Now what happens?

But the question is what’s next. Parliamentary governments always require substantial coalition-building and compromise. However, the post-election process in Iraq, which is fractured by sectarian and ethnic divisions, promises to be difficult - and potentially impossible. Forming the new government will be a complicated and protracted process. The Iraqi constitution allows 15 days for the 325 newly-elected Council of Representatives to convene to chose its speaker. The Council will then elect the president of the country. This president in turn instructs the party with the highest number of votes in Sunday’s election to form the government, including the prime minister and cabinet.

In previous elections, Iraqis have proven unable to conform to this time frame. In the wake of the country’s last elections in 2005, despite substantial American influence, Iraqi leaders needed several months to form the government.

Unfortunately, time is not the only challenge Iraqis face. It is unlikely that any one party will win the absolute majority of the votes, suggesting that there will need to be a coalition with other parties. However, the parties disagree on more issues than they agree upon. The biggest sticking points have been oil revenue and amending the constitution, although the larger issue is often a lack of willingness to compromise.

There are two conceivable scenarios. The next government might only include the winning parties; the interests of the losing parties will be unrepresented. It is likely such a government would be Shi’a- and Kurd-dominated, with little Sunni representation. Alternatively, the winning parties might become deadlocked and fail to form any government at all, an outcome that would jeopardize Iraq’s stability.

In either scenario, the US role in post-election Iraq is the critical variable. Iraqi affairs experts increasingly argue that the Obama administration has moved on from Iraq and thus America’s influence over the country is diminishing. This argument is based on the planned withdrawal of US troops as well as the reduced American presence in the country, but also on Vice President Joe Biden’s recent failed effort to postpone the disqualification of the Baathists until after Sunday’s election.

The US withdrawal from Iraq is a critical next step. However, the goal should not be to abandon the country altogether, but to keep Iraq as an important ally. Hopefully, the Obama administration will distinguish between ending the war and losing the country. The United States needs to assist Iraq’s transition to the next government.

The process is bound to be rocky, but the alternatives are worse. Iraq might soon become one of the most important oil producers in the world, as significant as Iran and Saudi Arabia. Both of these countries believe that a stable, democratically-elected government - and likely dominated by the country’s Shi’a majority - threatens their regional interests. In other words, the interests of the United States and the Saudi Arabia (and some Sunni Arab countries) may not be the same.

If the United States wants a stable Iraq, it should support a moderate Shi’a bloc, protecting it from radical Shi’as with strong ties to the Iranian regime as well as other factions that receive support from countries like Saudi Arabia or Syria. Such a US role could also help shift opinions among Sunni Arabs in Iraq, and in the Arab world in general. It would encourage them to embrace the concept that a Shi’a-dominated government in Iraq does not necessarily mean it receives orders from an Iranian regime. In fact, strong Shi’a leadership could help to stabilize the region.

Although Iraq can lead without US assistance, the country is a young democracy that needs targeted support and protection if it has any hope of achieving real stability in a region beset by internecine conflicts.

Razzaq al-Saied, a former New York Times reporter based in Baghdad, is a fellow and researcher at Harvard Kennedy School of Government.