In September 2024, Washington agreed to a gradual withdrawal of American forces from Iraq, coinciding with the lead-up to the U.S. presidential elections. This decision came in response to demands from the Iraqi government, which claimed that the threat from ISIS had diminished and that Iraqi forces were now capable of addressing security challenges independently. However, the timeline for withdrawal is clouded with uncertainty for various reasons. First, the ISIS threat in Iraq is not over, and the country faces a tumultuous political scene, along with regional escalation on multiple fronts involving Iraqi militias. Additionally, Trump’s return to the White House would influence the U.S. military stance, particularly in Iraq, not only due to Iraq’s geostrategic importance and its proximity to Iran but also for what Washington might gain from securing its interests in that region.
Main Motivations
The U.S. military presence in Iraq is contingent upon anti-terrorism efforts and other factors, including:
Rising Tensions Amid Gaza War: American forces stationed in Iraq have long been targets for Iran-backed proxies. However, the recent escalation in the Middle East and the Gaza conflict has led to increased activity by these proxies. Militias, once effective against ISIS, now portray themselves as defenders of Palestine while promoting anti-American and anti-Western rhetoric. U.S. forces could find themselves in increasingly perilous positions if Trump decides to retain bases and use them as launch points to target senior leaders within these militias, similar to the killing of Qasem Soleimani at Baghdad Airport. During his first term, Trump made it clear that he was using bases to monitor Iran. When the U.S. embassy in Iraq was attacked, he moved more troops from Kuwait to Iraq to protect American citizens there. If the Gaza conflict continues without diplomatic engagement involving Iran, U.S. bases are likely to remain targets for ongoing attacks. While withdrawing troops from Iraq might reduce direct threats to U.S. forces, it risks leaving the country under the sway of militias that are gaining military and political strength.
Disruption of Iranian Oil Exports from Third Parties: The current Iraqi government plays a crucial role in helping Iran evade U.S. sanctions and mitigating their impact on the Iranian economy. Iraq has leveraged its need for natural gas to run power plants by agreeing to export crude oil and black oil to Iran. In July 2023, Baghdad and Tehran signed a deal to swap Iranian gas for Iraqi crude oil. This agreement allows Iraq to settle its debts to Iran, as direct financial transfers are prohibited under current sanctions. During Trump’s first term, sanctions on Iran were aggressively promoted to cut Iranian oil from global markets. The recent agreement between Iraq and Iran enables Iran to circumvent these sanctions, especially after Biden eased some restrictions. This agreement legitimizes Iranian oil smuggling operations, allowing them to evade sanctions under legal cover. Many Iraqi border crossings are under informal control by Iran-backed Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) militias that facilitate these trade agreements.
Interception of Iranian Supply Routes to Syria: Several U.S. bases in Iraq are close to the Iraqi-Syrian border. Among them is Qayyarah Airbase, one of the largest strategic military bases, reportedly located about 58 km south of Mosul. There’s also a significant military airport at Alton Kobri base in northern Kirkuk, approximately 50 km from Erbil, along with four other bases in Kurdistan: one in Sinjar, one near Atrush, and two in Halabja in the Sulaymaniyah province near the Iranian border. Additionally, there are at least two more bases in Anbar province, situated on the eastern border with Syria. These bases could play a critical role in promoting American interests in both Iraq and Syria. On one hand, they could monitor and disrupt the supply routes of logistics, personnel, and weapons transported from Iran to Syria to support the Assad regime. On the other hand, they can counterbalance Russian influence in Syria through limited U.S. reconnaissance and surveillance operations.
