Iraqi politics is once again being shaken by Washington’s hard interventions. Donald Trump’s aggressive stance against Nuri al-Maliki’s bid for the premiership clearly reveals his intention to curb Iran’s influence in the region. However, this veto is not directed solely at Maliki’s past governance failures; it is also part of a broader strategy to pull Iraq back into the American orbit.
The Tehran Line and the Clash of American Interests
The fundamental reason behind Trump’s opposition to Maliki is the concern that Iraq could become entirely Iran’s “backyard.” Due to the Shiite-centered political structure he established during his tenure as prime minister between 2006 and 2014, and the organic ties he developed with Tehran, Maliki has long remained on Washington’s “blacklist.” Trump views Maliki’s return as the direct submission of Iraq’s financial resources and state mechanisms to the service of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards.
Washington’s core strategy here is to use Iraq as a buffer zone against Iran. The rise of a figure like Maliki to power would not only complicate U.S. oversight of financial flows passing through Iraq but also create the risk that Iraq’s oil dollars could be used to finance Tehran’s regional operations. Trump’s threat to “cut the money” is, in essence, a move to economically suffocate Iraq and sever the arteries feeding Iran.
The Shadow of ISIS and the Memory of Imperialism
Were organizations such as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) merely local mistakes, or were they “instruments” used by major powers to redesign the region? While Trump accuses Maliki of creating chaos, many in the region look at the other side of the coin. The sudden emergence of ISIS following the U.S. withdrawal in 2011 remains vivid in collective memory. The belief that imperial powers facilitated the rise of radical groups to shape the region in line with their own interests is widespread on the streets of Iraq. Maliki’s mistakes are undeniable. Nevertheless, the question of who supported the organizations that filled the vacuum created by these mistakes—and through what logistical means—casts doubt on the sincerity of Trump’s rhetoric about “stability.”
If the United States today accuses Maliki of being the architect of chaos, it must also bear responsibility for the policies that paved the way for this environment by dismantling the Iraqi army and inflaming Sunni–Shia tensions. Maliki’s designation as an undesirable figure today stems not from concerns about democracy or stability, but from the fact that he has moved entirely out of Western control and aligned himself unilaterally with the Iranian axis. In other words, the issue is not democracy or stability, but which sphere of influence Iraq is expected to belong to.
It is true that Maliki’s sectarian policies created space for ISIS. Yet many in Iraq continue to ask a critical question: “If Maliki was so bad, who was the real owner of the system that brought him to power in 2006 and supported him until 2014?”
Possible Scenarios: What Awaits Baghdad?
If Maliki takes office despite all these threats, Iraq is likely to face a highly turbulent period. Iraq’s oil revenues are still held in accounts overseen by the U.S. Federal Reserve. Trump could go beyond cutting aid and restrict Iraq’s access to its own funds. This would mean the collapse of the Iraqi dinar and the outbreak of popular uprisings across the country.
A Maliki government completely deprived of Western support would be forced to make even greater concessions to Tehran in order to survive. This would draw Iraq directly into the center of proxy wars in the region.
The withdrawal of U.S. military and intelligence support could allow dormant ISIS cells or new radical groups to regain ground. Rather than protecting Iraq, Trump’s gamble carries the risk of abandoning an Iraq that does not serve American interests to its fate—or leaving it trapped in chaos.
Ultimately, Maliki’s refusal to step back is a declaration that Iraq no longer wishes to be governed by directives coming from Washington. However, this duel with a leader like Trump, who operates on an “all or nothing” principle, is so risky that it could lead Iraq either toward full independence or toward endless economic and social devastation. Baghdad now stands right in the middle of these two precipices.
By Sümeyra Ulus, Opinion Writer
References
-
Iraq’s Maliki Says He Would Welcome Decision to Replace Him as PM Candidate. Reuters, 3 February 2026.
-
Madhani, Aamer, and Qassim Abdul-Zahra. Trump Warns Iraq against Returning Former PM al-Maliki to Power. Associated Press, 1 February 2026.
-
Trump Threatens Iraq: “We Will Cut Aid If Maliki Becomes Prime Minister.” BBC News Türkçe, 2 February 2026.
