Alwaght- Amid the escalating tensions in West Asia, the US has started new movements in Iraq.
In this relation, the spokesman to the American embassy in Baghdad on Monday confirmed recent reports about exit of the US forces from Iraq.
He, however, added that the US-led Western coalition will continue its activities in Iraq under non-combat missions and the combat mission is slated to be transformed into bilateral "security partnership." He described the US presence in Iraq as a mission for fighting ISIS terrorist group, adding that the withdrawal of the American forces does not mean end of this mission.
News sources had earlier reported that the US is planning to withdraw its forces from the capital Baghdad and the Ein Al-Assad air base in west of the country to move them to an Erbil base.
Sources with knowledge of the matter told Asharq Al-Awsat that the ongoing changes do not mean a departure from the US-Iraq agreement reached in September 2024. The agreement foresees the withdrawal of several hundred US troops by September, with the rest of the forces scheduled to leave Iraq by the end of 2026. A US security official said: “This is not a large-scale operation, but it responds carefully to the new map of security threats in and around Iraq.”
The exit can be examined from various political, security and strategic angles to fully clarify its dimensions and consequences.
Factors affecting the withdrawal
An array of home and regional factors are driving the US decision to relocate its forces in Iraq or remove them from this country. The most important factor is the pressure put on the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammad Shia al-Sudani by the public opinion and resistance groups who are pushing for immediate expulsion of the American forces.
Experience over time has proven that foreign military presence has not brought security to Iraq, rather, it has been a destabilizing source in the country.
In addition, al-Sudani's electoral motivations on the eve of the general elections have forced him to adopt policies that will win the favor of public opinion and resistance groups. Because, proximity to the US in the current situation is not only not in the interest of his voter base, but can also threaten his future political position.
The PM has so far faced discontent from his supporters within the leading parliamentary bloc, Shiite Coordination Framework (SCF), due to his toleration of American interference in home Iraqi affairs like obstructing the adoption of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) law and not paying the salaries of the anti-terror organization's forces.
He knows well that he owes his support for the position of prime minister to the support of these groups and that any shrinkage in their support could lead to the loss of this position. Therefore, on the eve of the elections, al-Sudani is trying to strengthen his political image and position by making decisions that will captivate the attention of the people and the resistance forces, while at the same time maintaining his voter base, so that he can play an effective role in Iraq's future political equations.
Is the US honest about withdrawal?
Although ostensibly the US plays ready to leave Iraq, past experience raises questions about its honesty.
Estimates suggest that this is just a change of tactic rather than a real decision. In fact, what is today promoted as a military withdrawal is more a political maneuver to manage public opinion and ease pressure from the resistance groups than a real end of military presence in Iraq.
The US has repeatedly raised the “withdrawal” scenario in the last two decades, but has never actually left Iraq. Each time, this issue is presented in a different way, sometimes under the guise of changing the mission to “training and advising,” sometimes under the guise of moving bases, and sometimes under the label of “cutting forces.”
With that said, the conclusion is clear: the US military presence in Iraq continues, air and ground bases are active, and drones and special forces freely roam the skies and soil of Iraq. Nothing new is going to happen now, but only a limited number of forces will reposition and go to the Kurdistan region, and complete withdrawal is untrue.
Therefore, the continuation of the activity of American forces in another form, including a bilateral security partnership, is a kind of deception to continue the occupation and only move from one point to another. Washington knows that a complete withdrawal would mean the end of strategic influence in the heart of West Asia, and such an act is incompatible with its major goals. Due to its geographical and political location, Iraq is a pivotal deployment point for the influence and control of regional and international actors, and the US withdrawal will play into the hands of Washington's rivals.
On the other hand, at a time West Asia is going through one of its most tense periods and the confrontation of the Axis of Resistance with the Israeli regime has reached its pesk, the US withdrawal from Iraq is more a sham gesture than a reality.
Washington will not leave Iraq at such a juncture, because it needs a permanent and active presence in the region to realize Tel Aviv's plans under the "Greater Middle East" project. The US is aware that the Israeli regime will not be able to advance its occupation plans without its direct military and security support. For this reason, at this critical juncture, it is not only unwilling to leave Iraq, but is also trying to redefine its presence in various ways in order to remain by its strategic ally.
The US withdrawal does not make security vacuum
These days, in the Iraqi political and media space, mainly pro-Western factions are making statements that, given the threats in Syria, a security vacuum will be created with the withdrawal of American forces, but the reality on the ground is otherwise.
First, the US military presence in Iraq has not only not brought security, but also the country itself is the root causes of insecurity in Iraq. The very ISIS terror organization that the West claims to be fighting today was formed in the shadow of the policies and overt and covert assistance of the US in Syria and Iraq.
Contrary to the American claims, it was not foreign forces that defeated ISIS, but the Iraqi people, the armed forces, the religious authority, and the resistance groups that managed to crush this Western-created terror giant.
With this in mind, the withdrawal of foreign forces will not only not create a security vacuum, but also on the contrary, it will pave the way for Iraq's true independence and strengthen its internal capacity to maintain security and stability. Resistance groups have repeatedly proven that they have the ability to secure their country and that there is no need for foreign forces.
Secondly, the US presence has more stirred security challenges than safeguarded security. Washington has never been a true ally caring about Baghdad's security independence and has always preferred to keep Iraq weak to justify its military presence on its soil.
The behavior and actions of the US ambassador in Baghdad in recent years bear witness to this approach. From direct interference in political cases to attempts to create social unrest, everything shows that Washington has been more interested in destabilizing Iraq and disbanding resistance groups, something that the White House has been pursuing with great seriousness in recent months.
This is while these same resistance groups have today become a decisive weight for the stability and internal security of Iraq, a force that, unlike the foreigners, has been able to rise from the heart of society and play a real role in maintaining national security and peace.
Iraqis will not be fooled
It seems that the White House leaders are adopting the old tactic and with relocation of forces try to pretend that they have good faith and their mission is advisory and for training, but the experience tells the Iraqis thar this is just a play with words.
This time the people and resistance leaders will not be fooled by the secret game of Washington and al-Sudani. Washington is trying to garner legitimacy to its military presence in Iraq by introducing a new plan called "security partnership," but the Iraqi people and resistance leaders already know well that the result of this presence is nothing but instability and direct interference in internal affairs.
Resistance factions who bear the main burden of fight against terrorism and protection of security will not be deceived by this game. They have made it clear that relocation of forces does not change the story and the American forces can no longer hide behind a new facade to stay in Iraq and slip from the grasp of the resistance forces.
