February 10, 2026 —
Iraq can't even agree on who should hold its ceremonial presidency, let alone navigate the minefield around its actual prime minister. And the longer this drags on, the clearer it becomes: Trump's ultimatum didn't just create a crisis—it revealed one that was already there.
Three weeks after Iraq's parliament was supposed to elect a president, the process remains frozen. The Kurdish parties can't agree on a candidate. The Shia Coordination Framework is publicly backing Nouri al-Maliki while privately scrambling for an exit strategy. And the entire constitutional process—designed to produce a functioning government within weeks—has collapsed into political theatre with no clear resolution in sight.
The chaos isn't new. What's new is that Trump's blunt intervention has made it impossible to hide.
The Kurdish Stalemate: When Ceremony Becomes Crisis
Iraq's presidential election has now been postponed three times. The problem isn't a shortage of candidates—there are 19 on the ballot. The problem is that the two main Kurdish parties can't agree on which one to back, and without their agreement, no candidate can reach the required two-thirds parliamentary majority of 220 votes.
The Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) is pushing Foreign Minister Fuad Hussein. The Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) wants former Environment Minister Nizar Amedi. Under Iraq's traditional power-sharing arrangement, the presidency has historically gone to the PUK, while the KDP governs the semi-autonomous Kurdistan Region. But this time, the KDP decided to break convention and field its own presidential candidate.
Why? Because in Iraqi politics, even ceremonial positions carry leverage. The president formally tasks the prime minister with forming a government. In a system where every appointment is negotiated, that formal role can become a bargaining chip. The KDP wants influence over who becomes PM—and they're not willing to hand that leverage to the PUK without getting something in return.
The result: parliamentary sessions cancelled, constitutional deadlines ignored, and no end in sight.
Normally, this would be business as usual in Baghdad. Iraq's political elite are experts at stretching constitutional timelines when it suits them. But this time, there's an added complication: the United States is watching, and it's not pleased.
Trump's Shadow Over Baghdad
While Iraq's politicians play procedural games with the presidency, the real battle is over the prime minister—and that's where Trump's influence becomes impossible to ignore.
On January 27, Trump delivered his ultimatum: nominate Nouri al-Maliki, and the US "will no longer help Iraq." The Coordination Framework responded with defiance, reiterating its support for al-Maliki on February 8. But behind the public statements, cracks are forming.
Ammar al-Hakim, leader of the National Wisdom Movement (18 parliamentary seats), warned openly of "incoming economic repercussions" if al-Maliki is chosen. He added that "public interest must be prioritised over private interests"—diplomatic language for "we can't afford to call Trump's bluff."
Haider al-Abadi's Victory Alliance issued a similar statement, calling for "the prioritisation of the people's vital interests given the exceptional circumstances Iraq and the region are experiencing." Translation: the US has leverage, and we all know it.
Even the face-saving exit plan floated by the Al-Nasr Coalition—where al-Maliki would be formally nominated, then voluntarily withdraw to preserve Iraq's sovereignty narrative—acknowledges the fundamental problem. Iraq's political class can assert its constitutional rights all it wants. But when your oil revenues flow through the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and 90% of your government budget comes from oil sales priced in US dollars, sovereignty becomes negotiable very quickly.
The Economic Reality Behind the Political Theatre
Here's what makes this standoff different from previous government formation crises: Trump isn't bluffing, and Iraq's economy can't afford to test him.
Iraq is structurally dependent on systems it doesn't control:
- Oil revenues are held at the New York Fed
- Dollar access requires US Treasury approval
- International banking relies on SWIFT and US-dominated infrastructure
- Security cooperation includes intelligence sharing, equipment, and logistics
Previous US administrations made similar threats but rarely followed through with meaningful consequences. Trump's track record suggests he's willing to actually use the leverage—publicly, unapologetically, and without the diplomatic cushioning Iraq's politicians are used to.
The Coordination Framework knows this. That's why key members are floating alternatives even while officially supporting al-Maliki. They're trying to thread an impossible needle: preserve the appearance of sovereignty while avoiding economic retaliation they can't withstand.
