Iraq begins high-stakes security balancing act as US troops withdraw

Iraq marks national ‘Sovereignty Days’ as US troops depart, but must navigate risks of new security landscape.

A member of Iraq's security forces is seen in Baghdad's Tahrir Square [AFP]

Iraq is set to hold four “Sovereignty Days”, a national holiday marking the complete withdrawal of US troops from the country and underscoring the deep symbolism of the exit after more than two decades of foreign intervention.

Wednesday’s withdrawal deadline affirmed the exodus of a few hundred remaining US soldiers in the country, who have served in advisory roles in a coalition operation against ISIL (ISIS) first launched in 2015.

list 1 of 3 Rubio warns of Iraq ‘Balkanisation’: Is that a real threat?

list 2 of 3 Trump rejects Iran’s seven-day roadmap to end war and reopen Hormuz

list 3 of 3 Iraq seeks US exemption from ban on Iranian flights

While the exit plan predates Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi, it fits into his wider vision of reasserting Iraqi state authority. That encompasses accelerating efforts to disarm all militias in the country by June 2027, including several powerful pro-Iran groups who have launched attacks throughout the region amid the US-Israeli war with Iran.

Speaking at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) last week, al-Zaidi said his government was “striving to ensure that the state is the ultimate decision-maker in matters of peace and war, and that weapons and tools of power remain in the hands of its constitutional institutions”.

He added, “With the end of the international coalition’s mission in Iraq, we are moving our relationship with our strategic partners to a new phase, moving from military cooperation to economic and development cooperation in service of our common interests.”

Indeed, the US withdrawal appears to be part of a strategy by al-Zaidi to “politically weaken” influential militias , including those linked to Iran, according to Douglas Silliman, the former US ambassador to Iraq and Kuwait.

Those militias have long pointed to the presence of the US military, and other foreign actors like Turkiye, as a pillar justification for maintaining their own weapons stores and chains of command. Some have already indicated they will refuse to hand over their arms.

“The prime minister is clearly trying to build a political case to Iraqis that these forces that are more beholden to Iran, and have used weapons without government authorisation, no longer have a political reason to have those weapons,” said Silliman, who serves as president of the Arab Gulf States Institute.

It is a high-stakes gambit, leaving room for Iran to assert greater influence in the country and opening the door to a potentially catastrophic domestic standoff down the line.

It also creates the potential for increased pressure from the US if Iraq-based groups continue to target Washington’s assets.

“It’s going to be a very difficult series of decisions,” Silliman said. “Both for the militias and for Prime Minister al-Zaidi and his defence team.”

Iraq navigates new security reality

How the Iraqi government navigates the end of the US-led coalition’s deployment, dubbed “Operation Inherent Resolve”, will have wide-ranging implications for the future security of Iraq.

The country has remained relatively stable in recent years following the 2017 territorial defeat of ISIL, despite being enveloped by conflict and insecurity on its borders. That stability has generally persisted since the US began its troop withdrawal in 2020 under US President Donald Trump, with the remaining military personnel consolidating at an airbase in Erbil, in northern Iraq’s semi-autonomous Kurdish region, at the end of 2025.

To be sure, al-Zaidi has already sought to build in some safeguards amid the wider effort to disarm and integrate militias into Iraqi government forces, pushing back on an initial September 30, 2026 deadline to June 2027 to bring all weapons under state control.

Al-Zaidi told The New York Times earlier this month that both the US and Iran-aligned militias have given assurances that they will refrain from any attacks for 90 days following the US withdrawal, in an effort to prevent the situation from devolving in the short term.

Still, Renad Mansour, director of the Iraq Initiative at Chatham House, said militias aligned with Iran’s “axis of resistance” in the region ultimately remain “in full-on war mode, working with the IRGC [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps] in the region. And so they will continue to target US and US interests.”

While al-Zaidi has promised continued integration and cooperation with the US and other Western allies, there is likely disquiet behind the rhetoric, Mansour assessed, with some seeing the US’s erstwhile presence in the country as having served as a bulwark against a wider policy pivot.

