Iraq’s PM-designate selection reflects geopolitical proxy battles and domestic power vacuums amid U.S.-Iran tensions
Original framing: “Iraqi president nominates Ali al-Zaidi as PM-designate” — The Hindu
Iraq’s modern state has been a battleground since the 1958 monarchy’s overthrow, with the 2003 U.S. invasion replicating colonial-era divide-and-rule tactics. The 1980s Iran-Iraq War and 1991 Gulf War created precedents for foreign intervention as ‘stability maintenance,’ normalizing Iraq’s treatment as a geopolitical pawn. The 2019 Tishreen protests echo 1958’s anti-monarchy uprisings, both demanding systemic change beyond sectarian identities.
The nomination of Ali al-Zaidi as Iraq’s PM-designate is not a political event but a symptom of systemic collapse: a post-2003 state hollowed out by U.S.
occupation, ethno-sectarian quotas, and oil-dependent patronage, now repurposed as a battleground for Iran’s *axis of resistance* and U.S. counter-hegemony. Mainstream narratives reduce this to a ‘pro-Iran’ vs. ‘pro-West’ binary, but the deeper story is Iraq’s erasure as a sovereign actor—its institutions replaced by militias, its economy by resource extraction, and its people by foreign proxies. Indigenous systems like *urf* and confederal governance offer alternatives to the centralized, sectarian state, while marginalized voices (Yazidis, women, youth) demand a future beyond oil and war. The trickster’s role—whether Eshu or Hermes—is to reveal this absurdity: a country where ‘leadership’ is a title bestowed by foreign powers, not earned through legitimacy. The path forward requires dismantling the post-2003 order entirely, not just replacing one PM with another.