Nouri al-Maliki (Shutterstock)
In recent days, Donald Trump has publicly warned Iraq’s political leadership that a return to power by Nouri al-Maliki would trigger consequences from Washington, including economic pressure and restrictions tied to U.S. financial access. The threat came amid renewed coalition negotiations in Baghdad, where Maliki, Iraq’s prime minister from 2006 to 2014, has re-emerged as a central power broker despite not holding formal office.
Trump framed the issue as a matter of stopping a single figure associated with corruption, sectarianism, and authoritarianism. But that framing misses the deeper problem. The failure Trump is signaling isn’t about one Iraqi politician or one election.
Trump’s threats were really about the political order the United States helped build after 2003, a system that paired elections with fragile institutions, divided security forces, and courts open to political pressure. That system didn’t stop authoritarian behavior; it redirected it. Leaders like Maliki, one of the most powerful figures to emerge from the post-invasion political order, didn’t need to destroy democracy to control Iraqi politics. Such leaders just had to learn how to work inside it and eventually dominate it.
This is the paradox of post-2003 Iraq. Democratic procedures have existed, but democratic restraints have not. Power is no longer seized through coups or suspended constitutions but accumulated through legal interpretation, coalition arithmetic, and institutional drift. Elections conferred legitimacy without enforcing accountability. Over time, the system rewarded political survival over political performance. And figures like Maliki learned how to turn that imbalance into durable power.
Rewarding Survival over Accountability
After 2003, the United States bet heavily on elections as the driver of Iraq’s transformation. The logic was straightforward: once parties competed, leaders rotated, and voters had real choices, moderation and accountability would follow. Participation would soften politics.
Iraq’s post-invasion state looked pluralistic on paper but remained weak in practice. Courts became politicized, security forces stayed fragmented, and party systems were transactional and fluid. Court rulings became political tools rather than neutral arbiters. They were weapons to delay outcomes, sideline rivals, or rewrite the rules mid-game. In that environment, elections gave legitimacy without limits.
Power didn’t flow mainly from winning votes. It flowed through control points, judicial rulings, coalition math, security appointments, and the law’s definition of opposition. Politics became less about governing well and more about managing rivals. Maliki didn’t create this system, but he understood it earlier and used it better than most.
Winning Without Winning
The clearest example came in 2010. That year, Maliki’s coalition lost parliamentary elections to a rival bloc led by Iyad Allawi, which won more seats. In most democracies, that would have settled it. Allawi’s bloc had earned the right to attempt to form a government first. The electoral process had spoken. Maliki should have been preparing to leave office. His coalition had fewer seats. The math was clear.
What was unclear, however, was how Iraq’s new institutions would treat that outcome. The constitution offered procedures but little guidance on enforcement. Courts had authority but not insulation. Coalition rules existed, but they were elastic. That ambiguity created space for power to be contested after the vote rather than resolved by it.
Maliki didn’t cancel the election or outright reject it. Instead, the legal ground shifted. Courts redefined what “largest bloc” meant. Coalition rules got reworked. Political bargaining dragged on for months. When it ended, Maliki remained prime minister despite losing at the ballot box. The Federal Supreme Court ruled that the “largest bloc” could form after the election through coalition deals rather than by whoever won the most seats, a legal interpretation that favored Maliki.
Everything followed constitutional procedure. Its meaning, however, was hollowed out in the process. The election’s winner never governed; the election’s loser never left office. That became the template: power would be contested not by suspending democracy, but by navigating institutions that lacked independence.
Learning to Rule Without Ruling
Maliki is often portrayed as a former prime minister seeking a comeback. That is why he remains more significant a decade after taking office. However, Maliki doesn’t matter because he wants power again. He matters because he showed how power works in Iraq, and that logic hasn’t changed.
During his years in office, Maliki proved that authority in Iraq didn’t require dictatorship. It required selective enforcement. Rivals weren’t banned; they were prosecuted. Opposition wasn’t silenced; it was reframed as a security threat. Militias weren’t rejected; they were normalized, then absorbed. Each move had procedural cover. Each move shrank political space.
Maliki’s influence didn’t end when he left office in 2014. For years thereafter, he operated as a kingmaker, shaping coalitions, blocking rivals, and influencing judicial and security appointments without holding formal power. In Iraq’s system, formal authority is just one kind of power. The ability to veto outcomes often matters more than the ability to govern. His continued relevance says less about ambition than about the durability of the system he mastered.
Trump’s Pressure Misses the Point
Trump didn’t create Iraq’s post-2003 order, but his threats show he doesn’t understand how it works. Trump believes that pressure works, leverage matters, and money buys compliance. That logic keeps failing in Iraq.
The reasoning goes as follows: Iraq needs oil revenues, dollar clearing, and international legitimacy. Threaten those, and Iraqi leaders will fold. This has come up before when the United States has threatened to cut dollar access and issued warnings tied to troop presence. None of these threats changed elite bargaining or weakened figures like Maliki.
Trump’s transactional view, that leverage produces compliance, clashes with a system built to absorb pressure and not respond to it. Maliki doesn’t need U.S. approval to survive. His strength comes from networks, not signatures; from courts that can delay or rewrite outcomes; from alliances that can block government formation; and from security forces that blur the line between state and militia. These aren’t vulnerabilities that threats can neutralize.
Trump is attempting to discipline a system by targeting a single person. Maliki operates in a system designed to spread risk, shift blame, and deflect outside pressure. That’s why American warnings sound tough but fail politically. They target formal authority. Real influence is somewhere else.
The Sovereignty Trap
External pressure triggers a predictable response. Iraqi elites, including Maliki’s allies, frame U.S. intervention as an attack on sovereignty. American threats, even when backed by real leverage, end up strengthening the nationalist narratives that protect incumbents instead of weakening them. They shift the debate from governance failures to foreign interference.
Pressure doesn’t change behavior. It changes the story.
The fight between Trump and Maliki reflects a deeper American miscalculation: the belief that democratic structures automatically produce democratic results. Iraq demonstrates how elections can coexist with exclusion, how participation can legitimize power without constraining it, and how leaders can rule through procedure rather than force. Once that becomes the playbook, outside pressure loses its bite.
This isn’t unique to Iraq. A similar pattern applies to Hungary and Turkey, where elections continue alongside captured courts and entrenched leaders. Around the world, leaders are learning that democracy’s tools can lock in authority as easily as challenge it, especially when courts, parties, and security forces lack independence.
Trump may be justified in worrying about Maliki’s return. But treating Maliki as the problem misses the harder truth: figures like him emerge when elections exist without real institutional constraints. The United States didn’t lose influence in Iraq because Maliki betrayed democracy. It lost influence because the system was never built to restrain him in the first place.
That’s why this fight feels familiar, and why it won’t end the way Washington expects. Trump isn’t confronting Maliki’s ambition. He’s confronting a system that has learned to survive American pressure. He can threaten a politician and sanction a government. It’s far harder to undo a system that’s already taught its most adept players how to survive.
No comments:
Post a Comment