In recent weeks, Iraqi patriots and ordinary citizens have experienced a growing anxiety over the future of their country and the danger to its emerging democracy. These Iraqis recognize that a gathering storm is in the making and that powerful forces have set their eyes on eliminating their dreams for a better future. Indeed, the political landscape is dramatically changing as foreign powers and powerful neighboring countries articulate a message that the patriotic and the independent path that Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki is navigating is unmistakably unacceptable.

The Iraqi media reported on January 31, 2012 that Washington had outlined to Iraqi politicians a specific action plan that would have to be executed and that the President, the Prime Minister, and the Speaker of Parliament needed to convene a meeting within 48 hours to discuss it. Upon this order, the Prime Minister showed a willingness to accede to the demands of other political blocs and apparently retreated from his earlier position that foreign powers must not intervene in Iraqi internal affairs.

President Obama, in his meeting with Maliki, during his visit to Washington in December, raised the subject of Vice President Tariq al Hashimi who was accused by the government of sponsoring terrorism and subsequently took refuge in the northern part of Iraq. Maliki boldly informed Obama that the matter was an internal affair and that there was no need for Obama to concern himself about it. Likewise, in his conversations with Joe Biden and the American Ambassador to Iraq, Maliki was adamant that Washington not interfere in Iraqi internal affairs.

Faced with tough national elections, the Obama administration hopes to project Iraq as a success story. Furthermore, the administration has been accused by Republicans and other hawks in Washington of being soft on Iraq and easily giving in to Iraq's demands for an end to the occupation. This has pushed the Obama administration to espouse the neoconservative agenda for Iraq and the region in general. Senior members in the administration, especially Joe Biden and Hilary Clinton, have made it clear that Baghdad must be forced into submission. Both policymakers have been frustrated with Maliki's unexpected response to their demands for partitioning the country, his insistence on restructuring political power in a way that substantially weakens Washington-backed politicians and loyalists, and his uncompromising stance relative to security arrangements.

In 2006, Washington, with the backing of its sectarian and ethnic allies in Iraq, managed to prevent Ibrahim Jafari, the uncompromising patriot, from becoming prime minister and instead nominated Maliki. At the time, Washington thought that Maliki would be easy to manipulate and would be attentive to its designs for Iraq. However, Maliki has proved the opposite and has since displayed assertiveness and fierce patriotic sentiments.

Four developments demonstrate that Washington is taking the initiative to reassert its presence in Iraq. First, the Iraqi newspaper, al Mada (February 2, 2012), which is closely connected to Washington, reported that the U.S. is regularly and continuously flying F16 jets and helicopters over Iraq despite its claims that it has ceased military operations and ended the occupation. Second, the Washington Post reported (January 30, 2012) that the Pentagon is preparing for new military talks with Iraq on long-term security relationships.

Furthermore, the Post reported (January 29, 2012) that even though the U.S. has started tens of thousands of projects valued at approximately $40 billion, the U.S. Embassy in Iraq has provided the Iraqi government with only a partial inventory of American funded reconstruction projects, making it more difficult for Iraqis to manage or take care of them. This should be viewed in the context of the early attempts by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) to buy loyalty and create a parasitic elite group among Iraqis politicians and intellectuals whose aspirations and careers are linked to serving and maintaining the occupation. According to a report in the American Conservative (October 24, 2005), the CPA disbursed nearly $20 billion inside Iraq, two-thirds of it in cash.

Third, Washington-backed politicians have intensified their call for replacing the current government in Iraq. A former Iraqi minister who escaped Iraq to avoid arrest on a corruption indictment and lives in the U.S. has recently (January 31, 2012) called for replacing Maliki. Fourth, President Obama consistently consults neoconservatives and Israeli lobbyists about how things should be managed in the region. The Israeli newspaper, Haaretz (January 30, 2012) reported that the White House has installed a secure phone in Dennis Ross' office in the Israeli–supported think tank, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Ross is an architect of controlled conflict and an advocate of invading Iraq.

