This chapter examines the interplay between security, legitimacy, and state-building in contemporary Iraq, emphasising the dual nature of intervention by international and regional state and non-state actors. Focusing on the post-2003 Iraq War period, it explores how international actors, particularly the United States, and regional actors, like Iran and Turkey, have shaped Iraq’s political and security dynamics. Initially viewed as opportunities for state-building by the Shi’a and the Kurds, these interventions shifted to consensus and also transitioned from direct interference to strategic alignments with local actors, further complicating governance. Central to the analysis are Iraq’s disputed territories, such as Sinjar (Shingal), which serve as arenas where state sovereignty and legitimacy are intensely contested. On the regional level, non-state actors like the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) and Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) also operate within these territories, undermining Iraq’s state-building efforts. The PMF’s alignment with Iranian strategies and the PKK’s ambitions to control border territories reflect broader trends of external/regional players exploiting local grievances to project influence. These dynamics challenge Iraq’s fragile sovereignty and highlight the importance of the army cohesion as a vital institution for Iraq's state-building process. The chapter’s core argument is that Iraq’s challenges are not solely the result of external interventions but also deeply rooted in regional interferences by both state and non-state actors affected, in turn, by internal divisions among Shi’a, Sunni, and the Kurds. The inability to forge a cohesive state identity has perpetuated fragmentation, enabling external powers to exploit these divisions. This study, building on the book's core argument, critiques the liberal state-building approach, which prioritises institutional frameworks without addressing socio-political disunity. Concluding, the chapter calls for a rethinking of Iraq’s state-building strategies, emphasising the need for internal consensus and inclusive governance as prerequisites for stability. It argues that Iraq’s future hinges on addressing its internal fragmentation while mitigating the destabilising effects of international and regional interference. Ongoing issues of legitimacy—as these are reflected in the current constitution—continue to shape Iraq’s main challenges and demonstrate the lack of continuity today, more than the intervention in itself.