All Policy Analysis by Bilal Wahab

From water rights to PKK violence, a recent summit seemed to remove several long-festering thorns from the bilateral relationship, creating potential challenges and benefits alike for U.S. interests in Iraq and beyond.

To move beyond the years-long focus on Iran and the Islamic State, both leaders must commit to actions that set the table for a mutually beneficial relationship and convince skeptical domestic constituencies.

Washington’s ever-narrowing Iraq policy has left it with unpalatable choices, but muddling through is a better short-term option than allowing the relationship to rupture.

A handful of personalities have consumed all the country’s political oxygen, dashing hopes for a truly pluralistic ecosystem and requiring creative engagement from U.S. officials.

The risky tit-for-tat strikes between U.S. and militia forces are one symptom of a wider competition between rival actors in Iraq—one that American and European officials should work together on containing.

Despite reassuring U.S. officials during recent meetings, it is unclear whether Prime Minister Sudani can indefinitely placate an angry public or prevent Tehran’s militia proxies from further escalating the situation.

Federal pressure and disastrous internal missteps have brought the KRG to the brink, raising the need for more active U.S. mediation.

Baghdad hopes to avoid power cuts, political turmoil, and U.S. sanctions by striking a barter agreement with Tehran, but the deal raises many questions.

Much like the Iraqi people are doing, the United States should turn the page on history, engaging on ideas that foster prosperity and enable the relationship’s long-term success.

Years of quiet and fairly lucrative oil trading between the Kurds and Israel are now being threatened by messy legal disputes involving Baghdad and Turkey.

A former coalition commander joins Washington Institute experts to discuss the war’s legacy, the country’s current challenges, and how U.S. policy should evolve in response.

Despite thirty years of landmark achievements, the KRG’s endless quest for economic independence has only entrenched its internal divisions and kleptocracy while shifting its dependency—from Iraq to Turkey, and from foreign aid to oil revenues.

Baghdad’s legal wins won’t mean much if it mishandles the political end, angers Turkey, and further damages the country’s reputation as a reliable oil partner.

The French-sponsored event could be a welcome starting point for wider cooperation between Iraq’s new government and its Arab neighbors—particularly Jordan—but only time will tell whether agreements made there come to fruition.

Decentralizing power would have been the best way of avoiding a return to Saddam-era authoritarianism and corruption, but Baghdad has favored centralization instead—while simultaneously fissuring the state through sectarian patronage and competition.

Although Palestinian and Kurdish politics have similarly deteriorated into ineffective blame games, fresh U.S. policies focused on institution-building could restore the promise of progress in both cases.

There are ways for the new prime minister to reinforce Iraq’s independence after a series of foreign attacks, but they will be complex and painful.

The hostile and corrupt forces arrayed behind him might ease their anti-American activities just to reassert their power at home, so Washington should make the new government’s honeymoon a short one—and work around it if necessary to help the Iraqi people.

Although the country currently lacks the unity and rule of law needed to safely pursue a process as fraught as amending the constitution, there are several alternatives that could get it on the path to systemic reform.

Disengaging after last year’s election was a costly miscalculation, but Washington can still meet its goals in Iraq by diving into the fray and prioritizing the system over individual political preferences.