US withdraws last troops from Iraq, redefining Baghdad-Washington partnership

Carolyn Beeler: Describe the beginning of US operations in Iraq that were initiated as part of the post-9/11 War on Terror.

Victoria Taylor: At that moment when the US invaded, of course, there was the debate about whether or not Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. And certainly within the US government at high levels, there was a discussion about regime change and the possibility of also bringing democracy to Iraq. I think the reality, of course, was much more complicated as the US learned that some of the intelligence on which the assessments about weapons of mass destruction were based were faulty. And of course, I think the picture is much more complicated in hindsight in terms of what the fall of Saddam Hussein ushered in, in terms of Iraq’s next government. I think you could call Iraq a democracy, but it is a flawed democracy, and it’s certainly a complicated democracy. And I don’t think you could say that the government that has been put in place has always been pro-US or pro-Western in its approach.

US troops were sent into Iraq after a brief absence in 2014 to fight ISIS. Was it successful in its objectives in that operation?

I think you could call Operation Inherent Resolve a success. And certainly, at the moment that US troops were sent back in, ISIS had taken over a third of Iraqi territory and had significant territorial holdings in Syria as well. And so, the US-led coalition was able to retake Iraqi and Syrian territory and able to significantly degrade ISIS in Iraq as well as in Syria.

Victoria, how many troops were still in Iraq and what were they doing there?

By the end of the mission, there were under 5,000 troops, and much of the operation was still focused on supporting the counter-ISIS mission, both providing logistical support to operations in Syria, but also for operations within Iraq.

Now, you were part of the team that negotiated this withdrawal agreement when you were in the State Department during the Biden administration. What were the terms of that agreement?

All counter-ISIS operations under Operation Inherent Resolve would end in September 2025, and they would then have one remaining year to remain based in the Kurdistan region in Erbil to support operations in Syria. At that time, under the Biden administration, the focus was on securing as long a lead time as possible and retaining the possibility that the US military could remain in Iraq in a bilateral capacity. I was there in the early months of the Trump administration. And of course, there was a different approach and goal in terms of the US military presence in Iraq.

So, if it was the Kurdish region that US troops were still stationed in, what impact does this have on that region, on Kurds, this minority community in Iraq?

For the Kurds, it provided them with a sense of protection against the possibility of Iranian attacks, which became very vivid during the Iran war as the region was continually hit by drones, rockets and missiles, both from the Iran-backed militias, but also directly from Iran. But I think it was also very important symbolically, as the Kurds continue to believe that their autonomy is at risk.

So, the picture on the ground has changed since this agreement was negotiated. If Washington had wanted to extend the US presence beyond this week, could they have done that?

Well, I think there were a few key moments at which the US could have extended the Operation Inherent Resolve mission, one of those being the fall of [former President] Bashar al-Assad’s government in Syria and the threat that even the Iraqi government in Baghdad felt from a possible ISIS resurgence. I think it would be hard for the Iraqi government to extend Operation Inherent Resolve right now, but it would be possible for the US to negotiate terms that allow a limited bilateral security mission.

And has the US done that? Has the Trump administration done that?

I don’t think that they’ve really focused on that kind of long-term planning. And I think part of that is because the Trump administration really comes in with a view that Iraq is an example of the kind of “forever war” that President Trump himself has stated that the US should have avoided and should not enter into again. And also, just a broader desire of this administration to begin to reduce the US military presence in the Middle East.

You have said that the Kurds might lose by this US withdrawal happening. Who stands to win in Iraq right now? Who benefits from this?

I think it’s been clear over the preceding decades that Iran has been eager to put pressure on the US military presence in the Middle East. And, you know, it has done that very effectively in Iraq by arming militias in Iraq, many of whom have launched numerous attacks against US military and diplomatic facilities. And the ultimate goal was to see the departure of US troops, which I believe Iran views as a significant victory.

And so, at a time when the US is at war with Iran, it is giving up its foothold in Iraq to fight Iran-backed militias.

That’s right. And I think, unfortunately, the Iran War has not prompted any reconsideration of the US military presence and what role it could have played in the broader regional context of the Iran War.

Iraq is one of the few countries that has strong ties to both the US and Iran. Can they maintain those close ties with both countries as the US [and Israeli] war with Iran continues?

I think that’s becoming increasingly untenable at a moment when the US and Iran are in active conflict. And I think that’s why you’re seeing greater pressure from the Trump administration in order to disarm the militias and undermine Iranian influence in Iraq. And at a moment when US policy towards Iraq is really defined by undermining Iranian influence, it really appears that the Trump administration is trying to force the Iraqi government to pick a side. And so, I think it will be increasingly challenging for the Iraqi government to maintain any kind of balance between these two powerful [countries].