Can Iraq’s new leadership win (and keep) the peace?

A BRIGHT SPOT?

In spite of real challenges, there are areas where the country can capitalize on openings for peace and stability. On Friday, oil exports from Kirkuk were restarted—this, after being halted last October over the standoff between Erbil and Baghdad over the historic Kurdish independence referendum. If the two capitals—aided by the presence of a new face in Baghdad—can build on this momentum to address other disputes (related to territory, hydrocarbons, and revenue-sharing), there could be positive reverberations around the country. The politics won’t be easy, but economic realities can reinforce the peace-building process.

Resolving tensions would send the right signals to Iraq’s discontented and disenfranchised communities and could reduce polarization—developments that would help prevent an ISIS comeback. That would help kickstart Iraq’s much-needed reconstruction phase.

Last autumn, Kurds and Arabs became embroiled in a conflict in the coveted, disputed territory of Kirkuk. The immediate source of the clash was the Kurdish independence referendum, which took place despite strong opposition from the United States, Baghdad, and Iraq’s neighbors. (94 percent of Kurdish voters backed secession.) Under then-Prime Minister Abadi’s orders, Baghdad launched an offensive in October—involving the military and Shiite militias—against Peshmerga forces in Kirkuk. The Kurdish nationalist discourse was provocative, no doubt; at the same time, the Iraqi state—as the sovereign—bore the burden to respond responsibly, which it did not. The debacle did not just reinforce Kurdish nationalism and suspicions toward Baghdad, but it also worsened Arab-Kurdish relations.It should have never been so easy for U.S.-aligned officials (Abadi) to use violence to advance a political agenda against other U.S.-aligned actors (the Kurds). It’s an important reminder that years of investments in reconciliation and peace-building can be destroyed in a matter of hours or days. A peaceful settlement between Erbil and Baghdad, after three years of sacrifices by the Peshmerga and the Iraqi army, could have been within reach after the referendum. That could have established a new chapter of peaceful co-existence—a marked departure from past practices of coercion and punishment, especially toward Iraq’s discontented Arab Sunnis, who have endured Baghdad’s suppression for more than a decade.

Ultimately, the post-referendum period became a litmus test for whether Iraq and the United States had learned the most important lesson of all: that keeping the peace is more important than winning the war. That said, there is a new opportunity under the current government and important lessons to heed.   

WASHINGTON’S ROLE

The United States can never be a passive actor in Iraq. Sitting on the fence can itself sometimes embolden one side. In the case of the Baghdad-Erbil spat last year, Washington opposed the Kurdish referendum but lacked a policy in its wake, which empowered Baghdad’s mobilization of forces against the Peshmerga.

Moving forward, the United States remains strongly positioned to contain the fallout from disputes in Iraq, mediating tensions and establishing an environment that is conducive to peaceful settlements. Washington should view Iraq’s leadership change as an opportunity to heed past lessons—namely discouraging strongman approaches and making it more difficult for Iraqi actors to resort to force to advance political agendas—and truly turn a new chapter.

For now, Erbil and Baghdad have no choice but to live with one another—out of economic necessity, and because Baghdad cannot close the door on the Kurds without further straining the legitimacy of the Iraqi state after more than a decade of violent resistance from Arab Sunnis. This is an inconvenient but potentially constructive starting point for pursuing a fresh slate. With U.S. encouragement, the two sides can commit to genuine dialogue that seeks to prevent conflict relapse.

IRAQI LEADERS MUST REMAIN VIGILANT

Crucially, Iraq must not repeat past mistakes, growing complacent when a post-conflict situation seems deceptively calm. That complacency enables the next round of conflict: ISIS, for example, emerged in 2014 after a failure to keep the peace following years of bloody sectarian violence between Arab Sunnis and Shiites. In other words, winning the peace only matters if it can be kept.

Aside from its governance challenges, Iraq remains highly susceptible to conflict relapse. Since 2003, Iraq has suffered countless sectarian conflicts and one recognized genocide. Of the 105 countries that suffered a civil war between 1945 and 2013, more than half (59 countries) experienced a relapse into violent conflict after peace had been established—in some cases more than once. Does Iraq have the leadership to insulate the country from further violent conflict? The record is not great. Iraq’s politicians, across the religious and ethnic spectrum, say all the right things—but have ultimately failed to keep the peace. President Salih and Prime Minister Mahdi have an opportunity to avoid that fate and to set the bar for future Iraqi leaders.