As Iraq moves to form a new government, Washington is preparing to recognize the outcome as routine. It is not. What is emerging in Baghdad is a political system increasingly shaped by Iran, and recognizing it without conditions risks cementing that reality.
For years, U.S. policy has relied on a convenient assumption: that elections in Iraq, even flawed ones, produce independent governance. But when the institutions that shape those outcomes are influenced from the outside, the results cannot be treated as fully sovereign.
The problem is not just who wins. It is the system itself.
RESTORING AMERICA: DON’T BE FOOLED. IRAQ ISN’T THE PARTNER WASHINGTON THINKS IT IS
The United States removed Saddam Hussein in 2003 to give Iraq a chance at self-governance. Instead, it helped create the conditions for Iran to expand its influence. Over two decades, Tehran has embedded itself across Iraq’s political and security institutions, building relationships with parties, militias, and power brokers who now shape key state decisions.
That influence is no longer indirect. It is structural.
Start with force. The Popular Mobilization Forces, a network of militias integrated into the Iraqi state, numbers over 200,000 fighters. Many of these groups maintain ties to Iran and operate with command structures that extend beyond Baghdad.
In effect, Iraq now operates with parallel power systems: a formal government and a network of armed groups aligned with Tehran.
That network is not passive. Since late 2023, Iran-aligned militias have carried out repeated drone and missile attacks against U.S. forces and facilities across Iraq and Syria. These attacks are not isolated incidents; they reflect an ecosystem of influence operating inside Iraq while advancing Iran’s strategic objectives.
Politics follows the same pattern.
During government formation crises and in the lead-up to recent elections, there were widespread reports that Iranian officials, particularly through the Quds Force led by Esmail Qaani, engaged directly with Iraqi political leaders across the country, from Basra to Zakho. These engagements included Kurdish, Sunni, Shia, and other factions and aimed to shape post-election arrangements, including how parliamentary representation and key positions would be distributed.
The result is a system in which outcomes are not determined solely at the ballot box but are shaped through negotiated arrangements influenced by dominant factions and external actors.
Other institutions reinforce this reality. Judicial decisions affecting elections and political eligibility have faced persistent concerns about political pressure. Iraq’s electoral system, while independent, operates in an environment where patronage networks, militia leverage, and coercion shape outcomes long before votes are cast.
This has direct consequences for the United States. American forces remain deployed in Iraq, yet they operate in an environment where armed groups aligned with a foreign power can target them. Recognizing a government shaped by those same networks sends a clear signal: that this arrangement is acceptable.
It should not be. Beyond Iraq, the implications are strategic. An Iraq aligned with Tehran strengthens Iran’s ability to project power across the Middle East, threatens U.S. partners, and undermines regional stability.
Yet Washington’s response remains predictable: recognize the government, engage its leadership, and prioritize short-term stability.
But stability built on compromised institutions is not stability. It is managed decline.
FRIEND OR FOE? HOW IRAN’S INFLUENCE OVER IRAQ SHOULD SHAPE US DIPLOMATIC APPROACH
The U.S. should stop relying on Iraq’s entrenched political leadership, which operates within a system shaped by corruption, militia influence, and external pressure. Continuing to treat this structure as a credible partner will not stabilize Iraq; it will entrench the very dynamics undermining it.
Washington does not need to abandon Iraq. But it must stop legitimizing outcomes that are not fully sovereign. If the U.S. continues down this path, it will not be shaping Iraq’s future — it will be surrendering it.
Heyrsh Abdulrahman is a Washington-based senior intelligence analyst and writer specializing in Middle East security, U.S. foreign policy, Iraqi governance, and Kurdish political affairs.
