The United States-led international military coalition will conclude its mission in Iraq by the end of this month, the country’s armed forces have confirmed to state media. Lieutenant General Abdul Amir al-Shammari, director of the Office of the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, in a statement to the Iraqi News Agency on Monday, said September 30 is the date for the end of the mission of the international coalition forces in Iraq and the transition to a new chapter of relations and cooperation. Earlier, Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi’s security adviser, Qasim al-Araji, had confirmed that the US-led international military coalition would conclude its mission in the country this month. Under a 2024 agreement between Baghdad and Washington, the withdrawal includes the removal of US air defence systems stationed in Erbil, the capital of the autonomous Kurdish region in Iraq.
These platforms have been critical to the interception of Iranian ballistic missiles and drones targeting the region amid the US-Israel war on Iran. US forces led the invasion of Iraq in 2003, which resulted in a bloody civil war in the country, with approximately 200,000 civilians killed in war-related violence. After withdrawing from Iraq in 2011, US forces returned in 2015, as part of an international coalition fighting the ISIL (ISIS) group. “September 30 will be the fixed and final date for ending the military mission of the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS in Iraq and completing the departure of its forces,” the prime minister’s office said. “October 1 will mark a new day in the trajectory of the Iraqi state, as Iraq will be free of any foreign military presence … [The move] represents an essential prerequisite for moving Iraq into a new phase of development and prosperity.” Iyad al-Anbar, a political science professor at the University of Baghdad, told Al Jazeera that the military withdrawal is largely a formality. “I believe this issue is almost agreed upon. Fundamentally, the concentration of US forces in Iraq is no longer in military barracks or Iraqi military bases, but has become concentrated in the Harir base in Erbil,” al-Anbar told Al Jazeera. “Ultimately, this issue will be mostly symbolic, considering that the Americans have ended their military presence in many headquarters where they used to be; even in Camp Victory near Baghdad airport and others, the support base, and even in the Green Zone near the US embassy.” Analysts say the impending exit of US forces from Iraq comes amid key domestic challenges such as bringing all weapons under state control.
Prime Minister al-Zaidi this week reiterated a deadline for nonstate armed groups to disarm or face terrorism charges. “The matter is linked to credibility and trust. Mr al-Zaidi was insistent and raised the ceiling of escalation regarding not backing down from the September 30 deadline to restrict weapons to the state,” al-Anbar said. “We have now begun talking about ‘regulating’ weapons, and what is the mechanism of this regulation? No one talks about the details of this issue. We notice an escalation in the rhetoric of political parties like Kataib Sayyid al-Shuhada, Harakat al-Nujaba and Kataib Hezbollah.” The question of how the government will manage the task of handling security alone amid such challenges remains a prominent one, particularly as key positions in the defence and interior ministries remain vacant. “These ministries represent core points in the plan to begin restricting weapons to the state,” al-Anbar added. The withdrawal of foreign soldiers from Iraq reflects a wider strategic shift by the US under President Donald Trump, rather than a complete disengagement from the country.
Former US diplomat Marlin Hardinger said Washington will remain engaged in security issues in Iraq despite the formal withdrawal. “I think we can say this medium-term commitment has ended, and I believe there will be residual efforts related to counterterrorism and intelligence, especially around the US embassy as well as the consulate,” Hardinger told Al Jazeera. “The Trump administration will perhaps focus more on the economic aspect and the developmental dimension so that the economic returns and benefits in the short and medium term are better for Iraqis, and then the position of the Iraqi prime minister will be stronger.” The withdrawal will appeal to some Trump supporters, particularly among those in the America First contingent of the Republican Party. But it could also alarm some of Washington’s allies in the region, amid the ongoing US-Israel war on Iran. “Factions supporting Israel that want direct US involvement in the Middle East may be displeased by this withdrawal; likewise, this could represent a danger to Gulf states if terrorist organisations emerge,” Hardinger said. “The real problem is that the region has become less stable and more turbulent than it was when negotiations and discussions related to the withdrawal of American forces began.” The withdrawal of US Patriot missile batteries could leave northern Iraq highly vulnerable to external threats, said Hassan al-Barari, an international relations professor at the University of Jordan. “It is unlikely that the Iraqi state is currently capable of defending its skies against Iranian missiles and drones if Iran targets Erbil, for example [and] this raises a question at this stage about how to fill this security gap,” he told Al Jazeera. “In the event Iran continues to send drones and missiles, who will intercept them if American Patriot systems and interceptor missiles withdraw? Who can stop this Iranian threat if there is no direct understanding with the government in Tehran?” al-Barari said. Ultimately, the success of the transition depends entirely on Baghdad’s ability to manage domestic security issues. “The ability of the Baghdad government to maintain or fully restore Iraq’s sovereignty is not only linked to the withdrawal of American forces, but also to al-Zaidi’s ability to restrict weapons to the state,” al-Barari said. “In my view, things are heading towards the unknown.
If al-Zaidi does not succeed in this, Iraq may fall completely under absolute Iranian influence … creating a dangerous security vacuum, which is the scenario Washington warns of and tries to avoid.”
