United States → Iraq
This score represents United States's relationship toward Iraq. The reverse direction is calculated separately and shown alongside it.
SIX-COMPONENT MODEL
Current component scores
Component values run from −100 to +100 and are combined with the published weights.
2 documented factors produce the +28 security assessment.
Why this score?
- +18.2Integrated campaign and security-force support against ISILBaseline rule · 2015
Coalition strikes, deployed personnel, training, equipment and operational coordination formed an unusually deep security partnership.
- +10Coalition mission begins transition to an enduring bilateral security partnershipActive event · 2024
The Higher Military Commission created a structured process to move from the coalition mission toward lasting bilateral defense cooperation.
4 documented factors produce the +57 diplomacy assessment.
Why this score?
- +14.6Leader visit reaffirmed the strategic partnershipBaseline rule · 2015
The White House visit produced concrete commitments on security, governance, humanitarian support and economic cooperation.
- +7.3Strategic Framework institutions coordinated the relationshipBaseline rule · 2015
The Strategic Framework Agreement and Higher Coordinating Committee provided recurring channels across multiple ministries.
- +25.5Long-term strategic partnershipBaseline rule · 2015
Both governments formally reaffirmed a long-term and enduring bilateral strategic partnership.
- +10Coalition mission begins transition to an enduring bilateral security partnershipActive event · 2024
The Higher Military Commission created a structured process to move from the coalition mission toward lasting bilateral defense cooperation.
1 documented factor produce the +11 economic assessment.
Why this score?
- +10.9Formal economic coordination under the Strategic FrameworkBaseline rule · 2015
The Higher Coordinating Committee addressed trade, energy, private-sector reform and fiscal stability.
2 documented factors produce the +6 alignment assessment.
Why this score?
- +36.4Broad cooperation on security, governance and regional stabilityBaseline rule · 2015
The partnership coordinated counterterrorism, democratic governance, economic recovery, humanitarian relief and regional diplomacy.
- -30United Nations voting alignmentBaseline rule · 2015
A rolling three-year comparison of UN General Assembly votes activates the alignment threshold.
1 documented factor produce the +11 disputes assessment.
Why this score?
- +10.9Sovereign cooperative bilateral orderBaseline rule · 2015
The relationship operated through a ratified strategic framework, respected Iraqi sovereignty and contained no active bilateral territorial claim.
No reviewed evidence met this component’s scoring threshold.
Why this score?
The model starts every component at zero. No documented condition or active event currently changes this one.
Coverage gap: The reviewed record does not establish a national-scale people-to-people exchange meeting the frozen threshold.
+20 in 2015 → +26 in 2026
The change is generated from sourced events and frozen scoring rules, not retrospective editorial adjustment.
0 points
United States → Iraq and Iraq → United States remain independent assessments.
View the reverse direction →ACTIVE EVIDENCE
Events affecting the current score
Coalition mission begins transition to an enduring bilateral security partnership
The Higher Military Commission created a structured process to move from the coalition mission toward lasting bilateral defense cooperation.
This analytical score is not an objective fact, endorsement or prediction. Confidence reflects evidence coverage, while incomplete or unavailable observations remain explicit. Differences below 5 points are treated as practical ties rather than a meaningful ranking.
Explore the full timeline and sources in the atlas →