“The anxiety from the Iraqi government now is that the US might not need Iraq any more, or might, in the worst case, view Iraq as a pariah state, too close to Iran, and therefore another target,” he said.

The targeting could eventually come in the form of sanctions or in an escalation of US and Israeli strikes on Iraqi territory, Mansour said.

Mohammad Salih, a non-resident senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute and an expert on Iraq, also agreed that enthusiasm for the US troop withdrawal was likely more subdued within some segments of the Iraqi government than public statements – and national holidays – suggest.

Salih assessed an underlying wariness to change the security status quo at a time of regional upheaval, pointing to the continued threat from ISIL sleeper cells, shifting cross-border dynamics in a post-Assad Syria, as well as the US-Israel war with Iran.

“The official rhetoric tries to signal that Iraq is more or less fine, that it can take care of itself, and that it seeks stronger commercial and diplomatic ties with the US – that there is no need for the US military presence,” he said.

“But in reality, there is a great deal of concern that Iraq could be the next theatre of some major regional development,” he told Al Jazeera.

The operational implications of the end to the US-led anti-ISIL mission remain difficult to assess.

In the wake of the withdrawal, the two countries appear to be reverting to a 2008 Strategic Framework and Security Agreement, signed under the administration of US President George W Bush, Salih said. The deal pledges continued, if non-binding, US security support for Iraq.

Neither the Iraqi government nor the Pentagon have given a clear picture of what shape security cooperation could take going forward, particularly when it comes to the intelligence and logistical support that buoyed ISIL’s territorial defeat.

However, a regional source with knowledge of the situation told Al Jazeera the relationship is “likely to become less centred on a visible military footprint and more focused on intelligence, training, technical support, capacity-building and institutional cooperation”.

The source called the change a “test of whether a relationship built for a period of military intervention can evolve into a more conventional partnership between sovereign states”.

Several experts noted that Iraqi security forces – including its military, police, counterterrorism forces, and militias who fought as part of the Popular Mobilisation Forces – have taken major strides in responding to ISIL. That may potentially minimise any operational fallout from the physical exit of US personnel.

“There are real capabilities and real experience in the Iraqi security forces. People I talk to in the military are quite confident that they can take on most threats against the sovereignty of Iraq,” former Ambassador Silliman said.

But while the Iraqi parliament approved a partial cabinet in May, several key security roles, including minister of defence, remain unfilled.

The Iraqi government also continues to lack a substantial air defence capability of its own, which could prove a major weakness if the domestic security situation were to spiral, Silliman said.

“This is one area where there will be vulnerabilities because it is clear that the pro-Iran militias have been willing to use drones and rockets and missiles against Iraqi targets inside Iraq, and as of right now, the Iraqi military doesn’t really have a way to defend against that,” he said.

Kurdish officials have been among the most vocal critics of the US withdrawal, pointing to a barrage of attacks on Iraq’s semi-autonomous Kurdish region by Iran and Iran-aligned militias thwarted by US anti-missile and anti-drone weapons this year.

While experts say the US may maintain limited air-defence capabilities in Iraq to protect its diplomatic assets, the military has reportedly removed its Erbil-based Patriot and C-RAM defensive systems from the country as part of the withdrawal.

“The threat is real – we are vulnerable, we are being attacked,” Masrour Barzani, the prime minister of the Kurdistan Regional Government, told the Financial Times this week.

“Now, to be left alone without any, let’s say, appropriate defensive system,” he added, “it’s shameful.”

Shifting relationship

To be sure, the withdrawal of the remaining US troops is only one step in a larger, years-long effort to transform the US-Iraqi relationship from military to economic. Following the 2003 invasion as part of the US-led “global war on terror”, the US had initially withdrawn troops in 2011, only to redeploy them amid the rise of ISIL.

