The Audacity of Guardianship in U.S. Discourse Toward Iraq
By: Ambassador Rashad Faraj Al-Tayeb
U.S. President Donald Trump recently rejected the nomination of Mr Nouri al-Maliki as Prime Minister of the new Iraqi government following the latest elections, threatening to withhold support for Iraq should al-Maliki be elected.
Trump claimed that Iraq would fall under Iranian control under al-Maliki’s leadership and that such an outcome “would not serve Iraq’s national interests.”
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio had earlier made a similar statement, asserting that any Iraqi government subject to Iranian influence “would be unable to put Iraq’s interests first or achieve stability.”
These statements were made at a highly significant moment, coinciding with consultations to form a new Iraqi government following the November 2025 elections, lending them political weight that goes well beyond mere commentary or opinion.
On the surface, the American statements align with Washington’s declared position, which advocates the formation of an Iraqi government that “puts the country’s interests first” and works toward regional stability and cooperation with partners.
Yet, in both form and substance, these remarks clearly exceed the bounds of conventional diplomatic courtesy.
They reflect a striking audacity in exercising political guardianship and reveal a deeply entrenched American logic in dealing with Iraq as a sphere of influence rather than as a fully sovereign state.
Washington, speaking with the confidence of a guardian about the “interests of the Iraqi people,” effectively redefines those interests through the prism of political alignment and strategic choices, rather than through national will or the outcomes of Iraq’s internal political process, however complex that process may be. At a deeper level, these statements expose a structural contradiction that has long characterised American discourse and policy in the region.
The United States consistently champions democracy and respect for the will of the people, yet it does not hesitate to undermine those very choices whenever they produce forces or alliances that conflict with its priorities or its calculations of regional influence.
Thus, “the interest of the people” becomes a selective concept, invoked to justify pressure and intervention rather than to uphold sovereignty or empower genuine national decision-making.
The irony becomes even more pronounced when such rhetoric emanates from a president and a secretary of state serving in an administration widely perceived as itself subject to the influence of a foreign power—namely Israel.
The scale of Israeli influence within U.S. decision-making circles is no longer a matter of serious dispute; it has become an acknowledged reality debated openly by political and intellectual elites, as well as by American taxpayers themselves.
Over recent decades, it has become evident that many U.S. policies in the Middle East—from Iraq to Iran, and from Palestine to Syria—are formulated or adjusted in ways that accommodate Israeli perspectives, even when this comes at the expense of international law, regional stability, or even America’s own long-term strategic interests.
Within this context, American admonitions directed at Iraqis appear as a stark example of double standards and a profound loss of credibility.
Dependency is condemned when it involves a party Washington designates as an adversary, yet it is justified or overlooked when linked to a strategic ally.
Consequently, concepts such as sovereignty, independence, and democracy are redefined in a functional manner that serves equations of dominance rather than the values promoted in official rhetoric.
These statements also reflect a persistent tendency to view Iraq primarily as a security file and an arena for competing influences, rather than as a state with its own national particularities and internal balances.
Instead of encouraging the formation of a balanced Iraqi government grounded in domestic legitimacy and capable of managing its external relations on the basis of mutual interests, a simplistic and misleading dichotomy is imposed : either a government that is “acceptable to Washington,” or one that is deemed incapable of serving its own people.
Such a framing ignores the complexities of the Iraqi political landscape, fuels internal divisions, and keeps the country hostage to regional and international power struggles.
The most dangerous aspect of this discourse is that it not only undermines the concept of sovereignty, but also contributes to entrenching a distorted international model—one in which guardianship is practised in the name of democracy, subservience is condemned among adversaries, and tolerated among allies.
The genuine interests of the Iraqi people cannot be realized by replacing one form of dependency with another, nor by remaining hostage to the conflicts of others. Rather, they lie in building a state capable of exercising independent national decision-making and holding all external influence—whether American, Iranian, or otherwise—to account according solely to Iraq’s own national interest.
In conclusion, the audacity of guardianship embedded in U.S. discourse toward Iraq does not reflect moral authority or a sincere concern for the country’s stability.
Instead, it exposes a deep crisis in the logic of hegemony, entrenched double standards, and a persistent disregard for the principles of international law.
Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=10845