MADRID – The announcement of preliminary results from Iraq’s parliamentary elections has launched the complex process of forming a new government in Baghdad.

From Tehran’s perspective, these elections represent more than a routine democratic exercise. They signify the consolidation of a post-ISIS political order which, despite its limitations, has succeeded in stabilizing the country and securing its strategic ties with neighboring states. Far from uncertain, the electoral outcome confirms predictable trends and reaffirms the viability of a sovereign Iraq that prioritizes its natural regional partnerships.

Western narratives, often focused on the notion of an “Iraqi nationalism” defined in opposition to Iran, fail to capture the complexity of the political landscape. In Baghdad, what is unfolding is a refinement of coalition governance, where factions that understand the strategic significance of the relationship with Tehran form the axis around which any governing majority must inevitably revolve. At the same time, Washington’s approach, primarily concerned with containing Iran and safeguarding immediate energy interests, lacks the long-term vision and commitment necessary to alter this structural reality.

A key aspect often overlooked is that the successful conduct of these elections, with broad and diverse participation, constitutes a significant diplomatic achievement in its own right. Unlike previous periods marked by electoral violence, the process unfolded with institutional normalcy. This stability reflects the maturation of a basic political consensus regarding the rules of the game. Where some external actors anticipated chaos and division, the Iraqi political establishment has demonstrated notable capacity for self-regulation.

The relative transparency and order of the process, despite inevitable minor disputes, indicate that state institutions have developed resilience. For strategists in Tehran, this stability is an encouraging development, as an institutionally robust Iraq is perceived as a more reliable strategic partner than a fragile state prone to crisis.

Understanding Iran’s posture requires moving beyond simplistic sectarian analysis. While confessional ties provide a historical and cultural substrate, the strategic relationship rests on more tangible pillars: national security and economic interdependence.

Security is central. The experience of the war imposed by Saddam Hussein in the 1980s, followed by the 2003 invasion, consolidated a deep-defense doctrine in Tehran. Iraq cannot again become a platform for existential threats. The Popular Mobilization Forces, integrated within the state apparatus, embody this doctrine. They serve as a bulwark against the resurgence of terrorism and form an essential component of Iraq’s sovereign security architecture. Any external attempt to weaken these institutions is perceived as interference that destabilizes Iraq and endangers regional security.

Economic interdependence is equally critical. Iran and Iraq have developed deep economic ties. Iraq is a vital market for Iranian goods and services, a key client for its energy sector, and an essential land corridor to the Mediterranean. Stability in Iraq is therefore a strategic interest for Tehran. Iranian policy does not seek Iraq’s collapse but its consolidation under a government capable of maintaining these economic flows and critical infrastructure.

The objective of Iranian diplomacy is not to impose a specific prime minister but to ensure that whoever holds the office understands these core principles: preserving Iraq’s security institutions, respecting sovereignty against external interference, and sustaining a strategic economic partnership that benefits both countries.

The election results reflect the continued dominance of the “Coordination Framework” (Takatul at-Tansiq) as the most cohesive political force with the greatest mobilization capacity. Its resilience stems not only from its grasp of Iraq’s geopolitical realities but also from the discipline and unity it has demonstrated post-election. While other groups have shown internal fissures, this bloc has maintained a consolidated stance in key negotiations.

This coordination is not accidental. It is the product of years of trust-building and strategic alignment among components that, while retaining their individual identities, recognize the value of presenting a united front at decisive moments. The ability to act in concert provides this bloc with a significant negotiating advantage over more fragmented groups. In Iraq’s complex governmental chessboard, unity of purpose often outweighs simple parliamentary arithmetic.

Some Iranian analysts, such as Mostafa Nafaji, note that Mohammed Shia al-Sudani has consolidated his position as a central figure for Iraqi stability. His coalition, which received the greatest support in the 2025 elections, reflects his ability to balance different political blocs, including resistance actors, ensuring a plural and functional parliament.

Al-Sudani embodies the delicate balance defining contemporary Iraqi foreign policy. His leadership has resisted persistent U.S. pressures to dismantle or significantly weaken the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF). Under his administration, these forces have remained integrated within the state security apparatus, recognized as a fundamental part of Iraq’s defensive architecture. This stance is not a submission to external interests but a pragmatic understanding of Iraq’s complex security realities. Al-Sudani has consistently argued that dismantling these structures would weaken the state’s ability to combat residual terrorist threats and maintain internal stability.

What is notable is his diplomatic tact. While preserving the PMF framework, he has worked to enhance their professionalism and subordination to civilian command, partially addressing international concerns without compromising core security objectives. This approach has allowed him to retain support from mobilization groups while maintaining open channels of cooperation with Western partners.

According to some Iranian analysts, including Mostafa Nafaji, Al-Sudani has adopted a strategic approach to external pressures based on a pragmatic interpretation of national sovereignty. He recognizes that Iraq’s stability depends on a delicate balance in which security institutions reflect the country’s socio-political realities rather than external interests. This stance has strengthened his domestic credibility and projects an image of independent leadership regionally, consolidating his position as a central actor in Iraq’s stability and governance.

A stable and connected Iraq is central to regional stability. It functions as a strategic corridor essential for trade and economic integration between the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean. Any weakening of this connectivity would advantage external actors with disruptive agendas.

However, Iraq’s post-2003 power architecture is populated by actors and interests that recognize the value of regional stability. Deepening economic ties and strategic alignment within the political class make Iraq a natural partner in fostering a secure and predictable regional order.

The 2025 elections do not signal a fundamental shift in Iraq’s strategic orientation but rather the continuation of a policy of balance and pragmatic engagement. The stability of the electoral process, the coordination among political blocs, and Al-Sudani’s consolidation point to a sovereign, functional Iraq, strategically connected to its regional environment, particularly with Iran.