Follow us on social

Sudani

Major flip in Iraqi government this week: Could crisis be over?

Al-Sadr's bid to stymie the political process has been foiled, for now. But the new prime minister comes with a new set of challenges.

Analysis | Middle East

This week Iraq came one giant step closer to forming a government as the parliament elected Abdul Latif Rashid as president who then designated Mohammed Shia’ al-Sudani as prime minister. 

This follows a year of political stalemate since last October’s election which saw a huge win for Moqtada al-Sadr’s coalition. One year later the tables have turned, with Sadr’s political adversaries ascendant. 

How did this happen?

To recap: Moqtada al-Sadr has moved in and out of Iraq politics since leading the Shi’a militia known as the Mahdi Army against the U.S. occupation during the 2000s. He retained an impressive ability to mobilize his grassroots network and a formidable militia now rebranded as Saraya al-Salam, or “peace companies.’

In the run up to last year’s elections he formed a multi-ethnic and cross-sectarian coalition that included Sunni politician Mohammed al-Halbousi and his Taqqadum party and Masoud Barzani’s Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP). This coalition won the majority of seats in the October 2021 parliamentary elections and praise from some in Washington who view Sadr as a wedge against Iranian influence.

In Iraq’s system, the parliament first elects a speaker of the house, followed by the president, who then designates a prime minister. This is followed by a cabinet selection by the prime minister designate, which then goes to the parliament for a vote. But this process was stymied by a decision by Iraq’s Federal Supreme Court that removed the option of electing a president through a simple majority in a second parliamentary vote if the first vote failed to pass by a two-thirds majority which it did.

It is widely thought that the Supreme Court decision was due to pressure from Iran and former prime minister Nouri al-Maliki. This prevented Sadr’s coalition from forming a government because it could not muster a two-thirds majority.

Sadr responded to this impasse by ordering all 73 of his MPs to resign and staging and dispatching his followers to occupy the Parliament building. The protests eventually turned  violent. His hope, it seemed, was that the Sunni and Kurdish blocs of his coalition would also resign, effectively crippling parliamentary politics and making the formation of a government impossible without the intercession of Sadr on his own terms. Or he might have expected his ally, Halbousi, to hesitate before accepting the resignations.  

Either way, Sadr could play both the arsonist and the fireman. Instead, his coalition partners left him in the cold. The 73 parliamentary seats he rashly vacated reverted to his foe, the Coordination Framework, which consists of an array of Shi’a parties and militias.

In a rapid-fire sequence of steps on October 13, Rashid Latif named Mohammed Shia' al-Sudani as prime minister, setting the stage for the formation of a government. To all appearances, the crisis that gripped Iraq for the past year was over. The Sadrist challenge was turned aside conclusively. Barring any surprises, there will not be an election for another three years.  

Outmaneuvered and outgunned, Sadr will have no plausible path to power. Whether he retains any influence through the senior bureaucrats he has seeded throughout an array of ministries will depend on whether al-Sudani proceeds with a clean sweep of his appointees, as Sadr himself had promised to do regarding his own opponents.

Sadr’s response to the closed door process that awarded the presidency to Latif and premiership to al-Sudani was fierce. He labeled it a “militia government” and forbade his followers from dealing with it. The new leadership, now concerned with preserving its own legitimacy as broad-based, may look for some way to lure Sadr back into the game, but the path forward seems murky. Predictably, the new team moved to prohibit the outgoing prime minister, Mustafa al-Khadimi, from leaving the country as they prepared to scapegoat him for the endemic corruption that drove so many Iraqis to vote for Sadr. 

What does all this mean for the U.S.-Iraq relations? 

For Washington, al-Sudani is one of the more reasonable potential candidates on offer from the Iran-aligned Coordination Framework. He is an experienced technocrat who previously served as minister of human rights and minister of labor and social affairs. He also has less bad blood than some other potential candidates. 

But how much sway the controversial Nouri al-Maliki will have on him remains to be seen. Al-Sudani is regarded as a creature of Maliki’s, despite Sudani’s previous break with the Dawa party. Some difficult political choices lie in front of al-Sudani who will shortly have access to federal funds that have ballooned over the past year thanks to rising energy prices. 

To manage discontent that erupted in violent demonstrations in 2019, he will likely use these swollen coffers to provide public sector jobs for the unemployed youth. Whether he will mobilize ministries and parliament to tackle the three big issues confronting Iraq — corruption and failure of economic reforms, climate change and keeping ISIS at bay — remains to be seen. 

He is, however, perceived as a weak leader. One issue that the United States will be tracking is how the regular army and counterterrorism service fare in the budgeting process compared to the Iran-aligned PMFs (Popular Mobilization Forces). He must also decide how to manage al-Sadr and his loyal base which, if excluded from the government entirely, may choose to wreak havoc. 

