When 'Challenging Iran' Means Backing a Puppet
In 2018, Newsweek presented an Iraqi presidential candidate as a strategic ally, framing his willingness to "help Trump challenge Iran" as a pragmatic move. The article implied that aligning with U.S. objectives against Iran was a legitimate basis for leadership in Baghdad, applauding the candidate for his purported alignment with American foreign policy priorities. This framing, however, ignores
the 1953 CIA/MI6 coup in Iran, or the fact that since 2003, the United States has spent trillions in Iraq, contributing to a state of perpetual instability, as documented by the Costs of War project at Brown University. To then present an Iraqi leader's alignment with Washington's regional rivals as organic or beneficial to Iraq itself is to erase a persistent pattern: selecting nations perceived
as weak links in a rival's network and cultivating figures willing to serve external interests. Think of the 2002 attempted coup against Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, supported by the U.S., or the 2019 OAS-backed ousting of Evo Morales in Bolivia. The blueprint remains consistent: identify a government deemed 'unfriendly,' then elevate any local opposition willing to parrot Washington's lines,
bestowing upon them a legitimacy rarely granted to leaders genuinely independent of Western influence. This transforms sovereign nations into arenas for geopolitical contests. Such narratives rarely question what an Iraqi leader gains, beyond fleeting Western approval, from participating in another power's regional feuds. They count on you viewing these dynamics as isolated events rather than a