By Nash Seman
President Donald Trump’s warning that the United States would cut assistance to Iraq if Nouri al-Maliki returns as prime minister is not an act of interference—it is a statement of strategic reality. When Trump described Maliki’s potential return as a “very bad choice,” he articulated what many Iraqis, regional actors, and security professionals have known for years: Maliki’s leadership represents failure, fragmentation, and subservience to Iranian influence.
Maliki’s previous tenure (2006–2014) coincided with some of the darkest chapters in modern Iraqi history. His governance entrenched sectarianism, hollowed out state institutions, politicized the security forces, and alienated large segments of Iraqi society. The result was not stability or sovereignty, but collapse—culminating in the fall of Mosul and the rise of ISIS. These outcomes were not accidents of history; they were the direct consequence of centralized, exclusionary, and ideologically driven rule.
President Trump’s position is therefore consistent with his broader foreign policy doctrine: the United States will not bankroll failure, corruption, or regimes captured by hostile powers. Aid, under Trump, is conditional on accountability and alignment—not entitlement. Iraq, like any sovereign state, is free to choose its leaders. But it is equally legitimate for Washington to decide whether it will continue to invest taxpayer resources in a political system that reproduces the very dynamics that led to state collapse.
The concern is not merely Maliki as an individual, but what he symbolizes. His return would signal a consolidation of power by the Coordination Framework, a bloc widely perceived as aligned with Tehran’s interests. At a moment when the Trump administration is intensifying efforts to curb Iranian influence across the region, the reinstallation of a figure closely associated with that influence would represent a strategic contradiction.
This is why recent statements from Secretary of State Marco Rubio and U.S. envoy to Iraq Mark Savaya matter. Their emphasis on preventing an Iran-dominated government and on sanctioning corruption reflects a clear policy direction: Iraq’s future cannot be built on recycled leadership tied to past failures. Combating corruption and dismantling militia-backed patronage networks are not secondary issues—they are central to Iraq’s survival as a functioning state.
Critics may frame Trump’s warning as pressure or coercion. In reality, it is transparency. Unlike the ambiguity of previous administrations, Trump is explicit about consequences. His message to Iraq is straightforward: partnership requires reform, and legitimacy requires leaders who unite rather than divide.
For Iraqis who aspire to sovereignty, economic recovery, and reintegration into the international community, this moment is decisive. The choice is not between Washington and Baghdad, but between the future and the past. Repeating the Maliki experiment would not restore stability—it would confirm stagnation.
Trump’s call to “Make Iraq Great Again” is not a slogan. It is a challenge to break with failed political recycling and to choose leadership capable of rebuilding the state, restoring trust, and freeing Iraq from perpetual crisis. History has already judged the alternative.