Speaking at the UNGA, al-Zaidi promised an economic “renaissance”, pledging to boost Iraq’s petrochemical industry and build new fossil fuel delivery routes beyond the Strait of Hormuz. The constriction of traffic in the strait amid the US-Israel war with Iran has had an outsized impact on Iraq, with its oil output dropping by as much as 60 percent in March.

For his part, during a meeting at the White House in July, US PresidentTrump pledged “a lot of deals” to come with Iraq, pointing to the country’s vast oil reserves.

Hamzeh Hadad, an adjunct fellow with the Middle East Security Program at the Centre for a New American Security, said there were no immediate signs the US planned a wholesale shift in its approach towards Iraq, which still houses the largest US embassy in the world in Baghdad and the largest consulate in Erbil.

But deeper economic integration may be stalled in the short term.

“It is important to note, for this to happen successfully, the situation in the region needs to improve,” Hadad said.

“Conflict around Iraq will always make economic cooperation more difficult. Not to mention, conflict gives armed groups an excuse to continue to exist.”

Lahib Higel, the deputy director of the MENA programme at the International Crisis Group, called on Washington to focus on cooperation, while avoiding “pressuring al-Zaidi into a military confrontation against pro-Iran groups that he is unlikely to win”.

“A better approach would be for the US to preserve bilateral security cooperation and support his efforts to strengthen state institutions over time,” Higel said in a social media post.

“Washington cannot dictate Baghdad’s relationship with Tehran, nor can Tehran dictate Iraq’s relationship with Washington,” she said. “What Iraq instead needs is the space to find its own balance.”

Kristen Talman contributed reporting.

伊拉克在美军撤离之际庆祝国家“主权日”，但必须应对新的安全形势带来的风险。

一名伊拉克安全部队成员出现在巴格达解放广场 [法新社]

伊拉克将举行四次“主权日”庆祝活动，这是一个全国性的节日，标志着美军完全撤出该国，并强调了在经历了二十多年的外国干预后，美军撤离所具有的深刻象征意义。

周三的撤军最后期限确认了数百名仍留在该国的美国士兵的撤离，他们曾在打击“伊斯兰国”（ISIS）的联盟行动中担任顾问角色，该行动于 2015 年首次发起。

列表 1/3 鲁比奥警告伊拉克“巴尔干化”：这真的是威胁吗？

特朗普拒绝伊朗提出的结束战争并重新开放霍尔木兹海峡的七天路线图（共3条，此为第2条）。

伊拉克寻求美国豁免其对伊朗航班的禁令（共3条，此为第3条）

虽然这项撤军计划早于总理阿里·扎伊迪上任，但它符合他重塑伊拉克国家权威的更广泛愿景。该愿景包括加快解除伊拉克境内所有民兵武装的步伐，目标是在2027年6月前完成，其中包括在美以对伊战争期间于该地区发动袭击的几个强大的亲伊朗组织。

上周，扎伊迪在联合国大会上发表讲话时表示，他的政府“正在努力确保国家在和平与战争问题上拥有最终决策权，并确保武器和权力工具掌握在宪法机构手中”。

他补充说：“随着国际联军在伊拉克的任务结束，我们与战略伙伴的关系正进入一个新阶段，从军事合作转向经济和发展合作，以服务于我们的共同利益。”

事实上，据美国前驻伊拉克和科威特大使道格拉斯·西利曼称，美国的撤军似乎是扎伊迪“在政治上削弱”有影响力的民兵组织（包括与伊朗有关联的民兵组织）的战略的一部分。

这些民兵组织长期以来一直将美军以及土耳其等其他外国势力的存在作为其维持自身武器库和指挥体系的根本理由。一些民兵组织已经表示，他们将拒绝交出武器。

“总理显然是在试图向伊拉克人阐明一个政治观点，那就是这些更受伊朗控制、未经政府授权使用武器的势力，不再有理由拥有这些武器，”阿拉伯海湾国家研究所所长西利曼说道。

这是一场高风险的赌博，它为伊朗在该国施加更大的影响力留下了空间，并打开了未来可能造成灾难性后果的国内僵局的大门。

如果伊拉克境内的组织继续以华盛顿的资产为目标，这也可能增加美国施加的压力。

西利曼说：“这将是一系列非常艰难的决定，无论对民兵组织还是对总理扎伊迪及其国防团队来说都是如此。”

