Follow us on social

2022-10-27t175542z_1230916225_rc2r9x91dk6i_rtrmadp_3_iraq-politics-cabinet

The new Iraqi PM is a status quo leader, but for how long?

One thing is clear: that if previous parliaments demanded the ouster of the US military, this one seems fine with the way things are.

Analysis | Middle East

The appointment of a new prime minister and his cabinet last week represents a peaceful government formation in Iraq following months of tension and a bout of violence. But can Mohammed Shia’ al-Sudani keep it together? That is the question among U.S. officials and Iraq’s elites today.

The parliament approved the new prime minister’s cabinet allowing the new government — finally — to get to work. Earlier this month a year-long political stalemate in Iraq finally came to an end with the election of Abdul Latif Rashid as president and Sudani’s appointment.

Sudani is widely viewed as well-intentioned and has not been implicated in corrupt activities. His main distinguishing feature is that he actually lived in Iraq during the Saddam era — unlike most prominent Iraqi political players who were expatriates in Iran, Syria, Jordan, Europe or elsewhere, and returned to Iraq as carpetbaggers backed by the U.S. or Iran, or as seen as such by many Iraqis. In this context, Sudani is a breath of fresh air. 

But concerns exist in Washington and among some of Iraq’s Kurdish, Sunni, and secular Shi’a political elites that he will prove too weak to resist the inclinations of the Iran-aligned Coordination Framework that brought him to power in the first place. This is the overriding concern for Washington, which hopes that Sudani will follow in Mustafa Khadimi’s footsteps and try to lash the Popular Mobilization Forces — a group of militias that fought ISIS and then were formally merged into the Iraqi security forces, but maintain substantial independence — more tightly to the Baghdad government’s mast. 

The Coordination Framework is a bloc of Shi’a parties that also includes the political representatives of the PMFs. Such hybrid armies are not exclusive to Iraq, but wherever they are, they pose an implicit challenge to the state’s monopoly on violence. 

Anxieties in Washington were stirred by the new government’s decisions to relieve officials appointed by Khadimi when he served as interim prime minister during the prolonged standoff between Sadr and the Coordination Framework. Iraqis, however, were quick to point out that these dismissals — which included the pro-U.S. intelligence director — were necessary to comply with a Supreme Court ruling that, in essence, said that the appointments were interim ones and must therefore end with the formation of a new government.

Some PMF units operate in coordination with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Iraq’s new government has received praise from Iranian officials and the IRGC. The PMF’s influence can be seen in some of the cabinet posts. For example, Minister of Higher Education Naim al-Aboudi served as the spokesperson of Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq, a PMF unit that was designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) by the United States. His ministry, of course, is not a security-related portfolio and does not necessarily signify that terrorists are now at the helm in Baghdad.

The most important priority for Washington is the continuation of the U.S. “advise, assist, and enable” military mission to help contain and eliminate the residual ISIS threat. This priority was apparent in a readout of a November 3 conversation between Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Prime Minister Sudani. It specifically mentioned a “mutual commitment to the U.S.-Iraq Strategic Framework Agreement and shared interest in preserving Iraq’s security, stability, and sovereignty.” 

The 2008 agreement officially guides “overall political, economic, cultural, and security ties with Iraq.” Its strength is its avoidance of specifics after attempts to strike a clearer Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) failed during the Obama administration. The ambiguity of the Framework Agreement gives Washington the flexibility to adjust troop numbers, particularly during periods of turnover, and use them as it sees fit. It also allows Iraqi politicians to save face. 

While some Iraqi MPs welcome the opportunity to criticize the U.S. in public speeches, few desire the responsibility of exerting actual oversight. Behind closed doors, many of these politicians express a desire for U.S. troops to remain in some capacity. As far as Iraqis are concerned, there seems to be an acceptance of the U.S. military presence, which, as a practical matter, is invisible to the public eye. But favorability ratings from the Arab Barometer 2021 poll could lead one to infer a preference among Iraqis for Chinese — as opposed to American — involvement. U.S. troops currently advise Iraq’s military at the invitation of Baghdad, but this could change. 

