Shafaq News/ Americaninterpretations of the decision by Baghdad and Washington to end theInternational Coalition's mission and withdraw forces from Iraq vary. Some seeit as “a natural step” after ISIS's defeat, while others call for a “full USmilitary exit,” a decision left to the next president.
On Friday, the US and Iraq reachedan agreement to formally conclude the US-led military coalition's anti-ISISmission in Iraq by 2025. While certain US troops will leave long-held bases,officials have not clarified how many of the 2,500 US forces stationed in Iraqwill remain. Pentagon deputy press secretary Sabrina Singh confirmed that the USmilitary presence would be adjusted but did not provide specific numbers.
This agreement comes at a time ofheightened tensions in the Middle East. Regional conflicts involving Israel,Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas in Gaza raise concerns about a potentialbroader war. US military installations in Iraq have frequently been targeted byIran-backed forces, particularly following the Israel-Hamas war last year.
The two-phase plan outlined in theagreement states that by September 2025, the coalition’s mission will end, andUS forces will vacate bases such as Ain al-Asad and Baghdad InternationalAirport. They will relocate to Hareer base in northern Iraq’s Kurdistan region.The second phase allows for a limited US presence to continue supportingcounter-ISIS efforts in Syria until 2026, though the exact number of troopsthat will remain in Iraq remains unclear.
While Iraqi Prime Minister MohammedShia al-Sudani has voiced confidence in his nation’s forces to manage theremnants of ISIS, facing internal pressure from pro-Iran factions. USofficials, however, have warned that the threat of ISIS persists, particularlyin Syria, where the group has increased its activities.
According to The Media Line, “thisphased withdrawal is part of a broader adjustment of US military operations inthe region.” The American news agency reports that the withdrawal will reduceAmerican military operations, with certain bases being vacated, yet leave aresidual force to counter potential ISIS resurgence.
Time Magazine offered a differentperspective, framing the deal as "long overdue" and suggesting thatthe US should fully withdraw from Iraq. The magazine emphasized that whileWashington will not be pulling all its troops, the agreement represents thestart of a "conditions-based transition" that risks prolonging USinvolvement. Critics of this gradual approach argue that the US has alreadyaccomplished its counter-ISIS goals in Iraq. As Time Magazine pointed out, “theterritorial caliphate has been destroyed, and local forces are now more capableof managing security operations.”
Concerns remain, however, aboutwhether a complete US departure could embolden ISIS and Iran. US lawmakers,such as House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, have expressedalarm that a full withdrawal would benefit Iran and ISIS. Rogers warned that"withdrawing from Iraq in this way would embolden Iran and ISIS," asentiment echoed by retired Gen. Joseph Votel, who claimed that ISIS would"inevitably" resurge without a U.S. military presence.
Time Magazine countered these claimsby noting that local forces, including the Iraqi army and Kurdish peshmerga,have significantly improved their capabilities since the fight against ISISbegan in 2014. Moreover, they argue that "the US intelligence communitywould remain “laser-focused " and could take action against ISIS without aground presence, citing past examples of successful operations, such as the2022 drone strike that killed Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri in Afghanistan.
The phased withdrawal will likelyshape the future of US-Iraq relations. Time Magazine concluded that “the Bidenadministration has set the stage for a more normal, business-like relationshipwith Iraq,” but the ultimate decision on the US military's future role in thecountry may rest with the next president.
Disclaimer: The views presented bythe author do not necessarily reflect the official standpoint of Shafaq NewsAgency.