected to security, the economy, and social welfare.
These ministries include Defense, Interior, Planning, Higher Education, Labor and Social Affairs, Reconstruction and Housing, Culture, and Migration and Displacement. Given their significant political and administrative importance, prolonged uncertainty within these institutions could produce far-reaching security, social, and economic consequences.
Such conditions make Iraq vulnerable to scenarios such as the resurgence of terrorism spilling over from Syria, renewed American arguments for maintaining military forces and delaying withdrawal plans, intensified social tensions, and growing economic and cultural grievances. Ultimately, these developments could facilitate greater American influence over Iraq.
A key element of U.S. demands involves weakening Iraq’s relations with neighboring countries, particularly Iran. These relationships have long been viewed as among the most important factors strengthening Iraq’s independence and helping it resist what many Iraqi actors perceive as American-driven destabilization efforts.
By creating false dichotomies and fueling domestic divisions, Washington seeks to marginalize supporters of Iraqi sovereignty and stability by portraying them as aligned with resistance groups or Iran. The objective, according to critics, is to establish a weak and dependent government similar to models pursued elsewhere in the region, including Lebanon, where some political factions are accused of overlooking external threats while focusing on domestic rivals and ignoring American intervention.
The Ramadan War: A Historical Warning for Iraq’s Future
The scenario of crisis creation through interference in Iraq’s government formation process is unfolding against the backdrop of lessons learned from the Ramadan War and from American actions that many Iraqis view as violations of the country’s sovereignty and airspace, as well as alleged facilitation of Israeli activities within Iraq.
This experience demonstrates, according to supporters of Iraqi independence, that the country must rely on internal unity, national cohesion, stronger resistance capabilities, and the experiences of independent regional states—particularly Iran, which they regard as a consistent supporter of Iraq’s security and stability.
Today, Iraq faces one of the most critical tests of its independence. This challenge requires both the preservation of indigenous security structures and continued progress toward political and economic autonomy while resisting foreign intervention. In this regard, the courage of Iraq’s leaders, greater cooperation among political factions, and the swift completion of government institutions are considered essential components for achieving this strategic objective.
Nournews