The Najaf School failed to establish even one significant deterrent against the idea of Iraq slipping back under American influence. It seems that Iraq has succumbed to American pressure, and in many respects has become a silent spectator to the process. The system witnesses this almost helplessly, without a clear or decisive position regarding the growing reality that America influences what Iraq does, how it manages its affairs, which borders and routes Iraqis are allowed to use, and how the country manages its external relations. There are also growing concerns about the indirect movement of Iraqi supplies that have reached Israel. The recent engagement with the HTS-led authorities in Syria also raises questions about whether Iraq's foreign policy is increasingly aligned with the American bloc. Those who routinely defend the Najaf School with extensive qualifications, "ifs" and increasingly elaborate theories need to answer a simple question: If the Najaf School was able to mobilize a powerful religious and political response against ISIS and issue a fatwa in defense of Iraq when the country was facing an existential threat, why is there no similar position now? If the claim is that the current situation is somehow not related to the sovereignty or security of Iraq, then this claim also requires serious examination. Is the issue considered important only when Iran is directly involved? If the concern is really the defense of Shia Islam and the dignity of the Shia community, then the current circumstances in Iraq cannot simply be ignored. A country that allows its sovereignty and strategic decisions to be increasingly limited by an outside force inevitably exposes the very concept of a protected "Shia Islam" to serious scrutiny. Meanwhile, thousands of Iraqis are suffering the consequences of air and ground blockades, while many other consequences remain less visible and rarely reported publicly.