When President Donald Trump took to social media to demand that former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki withdraw his bid for a return to power, the message landed with explosive force. Within days, Maliki’s coalition Coordination Framework crumbled, withdrawing support under the weight of American pressure. What might have seemed like a passing tweet became a decisive intervention in Iraq’s fragile political landscape. Trump’s slapping tweed underscored how Washington’s hand still shapes outcomes in Baghdad.

Maliki’s legacy and Washington’s fear

Maliki’s candidacy was always controversial. His tenure from 2006 to 2014 was marked by sectarian policies that alienated Sunnis and Kurds. Analysts blame his governance for creating the conditions that allowed ISIS to rise.

Maliki’s candidacy was always controversial. His tenure from 2006 to 2014 was marked by sectarian policies that alienated Sunnis and Kurds. Analysts blame his governance for creating the conditions that allowed ISIS to rise.

“Maliki’s return would have cemented Iraq’s dependence on Iran and deepened sectarian divides,” said Rend Al‑Rahim, Iraq’s former ambassador to Washington. For US officials, his re-emergence was not just unwelcome—it was intolerable. The tweet crystallized that sentiment.

By warning of “diplomatic and economic consequences” should Maliki return, the president made clear that Washington would not bankroll a government led by a man it viewed as both divisive and dangerously close to Tehran. The bluntness of the message was unprecedented. “It showed how US leverage remains decisive, but also how fragile Iraq’s democratic process is,” noted Omar Abdulkader, a Middle East analyst.

The firestorm in Baghdad

In Baghdad, the reaction was immediate. Supporters of Maliki denounced the tweet as foreign interference and staged protests outside the Green Zone. “Iraq is not a province of America,” read one placard, echoing a sentiment that has long simmered beneath the surface of Iraqi politics. Maliki himself initially defied the pressure, insisting he would not bow to Washington. But as coalition partners peeled away, his position became untenable. Within days, his candidacy collapsed.

The episode revealed the fragility of Iraq’s political alliances. Parties that had rallied behind Maliki quickly recalculated, unwilling to risk confrontation with Washington. “The Americans still hold the keys to Iraq’s financial system and military support,” said Abbas Kadhim of the Atlantic Council. “No coalition can survive if it is cut off from that lifeline.”

READ: Mr Trump, Iraq’s kleptocracy must be dismantled: cutting aid is a laughable and naïve approach

Sovereignty and dependence

For Iraqis, the deeper issue is sovereignty. Maliki’s candidacy was seen by many as a test of whether Iraq could assert independence from both Washington and Tehran. Trump’s intervention, while effective, reinforced the perception that Iraq’s sovereignty remains hostage to foreign powers.

For Iraqis, the deeper issue is sovereignty. Maliki’s candidacy was seen by many as a test of whether Iraq could assert independence from both Washington and Tehran. Trump’s intervention, while effective, reinforced the perception that Iraq’s sovereignty remains hostage to foreign powers.

“This was not just about Maliki,” argued Iraqi political scientist Hamza al‑Hadad. “It was about whether Iraqis can choose their own leaders without external vetoes.”

The irony is that Maliki’s opponents—many of whom welcomed his downfall—also expressed unease at the manner in which it was achieved. “We are relieved he is gone,” said one Iraqi parliamentarian, “but we are troubled that it was America, not Iraq, that decided.”

The timing of Trump’s intervention was not accidental. Iraq remains a battleground in the US–Iran rivalry, and Maliki’s candidacy was widely viewed as a potential victory for Tehran. By forcing him out, Washington signaled its determination to prevent Iran from consolidating influence in Baghdad. “This was a message to Tehran as much as to Maliki,” said Michael Knights of the Washington Institute. “The US will not tolerate an Iraqi government that tilts decisively toward Iran.”

Yet the move also risks reinforcing Iranian narratives of American imperialism. Tehran has long portrayed US involvement in Iraq as illegitimate, and Trump’s tweet provided fresh ammunition. “It plays into the hands of those who argue that Iraq is a pawn in a larger geopolitical struggle,” Knights added.

READ: The dangerous parallels between Iraq in 2003 and Iran in 2026

Warning or provocation?

The question now is whether Trump’s intervention should be seen as a warning or a provocation. As a warning, it reflects Washington’s determination to prevent Iraq from sliding back into sectarianism and Iranian influence. As a provocation, it risks hardening Iraqi resentment and fueling instability. “The danger is that by dictating outcomes, the U.S. undermines the very democratic process it claims to support,” cautioned Al‑Rahim.

Trump’s tweet was more than a passing message—it was a provocation that reshaped Iraq’s political landscape overnight. By forcing Maliki out, Washington demonstrated its ability to dictate outcomes. But in doing so, it risks hardening Iraqi resentment and fueling the very instability it sought to prevent. For Iraqis, the question is no longer whether the US has influence—it is whether Iraq can ever escape it.

Jonathan Steele, a veteran observer of Iraqi politics, put it more starkly: “Trump’s tweet was not diplomacy—it was coercion. It may have removed Maliki, but it also deepened the perception that Iraq’s leaders are chosen in Washington, not Baghdad.”

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

© Middle East Monitor