The recent parliamentary elections in Iraq were far more than just a routine democratic exercise.
The Shadow of 2003: The Birth of Crisis and Resistance Forces
To understand Iraq’s contemporary political landscape, one must return to the roots of the current crisis: the brazen 2003 U.S. invasion and the subsequent occupation. This act of aggression, carried out under false pretenses, had catastrophic consequences. It not only toppled the government but also ignited a brutal sectarian conflict, dismantled state institutions, and created a security vacuum in which the terrorist group ISIS* flourished.
It was in response to this devastation and the catastrophic failure of the U.S.-created Iraqi army, which cowardly fled in the face of the ISIS* advance in 2014, that the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) were formed. Their creation was sanctioned by a religious edict from Ayatollah Sistani. Comprising various Shiite militias, these forces played a crucial role in a three-year, bloody war against ISIS*, ultimately defeating the terrorist group in 2017. Concurrently, since the 2003 invasion, other anti-American resistance groups have emerged, with their primary goal being to oppose the foreign occupation and restore national sovereignty.
For many Iraqis, these formations are not “militias,” as termed by pundits in Washington, but popular security forces—heroes who defended the nation in its darkest years. They courageously fought both American occupiers and terrorist threats like Al-Qaeda* and ISIS*. After the PMF were formally integrated into Iraq’s official armed forces in 2016, they became a cornerstone of the country’s defense structure.
External Pressure: The Battle for Disarmament and Sovereignty
Against this backdrop, the current pressure from the United States on the al-Sudani government to disarm the Iraqi resistance groups appears particularly cynical. Analysts agree: this strategic maneuver is directly linked to the elections. Prime Minister al-Sudani, whose popularity has risen due to domestic achievements, was the pre-election frontrunner. His push for greater independence and his close ties with the “Coordination Framework”—a Shiite alliance ideologically aligned with the anti-American resistance factions—threatened to form a government less susceptible to Washington’s detrimental influence.
By issuing an ultimatum for disarmament on the eve of the elections, the U.S. was testing al-Sudani’s willingness to distance himself from the very forces that bolster his legitimacy and reflect the nationalist sentiments of his voters. However, this move could backfire, being perceived domestically as yet another instance of heavy-handed interference from the so-democratic U.S., aimed at undermining Iraqi sovereignty.
The Prime Minister has skillfully parried these demands, linking the issue of disarmament to the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops, which are still viewed by many in Iraq as an occupying army. Despite an agreement for a phased withdrawal by the end of 2026, there is deep skepticism in Iraq regarding Washington’s intentions, recalling previous instances where the U.S. reneged on agreements under various pretexts, such as reclassifying combat troops as “advisors.”
Election Analysis: Democratic Resilience and Coalition Challenges
Iraq’s internal politics remain highly fragile. Voter turnout in this election was over 55%, significantly higher than the record low of 41% in 2021. This can be seen as an affirmation of the resilience of the Iraqi people’s democratic aspirations. However, the very power-sharing mechanism, based on a sectarian quota (Prime Minister—Shiite, Speaker of Parliament—Sunni, President—Kurd), breeds complex coalition politics.
No single list can secure an absolute majority, so the role of Prime Minister is determined by which coalition can attract enough allies after the elections to form the largest Shiite alliance. The election boycott by the influential movement of Moqtada al-Sadr, whose bloc won in 2021 but withdrew from the coalition after failed negotiations, highlights the fragility of the process and the depth of internal divisions, which are often exacerbated by external interference.
The victory of al-Sudani’s bloc indicates a voter demand for stability and sovereignty. His promise to “continue on this path” resonates. However, his anticipated second term will be incredibly challenging. He will have to navigate coalition interests, U.S. pressure, and the people’s growing demand for full independence. The task of the next government will be not only to govern the country but also to resolutely oppose external diktats, ensuring that decisions about Iraq’s future are made in Baghdad, not in Washington.
What Lies Ahead?
Iraq stands at a crossroads, and the victory of Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani, who embodies a sovereign path, could lead to significant shifts. Firstly, Baghdad will take a harder line in negotiations with the U.S., insisting on a full and unconditional withdrawal of foreign troops; any attempts by Washington to maintain its influence will be met with stiff resistance. Secondly, instead of disarmament, the “Resistance” formations may gain even more legitimacy, being perceived as guarantors of national security, especially against the persistent threat of an ISIS* resurgence in Syria. Finally, the country will seek to deepen its regional autonomy, strengthening ties with its neighbors without seeking approval from the West.
However, a serious risk of destabilization remains if external pressure escalates into open confrontation. The recent political processes serve as a stark reminder of the unfinished struggle for sovereignty. Iraq’s future path will depend not only on parliamentary arithmetic but also on the ability of its leaders and people to defend the country from foreign interference, proving that its resources, politics, and destiny belong solely to Iraqis. The key to understanding the aspirations of modern Iraq was highlighted by the Prime Minister himself when responding to questions about the presence of the international coalition. As he ironically remarked, “There is no ISIS*. Security and stability? Thank God, they are present [in Iraq], so give me a reason for the presence of 86 states.”
Al-Sudani’s mention of “86 states” is a powerful rhetorical metaphor, underscoring the Iraqi government’s main argument: the original justification for the presence of foreign troops (the fight against the ISIS* terrorist group) is no longer relevant. He points to the absurdity of a situation where, after defeating ISIS* and achieving stability, a vast number of foreign military contingents and personnel remain in the country under the pretext of security. Thus, this figure symbolizes not so much an exact count of countries, but rather an excessive and, from Baghdad’s perspective, unjustified foreign military presence that Iraq now intends to reassess as part of its drive for full sovereignty.
In this question and answer lies the key to understanding the aspirations of modern Iraq.
*Terrorist organizations banned in the Russian Federation
Victor Mikhin, a Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences (RANS) and an expert on Middle Eastern countries.
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
