BAGHDAD, IRAQ - For years, federalism has been repeatedly proposed as a way out of Iraq’s recurring political and governance crises. Yet behind this constitutional solution, there are those who whisper, maneuver, and push covertly toward dividing the country along sectarian lines. This is evident in statements by prominent political figures who declare that “the oil of the Shiites is for the Shiites,” or claim that “the water of the Sunnis will be for the Sunnis,” escalating threats that have taken on an increasingly sectarian tone.

Renewed discussions around this idea often use the Kurdistan Region of Iraq as a model to replicate in other parts of the country. Opponents argue, however, that the Kurdish case is distinct, shaped by unique ethnic and political circumstances, including decades of oppression under Saddam Hussein’s regime and even earlier.

Still, momentum for the concept appears to be growing. Statements made from within the parliament suggest a firm conviction among some lawmakers that dividing Iraq into sectarian regions may offer a practical solution to long-standing issues of trust and administration, ideas such as a “Shiite Region” or a “Sunni Region” are now being floated more publicly.

Iman Abdulrazzaq, an MP of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) and member of the parliament’s legal committee, argued that the regional system is a viable democratic model capable of reorganizing Iraq’s internal structure.

“We had wished for a united Iraq, rich in its components and sects, but reality has proven otherwise,” Abdulrazzaq told The New Region. “There is a clear rift and a prevailing atmosphere of mistrust among Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds, especially with the recurrent crises between the federal government and the Kurdistan Regional Government [KRG].”

“That is why I believe dividing Iraq into three regions, Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish, is not only natural but beneficial. It could help address many unresolved issues more realistically, allowing each region to build itself according to its own characteristics. This is not a call for secession, but rather a vision for a democratic and constitutional framework.”

Abdulrazzaq concluded by affirming the success of the Kurdistan Region experience, particularly in reconstruction and foreign relations, stating that this model could be effectively replicated in other parts of Iraq.

Conditional federalism

When it comes to the possibility of applying the Kurdistan model to Iraq’s western provinces, Omar Jassim al-Fahdawi, a leader in the Taqaddum Party, said that such an effort would depend on specific conditions. He acknowledged the relative success of the Kurdistan Region but emphasized that its achievements are rooted in unique political and economic factors. Applying the same framework to other areas would require firm guarantees regarding national unity, equitable distribution of resources, and the establishment of both political and security stability. Only under those conditions could the idea be realistically pursued, according to Fahdawi.

“While dividing Iraq into three regions could be a good idea, it comes with significant challenges. The Kurdistan experience offers a reference point, but Iraq’s population and social fabric are far more complex. Any initiative to establish regions must first and foremost safeguard national unity, followed by assurances of just resource sharing and a stable political and security climate,” Fahdawi told The New Region.

He believes that the more effective path lies in enhancing decentralized governance, not by undermining the country’s unity but by empowering local administration. For Fahdawi, the unfair distribution of resources across regions could lead to economic disparities that threaten the stability of the entire nation, even if regions were to manage their resources competently.

The constitution permits it... So, who’s preventing it?

Some legal experts argue that the regional system poses no threat to Iraq’s unity. On the contrary, they view it as a delayed constitutional entitlement that could help solve long-standing administrative and service problems by granting provinces greater autonomy.

Legal expert Ali al-Tamimi explained that the Iraqi constitution explicitly allows for the establishment of regions. The only requirement is to activate the necessary legal and executive mechanisms. He pointed out that Article 1 of the constitution defines Iraq’s political system as a federal union, and that Articles 116 through 123 detail the steps for creating regions. Specifically, Article 116 permits one or more provinces to form a region or join an existing one, such as Kirkuk joining the Kurdistan Region, and these are clear constitutional provisions, not open to reinterpretation.

The procedure is also outlined inIraq’s Law No. 13 of 2008, which states that a request can be submitted by one-third of a provincial council’s members or by one-tenth of the electorate. The request is then sent to the Council of Ministers and subsequently to the Independent High Electoral Commission, which organizes a public referendum. If rejected, the request can be appealed to the Federal Supreme Court or reattempted after a year.

According to Tamimi, many objections to the regional project are rooted in legal misconceptions. Fears about the impact on oil and gas resources are exaggerated, he argued, because regions are still required to allocate a portion of their revenues to the federal government. This is consistent with the practices of other federal systems and does not threaten national unity, according to the legal expert.

From a practical standpoint, he argued that regionalization could reduce developmental disparities. For example, Basra is a resource-rich province that has long suffered from marginalization. It meets all the criteria, economic, political, and human resources to become a successful region. Similarly, provinces like Anbar and Karbala have made notable progress and could be well-positioned to operate as exemplary regions.

He concluded by asserting that federalism should not be viewed as political extravagance but as an economic and administrative necessity. By empowering regions, the government would move closer to the people. Tamimi noted that if provincial councils are already functioning as miniature versions of regional governments, then it would make sense to grant them full authority.

Economy through administration, not centralization

Despite concerns that federalism might weaken Iraq’s economy, there are those who argue that decentralized administration could actually improve economic performance. Proponents of this view believe that giving each region the authority to manage its resources within a regulated legal framework would enhance local development and free provinces from the complications of excessive central control.

Economic expert Mustafa Akram Hantoush noted that Iraq is rich in diverse resources from oil and water to agriculture and minerals, which are distributed across provinces such as Kut, Babul, Salahaddin, and Diyala. If given the opportunity to manage their own resources, these provinces could support large populations and achieve substantial local growth.