The Administrative Vacuum and What It Costs
While politicians negotiate, Iraq operates in limbo. Caretaker Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani remains in office with substantially diminished authority. Major decisions are delayed. Reforms are stalled. Investment decisions wait for clarity on who will actually govern.
This isn't just political inconvenience—it's economic friction. Iraq needs stable governance to execute its development plans, attract foreign investment, and manage its relationship with international financial institutions. Every week without a functioning government is a week where contracts aren't signed, projects aren't launched, and opportunities are lost.
And the longer it drags on, the more it reinforces a fundamental perception problem: Iraq's political system, designed by the US after 2003 to balance sectarian interests, has become so gridlocked that even basic constitutional processes can't function without external pressure to break the deadlock.
Trump's Strategic Patience—Or Calculated Pressure?
Here's the interesting part: Trump hasn't escalated since his initial ultimatum. He stated the consequences, then let Iraq's politicians wrestle with the implications. No sanctions have been imposed. No threats have been repeated. Just the original statement, hanging in the air like a sword.
That's either remarkable patience—or a recognition that the threat alone is doing the work.
Iraq's Coordination Framework is fracturing under the weight of its own internal contradictions. Some members prioritise sovereignty and defiance. Others prioritise economic stability and pragmatism. The longer the standoff continues, the more those contradictions become impossible to paper over.
Tom Barrack, Trump's ambassador to Turkey and special envoy to Syria, has reportedly taken over the State Department's Iraq portfolio after Mark Savaya (Trump's original Iraq envoy) was removed for "mishandling" the situation—specifically, for failing to prevent al-Maliki's nomination in the first place. Barrack brings a different approach: less focus on Iraqi internal politics, more focus on ensuring Iraq's government formation serves broader US regional strategy.
The message is clear: Washington will wait, but it won't wait indefinitely. And when it acts, the consequences will be real.
What Happens Next?
As of now, no new parliamentary session has been scheduled. The Kurdish parties continue their negotiations. The Coordination Framework maintains its official support for al-Maliki while key members quietly explore alternatives. And Iraq's constitutional process remains frozen, weeks past its legal deadlines.
Three scenarios seem possible:
Scenario 1: Face-Saving Compromise The Al-Nasr Coalition's choreographed exit plan—al-Maliki gets nominated, then withdraws "voluntarily"—is accepted by all parties. Iraq preserves its sovereignty narrative, Trump gets al-Maliki out of the running, and a compromise candidate emerges. Everyone loses something, everyone saves face.
Scenario 2: Protracted Stalemate The Kurdish deadlock drags on, the CF remains divided, and Iraq operates under a caretaker government for months while politicians continue negotiating. This is Iraq's historical pattern, and absent external pressure, it could repeat indefinitely. But with Trump's ultimatum hanging over everything, this scenario carries real economic risks.
Scenario 3: Forced Capitulation Trump loses patience, imposes targeted sanctions (on individuals, on Iraqi state entities, or on dollar access mechanisms), and Iraq's political elite scrambles to comply. Al-Maliki withdraws, a US-acceptable candidate emerges, and Iraq's sovereignty narrative takes a very public hit.
Which scenario plays out depends on how long Iraq's politicians believe they can sustain the current limbo—and whether Trump is willing to wait them out.
The Bigger Picture: Sovereignty vs Structural Dependency
What's unfolding in Baghdad isn't just about al-Maliki or Trump or even this particular government formation crisis. It's about a fundamental tension that defines Iraq's post-2003 political system: the gap between constitutional sovereignty and economic reality.
Iraq has a constitution that grants it the right to choose its own leaders. It also has an economy that requires access to systems controlled by foreign powers. When those two things align, the system works. When they conflict—as they do now—the system freezes.
Trump's ultimatum didn't create this problem. It just made it impossible to ignore.
For Australia and other countries watching Iraq's trajectory, this matters. Iraq isn't unique in facing the tension between political sovereignty and economic dependency. But it's a particularly stark example of what happens when a resource-dependent state tries to assert autonomy while remaining structurally tethered to systems it doesn't control.
The longer Iraq's government formation crisis drags on, the clearer that lesson becomes.
Disclaimer: This content is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Political and economic outcomes are subject to numerous variables, and readers should conduct their own research or consult qualified professionals.