Avoiding a Potential ISIS Resurgence: The withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq could create a security vacuum, paving the way for a resurgence of ISIS and other destabilizing forces. According to a UN report, ISIS retains about 10,000 fighters in Iraq and Syria despite significant military setbacks and continues to exploit economic and political instability. Between January 2020 and September 2021, ISIS claimed responsibility for dozens of monthly operations in Iraq, primarily targeting Salah ad-Din, Kirkuk, and Diyala provinces. The group’s activity has been fueled by sectarian divisions, marginalization of families associated with ISIS, and unaddressed economic stagnation. As U.S. forces provide a critical deterrent to these militias and support local counterinsurgency efforts, a complete withdrawal of American troops could leave Iraq vulnerable to an ISIS insurgency and increasing influence from politically and militarily powerful militias. Simultaneously, cross-border instability, such as Turkish operations in Syria, threatens to divert resources away from containing ISIS.
Countering Chinese Influence in Iraq: China has become an important arms supplier to Iraq, offering cheap arms deals unrelated to political agendas. Since 2020, China’s exports of arms, munitions, equipment, and accessories to Iraq have increased. According to Trading Economics, the value of Chinese arms sales to Iraq soared from 245,000in2019to245,000in2019to430,000 in 2020, gradually rising yearly to an all-time high of $1 million in 2022. This trend is seen as part of China’s efforts to enhance its influence in the Middle East, as well as an attempt to find new ways to revive its economy in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. In April 2024, the newest version of the CH-5 drone was showcased at the International Defense Expo in Iraq (IQDEX). Iraq had purchased Chinese drones for the first time in 2015 when it acquired the CH-4 model, which it employed against ISIS in the Ramadi region. The CH-5 sales represent another sign of expanding Chinese arms sales to Iraq. China is also seen as an economic competitor to the U.S. in Iraq, with both countries being among the largest importers of Iraqi oil. In January, China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) replaced ExxonMobil as the main contractor for the West Qurna 1 oil field in Iraq. This shift may indicate a troubling trend toward diminishing U.S. influence in the country.
Challenge Environment
The ongoing U.S. military presence in Iraq faces local and regional challenges, which can be summarized as follows:
The Iraqi Regime Increasingly Supports Iran: Speculation is growing about the motivations behind the policies of current Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shiya al-Sudani. He was nominated in 2022 by the Coordination Framework, a coalition of Shiite factions in Iraq, which includes figures allied with Tehran such as Qais al-Khazali, leader of Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq, a group responsible for thousands of attacks against U.S. forces since its formation in 2006. Sudani’s nomination has been scrutinized due to his political connections; this was not his first nomination for the post. In 2019, following the resignation of then-Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi amidst protests against economic decline and corruption, Sudani’s nomination was strongly rejected. Recently, in an interview with Bloomberg, Sudani stated that U.S. forces were no longer necessary in Iraq, asserting that the Iraqi army could manage the country’s security. This stance aligns with the demands of Iran-backed militias, raising concerns that Sudani may be politically aligned with Tehran. If these concerns are confirmed, they could complicate future security cooperation between the U.S. and Iraq.
Escalation on Multiple Fronts in the Middle East: Ongoing escalations on multiple fronts in the Middle East are drawing Iraq into direct confrontations with Israel, due to increasing activities by Iran-backed militias against U.S. bases in the country. Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar stated at the UN, “I sent a message this evening to the President of the UN Security Council calling for immediate action regarding the activities of Iran-aligned militias in Iraq, which are using its territory to attack Israel.” Sa’ar added that his country would take “all necessary measures to protect itself and its citizens.” The message caused panic within Iraq, prompting the Iraqi government to urge the UN Security Council to intervene and halt Israeli threats. In a statement, the Iraqi Foreign Ministry emphasized the necessity of Security Council action against Israeli aggression. Diplomatic efforts are intensifying as Baghdad tries to avoid a direct confrontation scenario with Israel. Sudani has called for de-escalation, urging Washington to intervene to prevent Israel from launching an attack on Iraq.
