A Transactional Turn in American Middle East Policy
US Making a High-Stakes Gamble to Reshape Iraq
Poonam Sharma
President Donald Trump’s second administration has launched an unconventional recalibration of United States policy in the Middle East, one that deliberately departs from the long arc of military-heavy interventionism that has defined Iraq since 2003. Instead of “endless wars,” the Trump White House is pursuing what it views as a results-driven, business-minded strategy that seeks to rebuild American influence through economic leverage, security consolidation, and political deal-making.
At the centre of this shift lies Iraq — a country long trapped between competing foreign interests, internal fragmentation, and the unfinished business of state sovereignty. The administration’s stated ambition, articulated by newly appointed US Special Envoy Mark Savaya, is blunt and symbolic: to “make Iraq great again.” It is a slogan that masks a high-risk geopolitical experiment.
The Savaya Appointment: Bypassing Traditional Diplomacy
Trump’s appointment of Mark Savaya as special envoy to Iraq on October 19 marks a decisive break from conventional diplomatic norms. Savaya is not a career diplomat. An Iraqi-born, Detroit-based businessman with roots in the private sector, he represents Trump’s belief in transactional realism — a worldview that privileges personal networks, financial leverage, and direct negotiation over institutional diplomacy.
Savaya’s background has afforded him unusual access to Iraqi political and militia-linked power centres that formal envoys often struggle to penetrate. His role in securing the release of Elizabeth Tsurkov, kidnapped by an Iraqi militia for more than two years, elevated his standing as an effective intermediary. For the Trump administration, Savaya embodies a belief that Iraq’s problems are less ideological than managerial — solvable through deals, pressure, and economic incentives.
Iraq’s Fragmented State: Militias and Political Gridlock
Yet Savaya enters an Iraqi landscape defined by fragmentation rather than unity. Constitutionally, Iraq is a federal parliamentary republic, but in practice, authority is splintered among political parties, armed factions, and shadow economies. The November 2025 elections reinforced this reality, strengthening the position of militia-aligned groups that operate partially outside state command.
The central dilemma confronting Iraq is existential: can a state enforce the rule of law while tolerating armed actors beyond its monopoly of force? Without consolidation of military authority under the constitutional state, Iraq remains structurally incapable of attracting sustained foreign investment or guaranteeing long-term stability. Trump’s strategy directly targets this fault line by insisting that all armed forces be subordinated to the state — a demand that challenges the very power base of several political actors.
Washington’s Strategic Objective: Sovereignty Over Spheres
The Trump administration’s Iraq policy rests on two core objectives. First, it seeks to consolidate Iraq’s armed forces under legitimate state control. Second, it aims to drastically curtail the influence of foreign actors — most notably Iran — whose backing of militias has blurred the boundary between state and proxy governance.
Washington views Iraqi sovereignty not as an abstract principle but as a functional requirement for economic revival, energy independence, and regional stability. Opening Iraqi markets to global investment, rebuilding infrastructure, and insulating the energy sector from external coercion are seen as inseparable from dismantling militia dominance.
The Iran Factor: A Strategic Balancing Act
Iran’s role complicates every dimension of this strategy. For Tehran, Iraq is not merely a neighbour but a strategic depth — a critical corridor for projecting regional power. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has actively worked to maintain unity among key Shia factions, ensuring that Baghdad remains aligned with Iranian interests.
However, Savaya’s mission unfolds amid a broader regional contraction of Iran’s influence. Iranian proxies have suffered major setbacks: the fall of the Assad regime in Syria in late 2024, Hezbollah’s severe weakening following the 2025 conflict with Israel, and growing state pushback in Lebanon. Iraq now represents Tehran’s most consequential remaining foothold — making it a potential flashpoint.
Regional Players: Opportunity and Constraint
Beyond Iran, Iraq’s future is shaped by a crowded regional theatre. Turkiye has repositioned itself by integrating Iraq into evolving trade and security frameworks, reducing Iran’s exclusivity. Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE have emerged as alternative economic partners, offering Baghdad pathways beyond dependence on Tehran.
Yet these actors bring competing agendas. Turkiye’s security concerns regarding Kurdish movements, and Gulf states’ strategic rivalry with Iran, may clash with Washington’s objective of Iraqi stability. Savaya’s success depends on aligning these interests without transforming Iraq into another proxy arena.
Transactional Realism and the Security Dilemma
The “Make Iraq Great Again” doctrine reflects a realist recalculation of American power. It views the US-Iran rivalry as a zero-sum contest in which neutral space no longer exists. By prioritising economic diplomacy and coercive incentives, the Trump administration seeks to restore a state-centric order in Iraq.
Savaya’s declaration that “there is no place for armed groups in a fully sovereign Iraq” has already produced limited results, with at least three Iran-linked militias publicly agreeing to disarm. Others have rejected the call outright. This uneven response highlights the core risk: aggressive efforts to weaken Iranian influence may provoke defensive escalation rather than compliance, triggering a classic security dilemma.
The Stakes for Iraq’s Future
Ultimately, Savaya’s appointment represents a stress test — not only of Trump’s foreign policy instincts, but of Iraq’s capacity for sovereign governance. If this unconventional strategy succeeds, Iraq could emerge as a stable regional hub, capable of navigating between great powers without becoming their battleground.
Failure, however, would entrench Iraq’s status as a perpetual geopolitical fault line — caught between Washington’s assertiveness and Tehran’s strategic desperation. The gamble is immense, and its outcome will shape not just Iraq’s trajectory, but the future balance of power in the Middle East.
