US Pressures Iraq to Choose Sides as Government Change Looms

As 7,000 ISIS detainees begin their transfer from Syria to Iraq, Washington is asking Baghdad a pointed question: whose side are you really on?

Secretary of State Marco Rubio's Sunday call with Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani carried a dual message. While praising Iraq's leadership in handling the detainee transfers, Rubio made clear that America expects Iraq to keep Iran at arm's length—a demand that comes at a particularly sensitive moment in Iraqi politics.

Timing Is Everything

The call wasn't coincidental. Iraq is bracing for the return of Nouri al-Maliki as prime minister after more than a decade—a figure whose complicated history with Washington makes this diplomatic pressure all the more significant.

Al-Maliki first rose to power in 2006 with American backing, but the relationship soured as his sectarian policies were blamed for creating the conditions that allowed ISIS to flourish. Now, as he prepares to return to leadership, Rubio's message was unambiguous: "A government controlled by Iran cannot successfully put Iraq's own interests first."

This isn't diplomatic niceties. It's a direct challenge to the influence of pro-Iranian Shia armed groups operating under the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) umbrella—groups that ironically played a crucial role in defeating ISIS but now represent Washington's biggest concern about Iranian influence in Iraq.

The Irony of Intervention

There's a bitter irony in America's current position. The chaos that created space for Iranian influence began with the 2003 US invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein, killed at least 275,000 people, and unleashed the sectarian violence that would eventually spawn ISIS.

After declaring victory and withdrawing in 2011, the US had to return with 5,000 troops in 2014 to fight the very extremist group that emerged from the power vacuum it had created. Now, with Iraq announcing the complete withdrawal of US forces this month, America finds itself relying on diplomatic pressure rather than military presence.

Trump's Naval Chess Move

Complicating matters further is President Trump's announcement that an "armada" of warships is heading toward the Gulf, with Iran as the focal point. This follows the US striking three Iranian nuclear sites during last June's 12-day war between Israel and Tehran.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei responded predictably: "We will respond to any aggression more powerfully than before." But his next comment was more telling: "Countries in the region are aware that any insecurity in the region is not aimed solely at Iran."

That's diplomatic code for: other regional players understand they could be next.

The Middle Power Dilemma

For Iraq, this presents a classic middle power dilemma. Economically, the country needs Iranian energy cooperation and trade. Militarily, it still requires American intelligence and support against remaining ISIS cells. Politically, it must balance domestic Shia constituencies with Sunni and Kurdish populations who view Iranian influence with suspicion.

The detainee transfer itself illustrates this balancing act. By taking responsibility for ISIS prisoners, Iraq demonstrates capability and regional leadership—exactly what both Washington and Tehran want to see, albeit for different reasons.