American newspapers continue to publish more details about an expected agreement between Washington and Baghdad to gradually withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq over the next two years. This comes amid a clear divergence in official rhetoric between the two countries. Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia Al-Sudani recently stated that “there is no longer a need for U.S. forces in Iraq, after they succeeded in defeating ISIS,” and that Iraq now has the “capability” to handle the remaining elements of the terrorist organization. Meanwhile, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Alina Romanowski pointed out that threats to Iraq’s security, stability, and sovereignty still exist.
The United States has agreed to withdraw its troops from Iraq by the end of 2026, according to defense officials. These officials noted that the U.S. and Iraq reached an agreement regarding the withdrawal of U.S. and other foreign forces by the end of 2026. According to a report by The Wall Street Journal, U.S. and coalition forces stationed in Baghdad, western Iraq, and other parts of the country will leave by next September, followed by the withdrawal of forces from Erbil in northern Iraq by the end of the following year. However, the report clarified that a small group of advisors may remain after 2026, with the deal likely to be publicly announced next week after final details are completed.
This withdrawal, once implemented, will have a direct impact on several regional and local parties, especially the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which control northeastern Syria and have received U.S. support that has repeatedly prevented potential Turkish military intervention against them in recent years. Currently, there are 2,500 U.S. soldiers in Iraq and 900 in Syria.
Experts believe that the U.S. troop withdrawal is linked to the conflict between Iran and the U.S. in Iraq, with Iraq being a major sphere of influence for Iran, which supports militias there. There is a delicate balance of power between the two sides in the country. While Iran seeks a U.S.-free Iraq, the American presence remains a necessity due to regional circumstances. There is no consensus among Iraqi political factions, including Sunni, Kurdish, and Shia groups, about whether the U.S. presence should continue. There is also a need for non-Iranian-aligned forces in Iraq, as a complete U.S. withdrawal could lead to full Iranian dominance. Therefore, the withdrawal process is highly complicated, and certain Iraqi factions are striving to keep U.S. forces stationed in key military locations in Ramadi, Ain al-Asad, and Iraqi Kurdistan.
The SDF is expected to be significantly impacted by this withdrawal, as they rely heavily on U.S. support to maintain their presence in northeastern Syria. Washington has played a crucial role in preventing any Turkish moves against them in recent years. While the U.S. withdrawal mainly concerns Iraq, the presence of 2,500 troops and American military bases means substantial support for the SDF in the event of any threats. This is especially relevant amid increasing discussions about a possible agreement between the Syrian regime and Ankara to end the presence of Kurdish forces in northeastern Syria. Since Turkey’s military operations “Operation Peace Spring” and “Olive Branch” in 2018 and 2019, Turkish officials have repeatedly threatened a third operation targeting areas controlled by the “Autonomous Administration” in northeastern Syria. The withdrawal would likely push the SDF to show more flexibility in negotiations with local and regional parties such as Turkey and the Syrian regime, particularly with talks of upcoming negotiations between the Kurdish National Council and the Democratic Union Party, along with ongoing attempts by the latter to start new negotiations with the regime. Therefore, the SDF may have to adopt more flexible positions and consider new partnerships with Russia and explore shared interests to ensure its survival and protection if U.S. forces withdraw.
The Washington Post pointed out that President Joe Biden’s plan to withdraw from Iraq could be a trap for the next president. The newspaper stated, “Biden wants to declare an end to this ‘forever war,’ but withdrawing all U.S. troops from Iraq could be disastrous.” It recalled that in 2021, Biden announced the end of the combat mission in Iraq but left 2,500 U.S. troops there and 900 in Syria to lead the international coalition in keeping ISIS in check. The newspaper added that with just five months remaining in office, Biden’s administration is working with the Iraqi government on a plan to declare the end of this mission and announce a timeline for withdrawing these forces to the U.S., which would allow Biden to claim he ended another “forever war,” as he boasted after pulling U.S. troops out of Afghanistan. According to the newspaper, American and Iraqi military officials have been publicly stating for months that they are negotiating an agreement that would formally end Operation Inherent Resolve, the U.S.-led international coalition established to defeat ISIS in 2014, and it is also expected to call for the withdrawal of all relevant U.S. forces from Iraq within two years.
The Washington Post noted that the announcement of U.S. troop withdrawal, even with a two-year timeline, would signal the U.S. abandoning the region at a time when allies are looking to Washington to enhance deterrence against Iran. Worse, the agreement could weaken the ability of the 77 nations involved in the coalition to coordinate against ISIS as it prepares for a resurgence. The paper explained that the two-year timeline between the announcement of the end of the anti-ISIS mission and the withdrawal of forces to the U.S. aims to give both sides enough room to adjust the plan if the threat escalates or if Iraqi security forces are not ready to assume counterterrorism responsibilities in time. However, this deliberate ambiguity has caused widespread confusion.
The paper further clarified that this subsequent agreement must be negotiated by the next U.S. president, and if these negotiations fail, U.S. forces will have to withdraw entirely. It highlighted that this was the case in 2008 when former President George W. Bush signed an agreement to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq, and then Barack Obama tried but failed to negotiate a subsequent agreement to keep some forces there. Three years later, Obama ended up sending thousands of U.S. troops back to Iraq when ISIS took control of a territory the size of Virginia. In 2021, Biden himself was left to implement the withdrawal agreement from Afghanistan, which was signed by his predecessor Donald Trump. When the withdrawal process went poorly, Biden found it futile to point out that the plan was not his idea. Now, Biden is putting his successor in a similar dilemma: either reverse Biden’s withdrawal plan and suffer politically or move forward and risk a security disaster.
The newspaper concluded by stating that no one wants to see U.S. troops remain in Iraq and Syria forever, but declaring the mission over does not mean it is truly over. “Ending forever wars is easier said than done, and if the U.S. abandons its commitment to Middle East security now, it may have to relearn this lesson the hard way once again.”
All publishing rights and copyrights reserved to MENA Research Center.