Instability in the Local Political Scene: Rivalries among political parties are fueling political instability in Iraq. In 2022, the country found itself on the brink of civil war due to rising tensions between Sadrists and the Coordination Framework, alongside widespread street protests concerning the formation of a new government. This revealed a divide within the Shiite bloc regarding control over the political scene. Following these events, Muqtada al-Sadr eventually withdrew from the political scene, leaving space for the Coordination Framework, which comprises factions linked to Tehran, to form the new government. However, in recent months, reports of a potential return of Sadr, a strong adversary of Sudani, in the upcoming elections have emerged, although these reports have not been officially confirmed. Sadr also published a controversial statement, signing it under a different name for his movement: the National Shiite Movement, instead of the Sadrist Movement. This was not surprising, as tensions among Shiite factions in Iraq remain unresolved, making the dynamics among them a powder keg ready to explode with Sadr’s possible return to the stage. Moreover, Sunni and Kurdish factions also face divisions and struggles for political power, with the ousting of Parliament Speaker Mohammad al-Halbousi being one manifestation of such divisions.
Illicit Weapons in Iraq: Iraq has long suffered from the proliferation of illicit weapons, a situation exacerbated by the 2003 U.S. invasion and the dissolution of the Iraqi army, leading to the theft and sale of arms at low prices to civilians. Estimates suggest that civilians possess between 7.5 and 10 million weapons, some of which are heavy. Despite government efforts, the problem remains unresolved. The government’s attempts to allocate a budget of 15 billion dinars to purchase weapons from civilians have failed, as citizens are reluctant to surrender their arms out of fears for their security situations. Additionally, these weapons are used in tribal disputes, personal revenge, and political violence, resulting in daily casualties.
Deteriorating Economy: The Iraqi economy experienced a slight recovery following the shock of the COVID-19 pandemic and rising oil prices in 2020. Nevertheless, there remains a substantial dependency on the U.S. dollar among ordinary citizens, as volatile exchange rates and the Federal Reserve’s control directly impact economic stability. This dependency has led to rising costs of goods and services, decreased wages, and diminished purchasing power for Iraqi citizens. The link between deteriorating economic conditions and violent extremism is particularly evident, with many individuals joining the PMUs primarily for economic reasons, as their salaries are more competitive compared to other options in Iraq. While fighting against ISIS, the Iraqi Armed Forces deliberately targeted individuals from lower socio-economic strata to address a recruitment shortage after the PMUs’ effective recruiting efforts. The flourishing economic empire of the PMUs is built upon controlling customs revenues, which generate 10billionannually,illegaltaxesof10billionannually,illegaltaxesof300,000 per day, and profits from the scrap metal trade. The persistent economic woes and the increasing influence of the PMUs and other militias pose significant risk factors for instability throughout the country.
Rising Tensions Between Baghdad and Erbil: There is a dispute between Baghdad and Erbil regarding the continued presence of U.S. military forces in Iraq. Erbil views American military bases as vital for its security against Turkish attacks and persecution, while Baghdad, which lacks leverage over Tehran, has aligned itself with Iran’s objective to remove U.S. bases entirely from Iraq. Relations between Washington and Baghdad are tense due to ongoing U.S. support for its Kurdish allies, as the U.S. is perceived to undermine Baghdad’s sovereignty over Iraqi territory, including the Kurdistan Region. These tensions will ultimately hinder U.S. efforts to balance Iranian influence in Iraq.
Second Term
Before addressing potential scenarios for U.S. intervention in Iraq, it is crucial to reflect on Trump’s previous presidency. The main themes of his policies can be summarized as follows:
Lack of Predictable Strategy: Trump’s first term was marked by significant deviations from traditional U.S. foreign policy. He questioned the value of U.S. membership in NATO, abruptly withdrew from Syria, abandoned the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran, and initiated trade wars with China. He was a vocal critic of Biden’s handling of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan. Trump met with Putin despite U.S. sanctions imposed on him for alleged interference in the U.S. presidential elections. He frequently broke presidential protocol, culminating in his refusal to accept Biden’s invitation to the White House following the 2020 election and his continued assertions of electoral fraud, which contributed to the tensions leading to the Capitol attack on January 6. Following his recent electoral victory, Trump appeared to follow the same line. For instance, he withheld the identities of private sector donors supporting his presidential transition. Regarding the Middle East, Trump made contradictory statements about the withdrawal of U.S. forces. At times, he declared that the U.S. could no longer remain the world’s police force, while at other times he emphasized the need to confront Iranian influence. He criticized the Iraqi Parliament’s proposal to expel foreign troops from the country and even threatened to impose sanctions. These precedents indicate that Trump may diverge from agreements reached between Baghdad and the Biden administration.