To counter Maliki's assertiveness and rising patriotism in Iraq, Washington has embarked directly or indirectly on four strategies; some old and some new, but all aimed at serving the interests of those who call for partitioning Iraq. These are:

Fragmentation. This strategy seeks to weaken the center while encouraging the division of Iraq along sectarian/ethnic lines. Furthermore, the strategy involves inducing ethnic and sectarian groups to initiate a campaign against the government. Their contention is that if Maliki does not change his patriotic approach, he must be removed from power. Indeed, several groups of ethnic Kurds have announced that they might declare independence and some indicated that they might ask for foreign intervention. Though partitioning Iraq was promoted by Washington before and during the occupation, the pressure to do so has intensified and major newspapers like The New York Times and Washington Post have written editorials against Maliki.

Polarization. This approach focuses on encouraging sectarian/ ethnic discord and exaggerating differences among Iraqis. Forces aligned with Washington have campaigned fiercely to incite sectarian and ethnic conflict. This strategy was initiated just before the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and various Iraqi intellectuals and politicians have been trained by Israeli-backed think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute and Washington Institute for Near East Policy, among others to make powerful arguments in support of partitioning the country.

Strangling. This involves giving the green light to Turkey to exercise pressure on the Iraqi government through intimidation and fueling sectarian strife, and sanctioning a neighboring Arab state to build a port close to a primary Iraqi port which will ultimately limit Iraq's capacity to export. Likewise, countries that have friendly relationships with Iraq have been subjected to severe economic sanctions and militaristic threats.

Reoccupy. This strategy takes various forms, including reinforcing security contractors' programs, using drones and helicopters over Iraqi cities without permission, and encouraging oil companies to have direct contracts with ethnic minority groups, despite the objection of the central government. While the use of drones and military helicopters constitute a threat to Iraqi security, it also endangers the safety of Iraqi patriotic forces that will be targeted under the pretext of fighting militants. Furthermore, there is a fear among Iraqi experts that drones will ultimately be utilized to provide intelligence and protection to separatist groups.

Under pressure, Maliki has softened his stance and in recent days given concessions to ethnic Kurds when he annulled decrees issued by the Committee of the Northern Part Affairs under the old regime which could lead to Iraqi families that settled in the North during the 1970s and early 1980s being uprooted. However, uprooting citizens from the area where they reside is unconstitutional as it violates Articles 24 and 44 of the constitution which guarantee the rights of Iraqis to live in any part of Iraq. Furthermore, Maliki displays more flexibility in accommodating other political blocs' demands, including the Iraqiya which has waged a fierce campaign against him.

Though Maliki relies on the popular support of ordinary citizens, the religious authority, and various patriotic forces, he is facing a formidable challenge. There are those who believe that once the regime in Syria collapses, hawks in Washington will have a free hand to finish its business in Iraq. This is particularly true as many in Washington consider the withdrawal of the military forces a strategic setback that must be corrected.

For the architects of the 2003 invasion, Iraq is a prize. For them a unified and democratic Iraq is a threat to the security of Israel and a defiance of Biblical prophecies. The invasion was perceived as a fulfillment of these prophecies and an opportunity to use Iraq as a staging ground for attacking neighboring countries, while keeping it fragmented and in chaos.

The hawks in Washington, including the neoconservatives, have been persistent and uncompromising in their quest to partition Iraq. These very forces see Maliki as antagonistic and a nationalist–driven politician who rejects their plans to divide the country. Furthermore, Maliki's refusal to accept dictates from Washington is not tolerated by policymakers who usually expect Arab politicians to be obedient and willing to subordinate their national interests to that of Washington's.

While experts, inside and outside Iraq, doubt Maliki's ability to withstand the gathering storm, the fact remains that forcing the Iraqi government into submission is not an easy undertaking. Removing Maliki from power will not force Iraqi patriots to soften their stance against partitioning the country. Indeed, the crisis in Iraq is an expression of a fundamental struggle between Iraqi patriots who aspire to be free and live in peace and powerful foreign forces driven by religious fanaticism and a desire to spread misery and chaos in the Arab World. Only time will tell whether the Iraqi people will triumph over the forces of darkness and secure the future of their children in a unified and democratic Iraq.

Abbas J. Ali