Shafaq News
Iraq enters another phase of government formation, and political debate has increasingly shifted beyond coalition arithmetic toward familiar historical reference points. Discussions surrounding potential premiership options have coincided with renewed attention to security files and regional uncertainty, prompting political actors to revisit a formative moment in Iraq’s recent past: the period following the withdrawal of US forces in 2011 and the developments that unfolded in the years that followed.
In Iraqi politics, leadership debates are rarely confined to present programs or parliamentary numbers. Certain governing periods have become embedded in political memory, serving as benchmarks through which current choices are assessed. Among the most frequently invoked is the 2010–2014 phase, recalled not as a single chain of decisions but as a cumulative period marked by political polarization, institutional strain, and escalating security challenges. As names associated with that era return to circulation, the broader associations tied to those years have resurfaced alongside them.
The renewed prominence of the 2010–2014 period reflects more than historical interest. Political memory in Iraq functions as an active variable during transitions, shaping negotiation strategies, public messaging, and the boundaries of political acceptance. References to earlier phases are often deployed as cautionary signals, intended to frame present choices through experience rather than to reopen debates over responsibility.
This dynamic has become particularly noticeable as premiership discussions unfold amid unresolved governance issues and heightened security awareness. In such moments, past cycles are recalled less to predict instability than to emphasize the risks associated with prolonged polarization or contested authority.
The withdrawal of US troops from Iraq in December 2011 marked a major institutional shift in the country’s post-2003 political and security framework. What followed was a prolonged period of political contention, beginning with disputes over government formation after the 2010 elections, which took 289 days to conclude before Nouri al-Maliki secured a second term as prime minister.
The years that followed were also marked by rising tensions between the central government and several provinces, particularly over security policies, local governance, and the distribution of authority. Disputes over political representation, the application of counterterrorism laws, and the continued enforcement of de-Ba’athification measures became central points of contention, especially in Sunni-majority areas such as Al-Anbar, Saladin, Nineveh, and Diyala.
High-profile legal actions —including an arrest warrant issued for then-Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi in late 2011 and security measures targeting the offices of Finance Minister Rafi al-Issawi in 2012 —were formally justified by authorities but widely interpreted by Sunni political actors as indicators of shrinking political space. These developments coincided with sustained protest movements between late 2012 and 2013 in Al-Anbar, Nineveh, Saladin, and parts of Kirkuk, where demonstrators initially advanced reform-oriented demands through largely peaceful sit-ins.
Tensions escalated sharply following the April 2013 Hawija incident, which, according to United Nations figures, killed a total of 712 people and wounded 1,633 others across the country. By late 2013, the prolonged political standoff intersected with renewed insurgent activity, allowing extremist groups such as ISIS and Al-Qaeda to exploit local grievances and a deteriorating security environment. This trajectory preceded the loss of state control over parts of Al-Anbar and, ultimately, the fall of Mosul in mid-2014.
Collectively, these developments have come to define the period in Iraq’s political memory as a pre-crisis phase shaped by accumulated institutional strain and unresolved disputes rather than by a single triggering event.
Within this context, renewed discussion of former prime minister Nouri al-Maliki has functioned less as a reassessment of his record than as a temporal marker reconnecting current debates with earlier experiences. Al-Maliki served two consecutive terms between 2006 and 2014, including the years that followed the US withdrawal, making his name closely associated with that broader phase of Iraq’s political trajectory.
Al-Maliki’s State of Law Coalition, which secured 29 seats in the recent parliamentary elections, positions him as a leading contender within the Shiite Coordination Framework (CF).
Supporters within the political process frame any potential return as a matter of experience and continuity, arguing that Iraq’s institutions, security forces, and political environment have evolved significantly since that time.
Critics, meanwhile, approach the discussion through association, noting that the years linked to his tenure coincide with episodes that continue to shape public perceptions of state fragility and political imbalance.
In this sense, leadership debates extend beyond individual platforms to encompass what specific periods represent within Iraq’s collective political memory.
Current leadership discussions have unfolded alongside renewed attention to security-related files, including border management with Syria and the handling of detainees linked to extremist groups. Iraqi authorities are expected to receive approximately 7,000 detainees in coordination with the US Central Command, placing additional focus on counterterrorism and detention infrastructure.
While these issues are being addressed through institutional channels, their prominence has influenced political timing and rhetoric. Historically, periods of heightened security awareness in Iraq have tended to amplify political caution, reinforcing calls for stability, coordination, and continuity during transitions. In this environment, leadership figures associated with earlier transitional phases are evaluated not only on current positions but on how their names resonate within broader narratives of risk management.
Against this backdrop, Sunni political messaging has emphasized the importance of national acceptance and consensus in government formation. Former Parliament Speaker Mohammed al-Halbousi, whose bloc holds 36 of the 329 parliamentary seats, publicly cautioned against returning to periods marked by crisis and instability, stressing the need for a government supported across Iraq’s political and social components.
Although his remarks avoided naming specific individuals, their timing aligned with ongoing leadership discussions. Political sources interpret such messaging as preventative rather than confrontational, reflecting concerns rooted in earlier experiences rather than an effort to block a particular candidacy outright.
For Sunni constituencies, references to the 2010–2014 period remain closely tied to memories of protest movements, security operations, displacement, and the erosion of trust between local communities and the central government —factors that continue to shape how leadership debates are framed and received.
Figures within the State of Law Coalition, led by al-Maliki, and the broader Coordination Framework have responded by emphasizing that leadership selection is governed by constitutional processes and parliamentary negotiations. They have rejected the notion of political vetoes and argued that claims of widespread rejection do not reflect the current balance of forces within parliament.
This exchange highlights a recurring tension in Iraq’s political system: the formal legitimacy and the broader acceptance, which often becomes most visible during periods of government formation.
Government formation talks are now unfolding within this layered historical awareness, where constitutional procedures intersect with deeply rooted political memory. References to the 2010–2014 period do not point to a return to earlier conditions, but underscore how past transitions continue to inform present calculations at moments of uncertainty.
The outcome of the current negotiations will hinge not on the parliamentary alignments, but on how political actors manage the tension between formal legitimacy and the enduring weight of experience. The persistence of this historical frame highlights a political system that continues to measure its choices by memory, not only numbers.
Read more: Nouri Al-Maliki: A name that still divides and tests the politics of memory
Written and edited by Shafaq News staff.