Choosing Hardliners Against Iran for His Transition Team: Donald Trump’s recent choices for his administration underscore a hardline policy toward Iran and a pro-Israel stance. Mike Huckabee, whom Trump appointed as U.S. ambassador to Israel, had previously denied Palestinian national identity and supported Israeli settlements. This appointment was lauded by figures such as Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, prominent members of the Israeli right-wing political scene. This new Trump administration signals a return to the “maximum pressure” campaign emphasizing sanctions to curb Iranian influence and economic capacity. Figures like Senator Marco Rubio and Representative Mike Waltz have taken a hardline approach toward Tehran, labeling it a terrorist regime and advocating for sanctions and military deterrence. Rubio even endorsed Israel’s right to respond “disproportionately” to Iranian threats. These efforts to economically and militarily isolate Iran would not be complete without a strong foothold in Iraq, where its regime appears to be increasingly loyal to Iran.
Warning Against Full Withdrawal from Iraq: During his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump promised to initiate a gradual withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. In September 2020, a few months before that year’s presidential election, an announcement was made to reduce troops from 5,200 to 3,000. Many viewed this step as either a delayed fulfillment of an election promise or an attempt to respond to the Iraqi government’s demand for the U.S. to leave after the strike against Soleimani in Baghdad, which exacerbated an already fragile security situation. Nevertheless, Trump repeatedly highlighted during his first term that the withdrawal of troops from Iraq would serve to benefit Iran in expanding its influence there. While some may perceive these positions as contradictory, Trump’s perspective on Iraq’s strategic importance has largely remained consistent; Tehran has always been and will remain a part of U.S. considerations regarding its policy toward Iraq.
Pragmatism Dominating Relations with Allies: Victor Cha’s commentary on how Trump engages with his allies is not far from reality. This “transactional” pragmatism has been a hallmark of Trump’s first presidential term. Cha suggested a theory that Trump considers a country a “safe zone” or “danger zone” based on whether that country has a trade surplus or deficit with the U.S. and whether it spends at least 3% of its budget on defense. In 2019, Trump questioned the benefits of U.S. NATO membership, viewing it as a burden, given that the U.S. is the largest contributor to the alliance. Regarding the U.S. military presence in the Middle East, Trump stated that the U.S. has “an expensive airbase there. It cost billions to build. We will only leave if they pay us for it.”
Potential Scenarios
In conclusion, the U.S. will maintain or even increase its military presence in Iraq as long as the new administration is hostile toward Iran. Iraq is increasingly under Iranian influence, whether through proxy militias or significant economic leverage over Baghdad’s resources. This influence is reinforced by an Iraqi government that appears aligned with Iran’s agenda, evidenced by its efforts to remove American forces, especially considering its leader’s controversial political backdrop and affiliations. Meanwhile, ISIS represents a latent threat, capable of launching attacks at any moment. Regional tensions in Gaza, Syria, and Lebanon remain volatile.
Recent appointments made by Trump for his upcoming administration reflect a hardline stance toward Iran and indicate the development of policies that could deviate from a complete withdrawal of U.S. forces by 2026, instead focusing on enhancing U.S. strategic interests. While Trump may be unpredictable at times, the strategic and economic significance of Iraq, combined with Trump’s pragmatic political approach and his positions against Iran, are likely to remain stable and are unlikely to change significantly. One possible scenario is that the U.S. might impose new sanctions on Iraq to further isolate Iran and escalate its maximum pressure campaign. More troops could be deployed if Washington perceives a threat to its interests in Iraq. These considerations and the strategic, economic, and security dynamics will turn Iraq into a battleground for settling scores between Washington and Tehran.
