Iraq 21 Years after Saddam’s Overthrow

Officials and experts to Asharq Al-Awsat: It has been two decades of violence, corruption and recovery

A store owner and his son watch Saddam Hussein deliver a televised speech on January 17, 1997. (Reuters file photo)
A store owner and his son watch Saddam Hussein deliver a televised speech on January 17, 1997. (Reuters file photo)
TT

Iraq 21 Years after Saddam’s Overthrow

A store owner and his son watch Saddam Hussein deliver a televised speech on January 17, 1997. (Reuters file photo)
A store owner and his son watch Saddam Hussein deliver a televised speech on January 17, 1997. (Reuters file photo)

Twenty-one years after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq, the formation of eight governments and staging of six parliamentary elections, current and former officials believe that the “experiment of the new Iraq has yet to succeed.”

On this day in 2003, the United States declared the success of Operation Iraqi Freedom that ousted the regime. The lasting image from that period was the toppling of Saddam’s large statue in central Baghdad.

Washington invaded Iraq in 2003 under the allegation that the country possessed weapons of mass destruction and because its regime posed a global security threat. No evidence that Iraq possessed such weapons was ever found.

Iraq does not officially celebrate the overthrow of the regime even though members of the former transitional council had called for naming it a national holiday. Political and popular interest in the anniversary has waned drastically over the years.

Several officials told Asharq Al-Awsat that the democratic experience in Iraq has been impeded by political rivalries and regional meddling.

Uprooting Iraq

Former Electricity Minister Karim Wahid told Asharq Al-Awsat that Washington wanted to use its invasion to “uproot Iraq from the Arab national security defense system and destabilize the regional balance by establishing a new weak regime.”

Wahid, who served in Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari's government, said the imbalance in Iraq began when officials took political decisions that were motivated by revenge.

“Such an approach was never going to succeed after decades of totalitarian rule,” he remarked.

In the past two decades, Iraq had to contend with security and political crises that started with sectarian violence in 2005, years of terrorism fueled by al-Qaeda and then ISIS, the spread of rampant corruption, rising regional meddling in its affairs and the emergence of militias that enjoy wide political influence in the parliament and government.

In March 2023, Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani said his government was working on combating corruption that has taken root in the majority of state institutions, leading Iraq to be ranked 157 out 180 most corrupt countries in the world.

MP Hussein Arab, a second generation politician, described the post-invasion phase as an occupation whose price is still being paid to this day.

It will take more time for democracy to be consolidated in the country, he told Asharq Al-Awsat.

“The parties that adhere to political Islam have tarnished democracy and turned it into a system of extortion and illicit enrichment,” he went on to say.

He predicted that the first generation of politicians who emerged after Saddam’s ouster would themselves be voted out of the scene during the next parliamentary elections.

Results of the change

Head of the Kulwatha Center Bassel Hussein said the outcome of the regime change are “modest” and have not favored the Americans and others.

It did, however, pave the way for regional meddling in Iraq, he told Asharq Al-Awsat.

“The region has become more turbulent and it is becoming worse due to Iran’s growing expansion in Iraq,” he noted.

“Since the invasion, Iraq has become an affiliate of Iran and a pawn in its conflict with the West and Arab surrounding,” he remarked.

On the future of democracy in Iraq, Hussein said the political system “teeters between various contradictory political, legal and social models. Elections have also produced a form of authoritarian competition that has nothing to do with the concept of democracy as understood in mature countries.”

Important accomplishment

In spite of this, Iraq’s most important accomplishment since 2003 has been ending the totalitarian state and one-party rule, said researcher and academic Akeel Abbas.

Aside from this, “the new regime has consistently failed because the ruling political-partisan system has sought its own interests at the expense of society,” he added.

The system has formed the state according to a “wrong and short-sighted vision”, he explained.

Head of the Center for Political Thinking in Iraq Ihssan Shmary said the political class that came to power post-Saddam should have separated powers and achieved social justice.

“Over the years, the political system has shifted from consensual democracy to one led by influential leaders, thereby destroying the essence of the change,” he remarked.

This has given way for more demands for system reforms and constitutional amendments, he noted.

The negatives, however, don’t deny the fact that Iraq gained after Saddam’s ouster the concept of the peaceful transition of power, which should be seen as a sign of recovery in the country, he stressed.



Three Scenarios for Russia’s Military Presence in Syria

Russian President Vladimir Putin inspecting his troops at Hmeimim Airbase in Latakia on December 12, 2017 (Sputnik/AP)
Russian President Vladimir Putin inspecting his troops at Hmeimim Airbase in Latakia on December 12, 2017 (Sputnik/AP)
TT

Three Scenarios for Russia’s Military Presence in Syria

Russian President Vladimir Putin inspecting his troops at Hmeimim Airbase in Latakia on December 12, 2017 (Sputnik/AP)
Russian President Vladimir Putin inspecting his troops at Hmeimim Airbase in Latakia on December 12, 2017 (Sputnik/AP)

Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday he would meet former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who fled to Russia after his regime fell in Damascus. But what will Putin say to his former ally? And how might their first exchange unfold, given Russia’s role in helping Assad escape on a chaotic night?

The Kremlin, known for staging Putin’s meetings with precision, might opt to limit media coverage this time. Putin could be seen sitting at a small table with Assad, now on asylum

in Moscow, in a soundless scene—one that leaves little room for formal pleasantries.

Why has Putin announced plans to meet Assad? Is it to reprimand him? Many in Russia believe Assad’s stubbornness has hurt Moscow’s efforts, threatened its gains in Syria, and could eventually risk its key military presence there.

As details remain unclear, Russian experts are racing to analyze developments in Syria and outline scenarios for the next phase.

Some Russian experts have painted grim scenarios. A member of the prestigious Russian Council on Foreign and Defense Policy warned of potential risks, including a prolonged conflict with civil war elements, a humanitarian catastrophe with millions of refugees, escalating migration in Europe, and rising tensions among nations like Israel, the US, and Iran.

He also predicted a new wave of international terrorism that could reach far beyond the region.

Other experts echoed this pessimism. One posted an image of a Syrian dissident stepping on a statue of Assad’s father, warning that “this is just the beginning.” Another blamed the crisis on the “Obama curse,” citing the West’s interference, while a third shared a bleak analysis titled, “We Must Pray for Syria.”

So far, Russian media and think tanks have avoided any optimistic outlooks for Syria’s future.

Experts, who spoke to Asharq Al-Awsat, believe Moscow may be preparing to handle one of three possible scenarios in Syria.

The first, most favorable for Russia’s interests, involves Moscow reaching an agreement with the new Syrian authorities to maintain its military presence for a limited period.

This could mean replacing the current 49-year agreements with a five-year deal to facilitate a gradual Russian withdrawal. Such an arrangement could help the new leadership in Syria manage Western pressure to cut ties with Moscow.

The second scenario envisions Russia giving up its airbase in Hmeimim while retaining a significant presence in Tartus. This would mirror agreements from 1972, which allowed Russian naval vessels to use the Tartus logistics center in the Mediterranean. This compromise would preserve Russia’s interests while reducing Western pressure on Damascus.

The third scenario involves a full Russian withdrawal from both bases, with Moscow later seeking agreements for shared use of air and sea ports. Such agreements, similar to those Russia has signed with other countries, are less likely to provoke Western opposition.

Regardless of the outcome, the Kremlin has yet to develop a clear strategy for dealing with the emerging situation in Syria.

Key questions remain, including how to curb Iran’s regional influence, manage Türkiye and Israel’s growing roles in Syria, and establish a new regional balance that secures Moscow’s minimum interests.