Baghdad was braced for widespread protests after Rashid’s election as president earlier this week, but so far none have occurred. It would be unwise to take this calm for granted as long as Sadr is stirring the pot.

It is also unclear how the Coordination Framework will react to a continued U.S. military presence in the country. President Trump’s decision to kill Iran’s Qods Force commander Qassem Soleimani and the deputy commander of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis on January 3, 2020 galvanized the Iran-backed militias under the PMF and led to public demands for U.S. troops to leave. 

Behind the scenes, the PMF’s relationship with the United States is more complex and now that they find themselves in power, they may be hesitant to rock the boat. One indicator will be an effort by the new government to rein in U.S. military operations in Iraq that appear to target PMF assets. 

Perhaps most worrisome is Nouri al-Maliki’s potential influence on the new prime minister. Washington blames Maliki for creating the conditions that incubated ISIS in Iraq; the fear is that this pattern of discriminatory governance could be replicated just as U.S. training and equipment, improved Iraqi operational skills, and Sunni rejection of ISIS rule have brought this insurgent movement to heel.


Prime Minister-designate Mohammed Shia' Al Sudani attends a parliamentary session to vote for a new head of state president in Baghdad, Iraq, October 13, 2022. Iraqi Parliament Media Office/Handout via REUTERS
Analysis | Middle East
Rand Paul Donald Trump
Top photo credit: Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) (Shutterstock/Mark Reinstein) and President Trump (White House/Molly Riley)

Rand Paul to Trump: Don't 'abandon' MAGA over Maduro regime change

Washington Politics

Sen. Rand Paul said on Friday that “all hell could break loose” within Donald Trump’s MAGA coalition if the president involves the U.S. further in Ukraine, and added that his supporters who voted for him after 20 years of regime change wars would "feel abandoned" if he went to war and tried to topple Nicolas Maduro, too.

President Trump has been getting criticism from some of his supporters for vowing to release the files of the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and then reneging on that promise. Paul said that the Epstein heat Trump is getting from MAGA will be nothing compared to if he refuses to live up to his “America First” foreign policy promises.

keep readingShow less
Trump ASEAN
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump looks at Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., next to Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim when posing for a family photo with leaders at the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 26, 2025. Vincent Thian/Pool via REUTERS

‘America First’ meets ‘ASEAN Way’ in Kuala Lumpur

Asia-Pacific

The 2025 ASEAN and East Asia Summits in Kuala Lumpur beginning today are set to be consequential multilateral gatherings — defining not only ASEAN’s internal cohesion but also the shape of U.S.–China relations in the Indo-Pacific.

President Donald Trump’s participation will be the first by a U.S. president in an ASEAN-led summit since 2022. President Biden skipped the last two such summits in 2023 and 2024, sending then-Vice President Harris instead.

keep readingShow less
iran, china, russia
Top photo credit: Top image credit: Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov and and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi shake hands as Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu looks on during their meet with reporters after their meeting at Diaoyutai State Guest House on March 14, 2025 in Beijing, China. Lintao Zhang/Pool via REUTERS

'Annulled'! Russia won't abide snapback sanctions on Iran

Middle East

“A raider attack on the U.N. Security Council.” This was the explosive accusation leveled by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov this week. His target was the U.N. Secretariat and Western powers, whom he blamed for what Russia sees as an illegitimate attempt to restore the nuclear-related international sanctions on Iran.

Beyond the fiery rhetoric, Ryabkov’s statement contained a message: Russia, he said, now considers all pre-2015 U.N. sanctions on Iran, snapped back by the European signatories of the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) — the United Kingdom, France, Germany — “annulled.” Moscow will deepen its military-technical cooperation with Tehran accordingly, according to Ryabkov.

This is more than a diplomatic spat; it is the formal announcement of a split in international legal reality. The world’s major powers are now operating under two irreconcilable interpretations of international law. On one side, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany assert that the sanctions snapback mechanism of the JCPOA was legitimately triggered for Iran’s alleged violations. On the other, Iran, Russia, and China reject this as an illegitimate procedural act.

This schism was not inevitable, and its origin reveals a profound incongruence. The Western powers that most frequently appeal to the sanctity of the "rules-based international order" and international law have, in this instance, taken an action whose effects fundamentally undermine it. By pushing through a legal maneuver that a significant part of the Security Council considers illegitimate, they have ushered the world into a new and more dangerous state. The predictable, if imperfect, framework of universally recognized Security Council decisions is being replaced by a system where legal facts are determined by political interests espoused by competing power blocs.

This rupture followed a deliberate Western choice to reject compromises in a stand-off with Iran. While Iran was in a technical violation of the provisions of the JCPOA — by, notably, amassing a stockpile of highly enriched uranium (up to 60% as opposed to the 3.67% for a civilian use permissible under the JCPOA), there was a chance to avert the crisis. In the critical weeks leading to the snapback, Iran had signaled concessions in talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Cairo, in terms of renewing cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s inspectors.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.