Login
iscover
What are the implications of a resurgence of instability in Iraq for the United States and its Middle East strategy?
To continue reading the rest of this article, please log in.
Create free account to get unlimited news articles and more!
Mounting political tensions in Iraq have prompted renewed concern over stability in the region amid the ongoing tussle for power between the Iran-backed bloc and its fellow Shiite rivals.
An eruption of violence followed Islamic cleric Muqtada al-Sadr’s public resignation from politics, with the armed wing of his supporter base, Saraya al-Salam, clashing with security forces.
Approximately 30 people were killed and hundreds were injured following weeks of disorder.
This comes amid the continued failure to form a government following Iraq’s parliamentary elections in October.
The Sadrist Movement, formerly aligned with Iran, secured the largest parliamentary bloc, edging ahead of Shiite factions closely affiliated with Tehran.
But the Sadrist Movement failed attempts to form a coalition with the Kurds and Sunnis left the movement short of a two-thirds majority needed to form government.
According to Nicole Robinson — senior research associate, Middle East, in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy at The Heritage Foundation — the violence was a “clear demonstration” of the “deeply fractured” political and social environment in Iraq.
She fears the violence could ignite another civil conflict, destabilising the whole the region.
“It’s difficult to predict what will happen in Iraq over the next few weeks or months, but the violence should be a wake-up call for the United States,” Robinson writes.
Reflecting on the United States’ Iraq policy since 2014, Robinson notes the focus on the “enduring defeat of the so-called Islamic State”.
This policy, she contends, has encouraged increased security cooperation between US and Iraqi security forces.
However, in the process, Washington and Baghdad have failed to define a clear strategic vision for bilateral relations.
“Most attention has focused on the ongoing presence of US military forces and operations in Iraq,” she adds.
“Strategic discussions in 2020 reaffirmed a continued US presence, but did not articulate a US-Iraq strategy that would address Iranian proxy activity, the political deadlock, and the many economic, political, and security challenges that the country faces today.”
Robinson warns Iraq is “at a crossroads”, with the looming Iran nuclear deal and the unfreezing of Tehran’s funds threatening to weaken the United States’ leverage to deter Iranian influence in the Middle East.
Robinson goes on to flag risks of an enhanced Iranian presence in the region if Baghdad succumbs to Tehran’s political incursions.
“Iraq will become a subservient client state of Iran’s, instead of a counterweight to Tehran, something that neither al-Sadr nor the region would welcome with open arms,” Robinson adds.
“The political future of Iraq is uncertain, but what is clear is that what happens in Iraq will determine Iran’s foothold in the region.”
And according to Robinson, the US has little power to reverse the political trend in Iraq.
As such, she urges Washington to reconsider any foreign policy moves which could further Iran’s ambitions.
“There’s little the US can do at this point to stabilise Iraq, but one thing it should not do is sign another flawed nuclear deal with Iran, which would greatly strengthen that regime and flood it with resources that will make it easier for Iran to dominate Iraq and the rest of the region,” she concludes.
Get involved with the discussion and let us know your thoughts on Australia’s future role and position in the Indo-Pacific region and what you would like to see from Australia's political leaders in terms of partisan and bipartisan agenda setting in the comments section below, or get in touch with
