By: Dr. Adnan Bouzan

The American messages carrying implicit threats of imposing sanctions on Iraq in the event that Nouri al-Maliki is tasked with forming the government cannot be interpreted within a conventional diplomatic framework, nor dismissed as merely a passing political position. Rather, they must be understood as a concentrated expression of the structural nature of the relationship that has taken shape between Washington and Baghdad since 2003. This relationship was not built on the foundation of full sovereign parity; instead, it emerged within the broader process of reshaping the Iraqi state itself according to the geopolitical order that crystallized after the American occupation. The United States did not leave Iraq in the comprehensive strategic sense; instead, it redefined the instruments of its presence, shifting from direct military occupation to more complex forms of indirect influence through economic leverage, sanctions, political pressure, and dominance over key mechanisms of the global financial system upon which Iraq heavily depends for its monetary and economic stability.

Within this framework, the threat of sanctions is not primarily about Maliki as an individual, but rather about what he represents as a political experience associated with attempts to redefine Iraqi sovereignty beyond the parameters established by Washington after 2003. During a period of his rule, Maliki embodied a model of leadership that sought to recentralize authority within the Iraqi state and strengthen the capacity of national institutions to exercise independent decision-making. This trajectory placed him in structural tension with the American strategic vision, which views Iraq as an integral component of the regional balance of power rather than as a fully autonomous actor operating outside international influence networks. From this perspective, the mere possibility of his return to power may be perceived in Washington as a development that could reopen the space for more independent Iraqi policies, which helps explain part of the American sensitivity toward such a scenario.

In this context, Maliki’s remarks regarding Abu Mohammed al-Julani acquire significance beyond that of an ordinary political statement, as they revive the memory of a complex history of armed conflict and regional transformation over the past two decades. Julani, whose name was previously associated with armed organizations that confronted American forces in Iraq, represents a clear example of the pragmatic transformations imposed by geopolitical realities. In such contexts, actors may transition from positions of direct confrontation to roles as political entities integrated into emerging strategic arrangements. Revisiting these historical realities is not merely an exercise in recalling the past; it intersects directly with present political dynamics, raising broader questions about shifting international priorities and about how certain actors move from being framed as security threats to becoming part of a political reality governed by complex balances of power.

American sensitivity toward such discourse does not necessarily stem from defending specific individuals or entities, but rather from a broader imperative to preserve delicate regional equilibria and to prevent the emergence of political narratives that could undermine the legitimacy of arrangements established after prolonged military engagement and international intervention. American policy in the region has never been governed by rigid ideological constants, but rather by a pragmatic logic aimed at maintaining relative stability in a manner that ensures the continuity of American influence and prevents the emergence of strategic vacuums that rival powers could exploit.

Iraq occupies a uniquely critical position within this framework due to its geographic location as a strategic crossroads connecting Iran, Syria, Turkey, and the Gulf region. This position grants Iraq a strategic weight that extends far beyond its national borders. Any shift in Iraq’s internal political structure inevitably reverberates across the broader regional balance, making its political direction and stability a matter of sustained international concern. From this standpoint, the threat of sanctions conveys an implicit message: that Iraq’s internal political choices are not entirely separable from the international environment, and that sovereignty—while firmly established as a legal principle—remains, in practice, deeply intertwined with the realities of global power and influence.

The transition from direct military force to economic pressure as a primary instrument of influence reflects a broader evolution in the exercise of power within the contemporary international system. Extensive military presence is no longer always necessary to maintain strategic leverage; instead, control over global economic mechanisms, financial systems, and international networks of relations has become sufficient to shape the political decisions of states. Within this framework, sanctions emerge as a dual-impact instrument: they exert direct pressure on the economy while simultaneously reshaping the political calculations of governing elites by redefining the costs and limits of political choice.

What is unfolding today cannot be reduced to a personal rivalry or a transient diplomatic disagreement. Rather, it reflects a deeper struggle over Iraq’s position within the regional and international order. The fundamental question raised by these developments is not merely who will assume the office of prime minister, but to what extent Iraq will be able to expand its political autonomy within an international environment structured by power balances and competing interests. The United States’ ability to influence Iraqi political trajectories has long been, and remains, part of a broader strategic framework designed to preserve the balance architecture that has defined the Middle East over the past two decades.

In light of this reality, threatening messages—whether conveyed explicitly or implicitly—serve as instruments of strategic signaling, reminding political actors of the structural constraints governing state behavior within the international system. Iraq now stands at a historic crossroads, where domestic political dynamics intersect with external pressures, and where government formation becomes not merely a constitutional procedure, but a strategic event reflecting the broader contest over influence, the reconfiguration of regional power balances, and the future of Iraqi sovereignty itself in a world still governed as much by the logic of power as by the principles of law.