TEHRAN – President Donald Trump’s warning to withhold U.S. support if Nouri al-Maliki returns as Iraq’s prime minister goes beyond personal criticism.

It highlights a long-standing pattern of American interference in Iraq’s political landscape and an attempt to shape leadership outcomes through pressure rather than democratic engagement. 

Maliki’s nomination by the Coordination Framework followed Iraq’s democratic, constitutional and parliamentary processes, yet Trump’s remarks framed this internal decision as unacceptable unless it aligned with U.S. preferences.

During his previous terms, al-Maliki consistently opposed U.S. political and military dominance in Iraq. He rejected continued American interference after the 2003 invasion and accused Washington of undermining Iraqi sovereignty. 

Maliki repeatedly criticized U.S. security policies, arguing that the American occupation dismantled state institutions, fueled sectarian tensions, and ultimately created the conditions that allowed extremist and terrorist groups to emerge. This was evident in the rise of Daesh in Iraq, which occupied vast swathes of Iraqi territory in the summer of 2014.

Maliki publicly held the United States responsible for destabilizing Iraq and for the security vacuum that later enabled Daesh to wage its three-year terror campaign, killing tens of thousands in the process.

Washington’s hostility toward Maliki is also tied to a sustained political campaign portraying him as an anti-Sunni figure. U.S. officials and Western media often framed his government as sectarian, overlooking the broader regional and institutional chaos Iraq faced at the time. 

This narrative deepened internal divisions, weakened national cohesion, and helped legitimize opposition movements that later morphed into armed insurgencies. By amplifying sectarian framing, the U.S. directly contributed to the polarization that Daesh exploited to recruit, mobilize, and seize territory, particularly in Sunni-majority areas.

Trump’s recent threat went beyond political criticism and carried clear economic implications. Iraq’s economy remains highly vulnerable to U.S. leverage, particularly because its oil revenues, which fund the vast majority of the state budget, are deposited into an account at the U.S. Federal Reserve. 

This arrangement gives Washington the ability to exert significant financial pressure under the guise of oversight. Trump’s statement implied that economic assistance, financial access, and political cooperation could all be withdrawn if Iraq’s elected leadership does not meet American approval.

Such blanket threats effectively punish the Iraqi population rather than individual politicians. Restricting financial flows or support would directly impact salaries, public services, reconstruction efforts, and economic stability. 

For many Iraqis, this reinforces the perception that the United States uses economic tools as coercive instruments, turning sovereignty into a conditional privilege rather than a guaranteed right.

Most critically, Trump’s remarks challenge the principle of democratic choice. Iraq’s political system produced Maliki’s nomination through internal negotiations and parliamentary arithmetic. 

By warning of consequences if a specific candidate emerges, Washington signals that democracy is acceptable only when it produces outcomes favorable to U.S. interests. This approach undermines Iraq’s independence and fuels resentment toward U.S. influence.

Ultimately, the dispute over al-Maliki is not about his record in office. It reflects a broader struggle between Iraqi self-determination and external pressure, where economic leverage, political narratives, and security threats are used to shape Baghdad’s future from Washington.