US Withdrawal Marks End of 23‑Year Occupation, Raises New Questions for Iraq

For the first time in more than two decades, the United States no longer has troops on Iraqi soil. The final contingent left Erbil on 30 September 2026, formally concluding Operation Inherent Resolve, the mission that began in 2014 to defeat the Islamic State. The departure was marked by a four‑day “Sovereignty Day” celebration in Baghdad, while Iran‑backed armed groups proclaimed victory over “the occupier.” In a recent Middle East Eye report, experts examined why Washington chose this moment to pull out, what leverage it retains, and what the vacuum may mean for Iraq’s fragile political landscape.

Why the United States Chose This Moment to Leave

Renad Mansour of Chatham House, featured in the video, explained that the decision to end the U.S. military presence aligns with a broader assessment of the mission’s accomplishments and costs. After a twelve‑year campaign that began with the 2014 surge against ISIS, Washington declared victory and argued that the primary threat had been neutralised. The timing also coincides with a shift in U.S. strategic priorities, as policymakers look to reallocate resources to other regions.

Mansour noted that the withdrawal is not simply a withdrawal of boots on the ground but a transition in how Washington exerts influence. The United States retains diplomatic channels, intelligence assets, and economic levers that allow it to shape Iraqi politics without a permanent troop presence. This “changing how it holds power” reflects a pattern seen in other theatres where the U.S. has moved from direct military engagement to indirect influence.

The decision also responded to domestic pressures within the United States, where prolonged overseas deployments have become increasingly unpopular. By ending the mission at a point where the most visible threat—ISIS—has been largely defeated, Washington can claim a clear endpoint while preserving the ability to intervene if circumstances deteriorate.

The Legal and Human Cost of a 23‑Year Presence

Iraqi constitutional lawyer Zaid al‑Ali, author of *The Struggle for Iraq’s Future*, traced the legal ramifications of the U.S. presence from the 2003 invasion onward. The initial invasion was widely regarded as a breach of Iraq’s sovereignty, establishing a precedent for foreign military occupation under the pretext of security. Over the ensuing years, a complex sectarian political system was engineered, often described as a “consociational” arrangement that entrenched divisions and limited genuine democratic participation.

Al‑Ali highlighted that the prolonged foreign presence contributed to the rise of armed militias, many of which received support from Iran. These groups, embedded within the Iraqi security apparatus, have been a source of ongoing violence and human‑rights abuses. The report underscores that the U.S. built a security architecture that, while effective against ISIS, also left behind a network of armed factions that now challenge the central government’s authority.

The human cost of the occupation is evident in the displacement of millions, the loss of civilian lives, and the psychological trauma inflicted on families across the country. While the video does not provide specific casualty figures, it emphasizes that the legacy of the U.S. presence is inseparable from the everyday suffering of ordinary Iraqis who have lived under constant threat of violence and insecurity.

Kurdish Concerns Over New Vulnerabilities

Kurdish leaders, as mentioned in the report, expressed alarm that the withdrawal leaves the Kurdish region exposed. Erbil, the capital of the Kurdistan Region, hosted the final American troops, and the presence of U.S. forces had been a cornerstone of Kurdish security strategy. With the departure, Kurdish officials fear a power vacuum that could be exploited by rival militias and by Tehran, which maintains strong ties with several Iran‑backed groups operating in the north.

The Kurdish leadership has long advocated for greater autonomy and has relied on the U.S. as a guarantor of its political aspirations. The loss of that guarantee raises questions about the region’s ability to defend itself against potential incursions or coercion. The report suggests that Kurdish authorities are now seeking alternative security arrangements, though concrete alternatives remain unclear.

Beyond the immediate security concerns, the Kurdish community worries about the political implications of the U.S. exit. The Kurdish question has been a persistent source of tension in Iraqi politics, and the removal of a key external ally may embolden Baghdad or Tehran to press for concessions that could diminish Kurdish self‑governance.

The Role of Iran‑Backed Armed Groups

The video notes that Iran‑backed armed groups celebrated the U.S. departure as a triumph over “the occupier.” These militias, many of which were originally formed to fight ISIS, have since become entrenched in Iraq’s political and security structures. Their continued existence poses a challenge to the central government, which struggles to assert authority over a fragmented security landscape.

According to Mansour, while the United States no longer maintains a large troop footprint, it still wields influence over these groups through diplomatic pressure and targeted sanctions. However, the capacity to directly restrain or dismantle the militias has been reduced, leaving Baghdad with limited tools to curb their power.

The presence of these groups also complicates Iraq’s relationship with its neighbours. Iran’s influence, exercised through the militias, is a point of contention for both the Iraqi government and the broader international community, which views the militias as a destabilising factor in the region. The report implies that the post‑withdrawal era may see an intensification of Iran’s sway unless Baghdad can successfully negotiate a rebalancing of power.

Baghdad’s Prospects for Re‑asserting Authority

Al‑Ali argued that the Iraqi state faces a pivotal moment. With the formal end of Operation Inherent Resolve, the government must confront the reality that many of the armed groups it once relied upon now operate with a degree of autonomy that challenges state sovereignty. The ability of Baghdad to rein in these factions will determine whether Iraq can move toward a more unified and accountable governance model.

The report suggests that the Iraqi leadership may attempt to leverage the symbolic “Sovereignty Day” celebrations to rally national sentiment against foreign interference and to demand internal reforms. Yet the deep‑rooted sectarian divisions and the entrenched power of militia leaders make any swift restructuring unlikely.

Internationally, Iraq may seek to diversify its alliances, courting both regional powers and Western partners for economic and security assistance. The United States, while reducing its military footprint, may continue to provide aid, training, and political support, aiming to preserve a degree of influence without the costs associated with a large troop presence.

What the Withdrawal Means for the Wider Region

The departure of U.S. forces from Iraq reverberates across the Middle East. It signals a shift in American strategic calculations and may embolden other regional actors to assert greater influence in Iraq’s internal affairs. Iran, in particular, could view the reduced American presence as an opportunity to deepen its ties with Iraqi militias and expand its geopolitical reach.

At the same time, the exit may inspire other coalition partners to reassess their own commitments in the region. Countries that have contributed troops or support to the anti‑ISIS campaign will need to decide whether to maintain their presence or follow the U.S. lead. The broader implication is a potential re‑configuration of the security architecture that was built around the fight against ISIS.

For the Iraqi people, the end of the U.S. military mission does not automatically translate into peace or stability. The report stresses that the human cost of the past 23 years—displacement, loss of life, and psychological trauma—remains a pressing issue that requires sustained humanitarian attention. As Iraq navigates this new chapter, the international community’s role in supporting reconstruction, justice, and reconciliation will be crucial to preventing a relapse into widespread violence.

By Fatima Al-Rashid, Staff Writer

This article was produced with AI-assisted research and editorial support. Reporting is based on the source material cited below. Sources: Middle East Eye video report (02 October 2026); Middle East Eye; Global1.News