US Forces Exit Iraq After Two Decades

Is the US exiting Iraq by choice—or under pressure?

I am not surprised by the announcement that US forces are leaving Iraq. The withdrawal was agreed in 2024 under President Joe Biden and is now being implemented by Donald Trump’s administration. Yet the timing is intriguing - America is leaving Iraq while simultaneously confronting Iran in a widening regional conflict.

The obvious interpretation is that Washington has concluded that its military mission in Iraq has run its course. But geopolitics rarely ends with the departure of troops. America may be leaving Iraq militarily without necessarily leaving the Iraqi theatre strategically.

The withdrawal removes a long-standing American military presence that acted as a counterweight to Iran's influence. Iran and its allies are already celebrating the departure as a victory, while some Iraqi officials fear that the resulting security gap could strengthen Iran-backed militias. At the same time, Islamic State sleeper cells remain active, creating another potential source of instability.

This raises a more provocative question; could the withdrawal ultimately facilitate another phase of the US-Iran confrontation rather than bring it to an end?

There is no evidence that Washington intends to use Islamic State as a proxy. Yet the possibility deserves consideration. Iraqi commanders have reported increased movement by sleeper cells following news of the withdrawal, while the loss of American intelligence, drones and logistical support could give the group greater operating space.

A security vacuum, if it develops, could provide militants with an opportunity to revive—and governments with a pretext for renewed intervention.

Iraq's oil resources add another strategic dimension. Any prolonged instability affecting exploration, production or export infrastructure would have consequences far beyond Iraq. Whether such an outcome is intended or simply emerges from a deteriorating security environment remains an open question.

Therefore, America's departure should not automatically be interpreted as the end of its Iraqi engagement. Troops may be leaving, but American strategic interests are unlikely to disappear with them.

The real question begins after September 30, will Iraq finally exercise greater sovereignty, or will the vacuum created by the withdrawal become the opening chapter of another US-Iran proxy confrontation?

The Longer the War, the Weaker America

The bizarre war imposed by the United States and Israel on Iran on February 28 has continued for nearly six months, with no decisive outcome in sight. Pakistan-brokered negotiations have so far failed, largely because the objectives of the two sides appear fundamentally contradictory.

The implicit demand from Washington appears to be nothing short of Iran’s unconditional surrender. Tehran, however, has shown no willingness to capitulate. On the contrary, US efforts to bring Iran to its knees has demonstrated Iranian resilience and have transformed it into an even more formidable regional power.

Iran’s ability to inflict significant losses on US military bases in the Middle East and threaten strategic assets of America’s Arab allies appears to have strengthened with the passage of time. This has potentially altered the regional balance of power.

The Strait of Hormuz has consequently become the most critical pressure point. The US naval blockade and restrictions affecting access to the Red Sea cannot be viewed solely as an attempt to squeeze Iran economically. These also threaten the oil exports of Arab Gulf producers, creating an uncomfortable dilemma for America’s regional partners.

There is another dimension that deserves attention - the survival of US shale-oil producers. A prolonged conflict and the resulting disruption to Middle Eastern oil supplies can keep crude prices elevated. Many high-cost US shale producers could come under severe financial pressure if oil prices fall below around US$65 a barrel. This creates a possible economic incentive for Washington to avoid a rapid de-escalation.

Iran’s latest demands underline the widening gap between the two sides. Tehran has called for an end to the naval blockade, lifting of sanctions, withdrawal of US forces from the region and compensation for war-related losses. At the same time, Washington insists that diplomatic, economic and military pressure will continue until it secures what it considers an acceptable outcome.

But with every passing day, the strategic equation may be shifting: America is exhausting resources while Iran is gaining resilience, experience and leverage.

The greatest loser of this war could ultimately be the superpower itself. Further escalation risks damaging America’s credibility, encouraging Arab partners to reconsider existing security arrangements and intensifying pressure for the withdrawal of US forces from the region.

A superpower does not lose only when it is defeated on the battlefield; it can also lose when the cost of pursuing victory becomes greater than the benefits of achieving it.