However, it is unlikely that the Sudani administration or even its PMF backers will apply much pressure to change the status quo. Indeed, it looks now that at least one key Iraqi security official who works hand in glove with the U.S. — the commander of the counterterrorism service — will retain his post. In formal terms, all Sudani has asked from the U.S. thus far is “greater transparency,” which Washington can presumably supply. 

Another question is how long the Sudani administration will last and what overtures it will give to the Sadrist movement, which finds itself out of government after withdrawing its MPs from parliament in protest last summer. One potential olive branch is to pursue early elections, thus offering the Sadrists a way back into government. As the experience of the last year suggests, the appetite for another round of elections is limited.

Sudani himself has the tiniest electoral base. His party won only three seats in the new Parliament, one of which is his own. And he can’t even occupy it because members of Parliament holding ministerial posts cannot take their seats. His goals, such as shrinking and rationalizing the public sector, while essential, will face insurmountable opposition from a jumble of coalition partners that depend on a steady supply of government jobs to feed their patronage networks. And the PMFs have the parliamentary clout to resist attempts to rein them in. 

One interesting Sudani initiative that might prove both survivable and salutary involves reaching out to neighboring Arab states to foster stronger ties. If successful, such an effort might offset both the reality and broad perception of excessive Iranian influence in Iraq and begin to normalize Iraq’s position as an independent actor within its regional setting. Iraq made progress in this realm under Khadimi; whether Sudani succeeds remains to be seen.


Iraqi Prime Minister-designate Mohammed Shia al-Sudani, arrives before a vote on Sudani's cabinet at the parliament in Baghdad, Iraq, October 27, 2022. REUTERS/Thaier Al-Sudani
Analysis | Middle East
Trade review process could rock the calm in US-Mexico relations
Top image credit: Rawpixel.com and Octavio Hoyos via shutterstock.com

Trade review process could rock the calm in US-Mexico relations

North America

One of the more surprising developments of President Trump’s tenure in office thus far has been the relatively calm U.S. relationship with Mexico, despite expectations that his longstanding views on trade, immigration, and narcotics would lead to a dramatic deterioration.

Of course, Mexico has not escaped the administration’s tariff onslaught and there have been occasional diplomatic setbacks, but the tenor of ties between Trump and President Claudia Sheinbaum has been less fraught than many had anticipated. However, that thaw could be tested soon by economic disagreements as negotiations open on a scheduled review of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement (USMCA).

keep readingShow less
Trump Rubio
Top image credit: US Secretary of State Marco Rubio (right) is seen in the Oval Office with US President Donald Trump (left) during a meeting with the King of Jordan, Abdullah II Ibn Al-Hussein in the Oval Office the White House in Washington DC on Tuesday, February 11, 2025. Credit: Aaron Schwartz / Pool/Sipa USA via REUTERS
The US-Colombia drug war alliance is at a breaking point

Trump poised to decertify Colombia

Latin America

It appears increasingly likely that the Trump administration will move to "decertify" Colombia as a partner in its fight against global drug trafficking for the first time in 30 years.

The upcoming determination, due September 15, could trigger cuts to hundreds of millions of dollars in bilateral assistance, visa restrictions on Colombian officials, and sanctions on the country's financial system under current U.S. law. Decertification would strike a major blow to what has been Washington’s top security partner in the region as it struggles with surging coca production and expanding criminal and insurgent violence.

keep readingShow less
Trump Vance Rubio
Top image credit: President Donald Trump meets with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance before a call with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Monday, August 18, 2025, in the Oval Office. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The roots of Trump's wars on terror trace back to 9/11

Global Crises

The U.S. military recently launched a plainly illegal strike on a small civilian Venezuelan boat that President Trump claims was a successful hit on “narcoterrorists.” Vice President JD Vance responded to allegations that the strike was a war crime by saying, “I don’t give a shit what you call it,” insisting this was the “highest and best use of the military.”

This is only the latest troubling development in the Trump administration’s attempt to repurpose “War on Terror” mechanisms to use the military against cartels and to expedite his much vaunted mass deportation campaign, which he says is necessary because of an "invasion" at the border.

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.