For Hantoush, the key issue is not the form of government but the quality of economic management. Effective financial governance and investment planning, not centralized authority, are what Iraq needs to move forward. In his view, decentralization could empower provinces to cater to their specific needs more efficiently and productively.

Multiple regions; one oil

Some experts have also suggested that adopting a federal model would not necessarily lead to fragmentation, particularly in the management of Iraq’s vital energy sector. They point to global examples where federal systems have effectively maintained centralized control over strategic sectors.

Oil expert Haidar Huqb argued that many successful federal states, including Switzerland, Spain, and Canada, maintain centralized oversight of their energy resources despite being divided into regions. In Iraq, even if new regions were established, such as central, southern, and western regions, the federal government could still retain control of the energy file through institutions like the Ministry of Oil, the Ministry of Energy, and the Ministry of Electricity, while delegating some technical or administrative tasks to the regions.

Huqb maintained that international experience shows decentralization does not undermine the federal government’s strategic authority. Instead, it can ease bureaucratic burdens and motivate each region to maximize its productivity. For Iraq, such an approach could enhance local economies without compromising national integrity. Although the idea of federalism is still cautiously approached in Iraq, Huqb believes it is a model worth serious consideration.

A game of timing

In every election season, sensitive political topics like the establishment of regions come to the forefront, often as part of an electoral strategy rather than sincere policy proposals. Without a strong unifying national agenda, such proposals risk being reduced to tools for mobilizing sectarian sentiment.

MP Kadhim Atiyah al-Shammari, representing the moderate Shiite current, expressed concern about the timing of the renewed push for federalism, noting that after two decades of political transition, Iraq should have moved toward a stronger, more unified state capable of investing in its people and resources. Instead, the discourse is turning toward administrative division.

He believes that these calls are not coincidental but tied to election preparations. In the absence of national cohesion, some political forces revert to identity-based rhetoric to energize their base. This, Shammari warned, risks dragging Iraq back into a climate of division that the country had hoped to leave behind.

While not rejecting the constitutional validity of the regional model, Shammari urged a more mature and nationalistic discourse. He emphasized that the conversation should rise above sectarian calculations and focus instead on safeguarding Iraq as a unified homeland, not as a patchwork of electoral demographics.

A faint voice from within the Shiite camp

Some Shiite voices are beginning to support federalism, albeit cautiously, viewing it not as a threat to Iraq’s unity but as an opportunity for economic progress. One Shiite politician, speaking anonymously due to fear of political backlash, said the idea of division should be seen as a developmental opportunity, especially for the long-neglected southern provinces.

They described the conditions in the south as being akin to the Stone Age, marked by poor infrastructure and basic services. If these provinces were granted the ability to manage their own resources under a federal model, they argued, they could experience significant urban and economic development, perhaps even rivaling modern states.

They pointed out that popular calls for regional autonomy are growing, particularly on social media platforms in Basra. These demands, they said, are grounded in economic grievances rather than sectarian or ethnic divisions. The politician believed that the regional project represents a path toward fairness and prosperity for the southern population.

The politicians of the ‘sensation’

Although southern Iraq, home to a Shiite majority, suffers greatly from service deficits and underdevelopment, Shiite political discourse remains cautious about federalism. This hesitancy is rooted not in a rejection of the concept itself but in concerns that it could lead to state fragmentation or be misused for sectarian or electoral gains.

MP Kadhim al-Touki, from Dhi Qar province, argued that Iraq’s turbulent past, including wars and the fight against the Islamic State (ISIS), demands stronger national unity, not fragmentation. He acknowledged that the constitution permits regional formation but warned that such moves must be handled with extreme care and cannot be undertaken arbitrarily.

According to Touki, some proponents of regionalism are merely seeking political sensationalism or looking to mobilize sectarian bases. However, he cautioned against reducing the south’s hardships to sectarian issues, noting that governance failures affect all of Iraq. He highlighted that daily life in cities like Baghdad shows increasing sectarian coexistence, which contradicts the divisive narrative.

While acknowledging that some political factions might see regionalism as a means to expand their power, Touki personally believes it is not the right solution for Iraq at this moment.

External threads to internal discourse

Beyond public statements and election rhetoric, some analysts believe there are deeper forces driving the push for federalism. Political analyst Ali Fadhlallah interprets the trend as part of a broader web of regional tensions, internal failures, and possibly international strategies aimed at reshaping the Middle East.

Fadhlallah identified three key dimensions behind the rise of sectarian regional discourse. First, regional sectarian conflicts put pressure on some Shiite politicians and media figures to adopt sectarian narratives in response to external criticisms. Second, domestic political stagnation and a lack of real achievements have led some figures to rely on identity-based appeals to secure backing, especially during election cycles.

The third and most concerning factor, according to Fadhlallah, is the potential existence of a broader international agenda. He suggested that some individuals promoting division are doing so knowingly as part of a coordinated effort by global powers aiming to weaken countries surrounding the Israeli state by pushing them into ethnic and sectarian fragmentation.

He concluded by emphasizing that “while the sectarian discourse may appear local, its roots are deeply connected to regional and international dynamics, and thus cannot be dismissed as mere political opinion or electoral strategy.”

Additional reporting by Amr Al Housni