Iraq’s Sovereignty Is Slipping: Why Iraqis Should Treat It Like an Emergency

Summary

Iraq’s Sovereignty Is Slipping: Why Iraqis Should Treat It Like an Emergency. Baghdad,Occupied Iraq - More than two decades after the 2003 invasion, Iraq h...

Full Content

Baghdad,Occupied Iraq - More than two decades after the 2003 invasion, Iraq has rebuilt much of its state infrastructure, defeated ISIS territorially and restored a degree of political and security stability. Yet one fundamental question remains unresolved: How much control does the Iraqi state truly exercise over its own territory? Iraq has a government, armed forces, recognized borders, diplomatic institutions and a constitution. But sovereignty is measured by more than the existence of those institutions. It is measured by whether the state can ultimately control its territory, regulate its borders, protect its airspace, monopolize legitimate military force and determine its foreign policy. For Iraq, that distinction has become increasingly important. Sovereignty Beyond the Map Iraq occupies one of the most strategically sensitive positions in the Middle East, sharing borders with Iran, Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Its location places it at the intersection of competing regional and international interests. Conflicts involving neighboring states can quickly create consequences inside Iraq. Tensions between Iran and Israel, for example, have raised questions about Iraq’s airspace and its ability to prevent its territory from becoming part of a conflict it did not choose. The issue is not whether Iraq should maintain relations with other countries. It should. The issue is whether those relationships compromise the Iraqi state’s ability to make independent decisions. The Challenge of Armed Power One of Iraq’s most persistent sovereignty questions concerns the presence of powerful armed factions alongside the country’s formal security institutions. Iraq has worked to integrate armed groups into its broader security structure, but the existence of organizations with significant political, military and economic influence continues to raise questions about the state’s monopoly over the use of force. For any modern state, the principle is straightforward: military power should ultimately answer to the national government. Without a unified chain of command, governments can find it difficult to implement independent security policies or respond consistently to threats. Borders and Airspace Iraq is not literally an open country. It maintains official border crossings, immigration controls and security forces. But effective sovereignty involves more than checkpoints and passports. The deeper question is whether the Iraqi government can consistently control what enters and leaves the country, prevent unauthorized armed activity and ensure that foreign military operations do not occur without Iraqi authorization. The same principle applies to Iraqi airspace. During the 2025 Israel-Iran conflict, Iraqi officials raised concerns over alleged violations of Iraqi airspace. The episode highlighted Iraq’s vulnerability to regional conflicts taking place beyond its borders. For Iraq, control of its airspace is not simply a technical matter. It is a fundamental part of national sovereignty. Foreign Influence Iran’s political and security influence inside Iraq has been the subject of extensive debate, particularly because of Tehran’s relationships with Iraqi political organizations and armed factions. But sovereignty cannot be applied selectively. The same standard must apply to every foreign power. Iran should not control Iraq. Neither should the United States, Turkey, Israel or any other outside actor. That does not mean Iraq must isolate itself. A sovereign Iraq can maintain diplomatic relations with Iran, cooperate with the United States, trade with Turkey and develop partnerships with the Gulf states. The difference is who makes the final decisions. Those decisions should ultimately be made by Iraqi institutions. The Post-2003 Legacy The 2003 invasion fundamentally transformed Iraq’s political and security system. The years that followed brought insurgency, sectarian violence, political fragmentation and the emergence of ISIS. Iraq eventually rebuilt its security forces and, with international support, defeated ISIS’s territorial control in 2017. That victory demonstrated the ability of Iraqi institutions to defend the country against an existential threat. But defeating ISIS did not resolve every question surrounding Iraqi sovereignty. A country can defeat a terrorist organization while still struggling with competing armed organizations, foreign influence and questions over who ultimately controls national security decisions. Sovereignty Does Not Mean Isolation There is a critical difference between sovereignty and isolation. Iraq does not need to sever ties with its neighbors or international partners. It does not need to withdraw from regional diplomacy or reject foreign investment and security cooperation. Instead, Iraq needs the ability to engage with other countries from a position of independence. It should be able to cooperate with Washington without becoming dependent on Washington. It should be able to maintain relations with Tehran without becoming dependent on Tehran. It should be able to work with Ankara without surrendering control over Iraqi territory. Sovereignty means having the ability to choose those relationships rather than having them imposed by circumstances beyond the government’s control. The Danger of Normalizing Limited Sovereignty The greatest threat to Iraq may not be a sudden collapse. It may be gradual normalization. Foreign military activity can become routine. Armed groups can become permanent political institutions. External influence can become embedded in national decision-making. Citizens can become accustomed to the idea that the government does not control every aspect of the country. Over time, divided authority can begin to look normal. That is where the danger lies. Iraq could remain internationally recognized as a sovereign country while its practical ability to make independent decisions continues to weaken. A Question Iraq Cannot Avoid The central question is not which foreign power has the most influence in Iraq. The central question is whether Iraq itself has the final authority over Iraq. That means effective control of its borders and airspace, a unified national security structure and a foreign policy determined by Iraqi institutions. Iraq has survived invasion, dictatorship, terrorism and years of instability. The next phase of its development cannot be measured only by whether violence declines or political institutions continue functioning. It must also be measured by whether Iraq can exercise meaningful control over its own territory. Iraq does not need to disappear from the map to lose sovereignty. The greater danger is that it remains on the map while gradually losing the ability to determine what happens within its own borders. For Iraq, restoring and protecting sovereignty should not be treated as a slogan. It should be treated as a national priority.

Frequently Asked Questions