As the U.S. presidential transition approaches, Iraq faces an uncertain future caught between the legacy of prior administrations and the need for post-Mosul stability. The next U.S. administration faces the challenge of managing a volatile sectarian landscape, the influence of regional powers like Iran, and the long-term goal of national reconstruction.
Inherited Challenges in a War-Battered Iraq
The transition of power in Washington brings renewed scrutiny to U.S. involvement in Iraq, a country still grappling with the fallout of the 2003 invasion and the subsequent policies of the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations. According to analysis of the situation, Iraq’s reliance on American assistance remains critical for its military campaign to defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), also known as ISIS. Despite this dependence, the incoming administration’s vision for the country remained vague during the run-up to the Oval Office. Much will depend on whether Donald Trump, whose presidential campaign was pegged on upending decades-old Washington policies, will initiate drastic changes in the U.S. strategy in Iraq, which was largely shaped by Obama and his predecessor, Bush.
During the presidential race, Trump struggled to distance himself from the 2003 war in Iraq launched by Bush, though evidence abounds that he had supported the war. He has questioned the outcome of the invasion while suggesting he could have done better had he been U.S. president. Critics argue that the primary failure of previous U.S. policy was the failure to rebuild a post-Saddam Hussein inclusive, fair, and stable political system, which ranks as America’s top sin in Iraq. The challenge for the next administration is to move beyond the strategy of using military power while avoiding attempts at national reconciliation and nation-building.
The Strategic Pivot Post-Mosul
The battle for Mosul is viewed by many as a turning point. While military success in retaking the city appears to be all but assured, the stabilization phase that follows represents a significantly more daunting task. There are currently some 6,000 U.S. forces on the ground engaged in a war that many believe its outcome may be a make or break for the country. The U.S. must now decide how to realistically engage in a way that helps fix Iraq’s troubles, which are largely the creation of the U.S. invasion and the consequent policies of the two former administrations. The biggest threat to Iraq remains the ethnosectarian split, which has shaken the country to the core.
Regional Dynamics and the Iran Factor
Iraq’s future is not determined in a vacuum. It is the site of competition for influence among regional heavyweights, including Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, as well as the need to check Kurdish aspirations of independence. The incoming administration must reconcile its stated goals—such as the only relevant pledge made by the New York tycoon-turned-politician to step up the fight against ISIL in Iraq and Syria—with the reality of these conflicting regional agendas.
Uncertainty and Future Policy Directions
As January approaches, the primary question remains whether the new administration will initiate a drastic shift in policy or continue the patterns established by its predecessors. While the campaign trail was marked by rhetoric and inconsistency, specific policy details regarding how to fix the resulting systemic issues in Iraq have been scarce. The incoming commander-in-chief faces a complex reality where military success against ISIL must be balanced against the urgent, unresolved need for domestic political reconciliation. Trump’s top priority in Iraq should be working to ensure that the country will not fall apart after the battle of Mosul, in view of the conflicting agendas and interests of national and regional stakeholders who have been active in reshaping the geopolitical environment there.
Worth a look