伊拉克应对新的安全现实

伊拉克政府如何应对以美国为首的联军部署行动（代号“坚定决心行动”）的结束，将对伊拉克未来的安全产生广泛的影响。

自2017年击败“伊斯兰国”以来，伊拉克近年来保持相对稳定，尽管其边境地区冲突不断，局势动荡。自美国总统唐纳德·特朗普于2020年开始撤军以来，这种稳定局面总体上得以维持。剩余的军事人员将于2025年底前集结在伊拉克北部半自治库尔德地区埃尔比勒的一个空军基地。

可以肯定的是，在更广泛的解除民兵武装并将其纳入伊拉克政府军的努力中，扎伊迪已经试图建立一些保障措施，将最初设定的 2026 年 9 月 30 日的最后期限推迟到 2027 年 6 月，以将所有武器置于国家控制之下。

阿尔-扎伊迪本月早些时候告诉《纽约时报》，美国和伊朗支持的民兵组织都已保证，在美国撤军后的90天内，他们将不会发动任何袭击，以防止局势在短期内恶化。

不过，查塔姆研究所伊拉克倡议主任雷纳德·曼苏尔表示，与伊朗在该地区“抵抗轴心”结盟的民兵组织最终仍“处于全面战争状态，与该地区的伊朗伊斯兰革命卫队合作。因此，他们将继续以美国及其利益为目标。”

曼苏尔评估认为，尽管扎伊迪承诺将继续与美国和其他西方盟友进行一体化与合作，但这种言辞背后可能存在不安，一些人认为美国过去在该国的存在曾是阻止更广泛政策转变的屏障。

他说：“伊拉克政府现在担心的是，美国可能不再需要伊拉克，或者在最糟糕的情况下，美国可能将伊拉克视为一个被孤立的国家，因为它与伊朗走得太近，因而成为另一个攻击目标。”

曼苏尔表示，最终的打击行动可能采取制裁的形式，或者美国和以色列加大对伊拉克领土的打击力度。

外交政策研究所非常驻高级研究员、伊拉克问题专家穆罕默德·萨利赫也认为，伊拉克政府某​​些部门对美军撤离的热情可能比公开声明和国家假日所表明的要低落得多。

萨利赫评估了在地区动荡时期改变安全现状的潜在谨慎态度，指出伊斯兰国潜伏小组的持续威胁、后阿萨德时代叙利亚不断变化的跨境动态以及美国和以色列与伊朗的战争。

他说：“官方言论试图表明，伊拉克基本安然无恙，能够自力更生，并且正在寻求与美国建立更紧密的商业和外交关系——美国没有必要在伊拉克驻军。”

“但实际上，人们非常担心伊拉克可能成为下一个重大区域发展事件的发生地，”他告诉半岛电视台。

美国领导的打击“伊斯兰国”行动结束所带来的实际影响仍然难以评估。

萨利赫表示，美军撤军后，两国似乎正在恢复2008年由美国总统乔治·W·布什执政期间签署的《战略框架与安全协议》。该协议承诺美国将继续向伊拉克提供安全支持，尽管不具有约束力。

伊拉克政府和五角大楼都没有明确说明未来安全合作会采取何种形式，尤其是在情报和后勤支持方面，正是这些支持促成了“伊斯兰国”的领土失败。

然而，一位了解情况的地区消息人士告诉半岛电视台，这种关系“可能会减少以可见的军事存在为中心的程度，而更多地侧重于情报、训练、技术支持、能力建设和机构合作”。

消息人士称，这一变化是对“为军事干预时期而建立的关系能否演变为主权国家之间更传统的伙伴关系”的一次考验。

多位专家指出，伊拉克安全部队——包括军队、警察、反恐部队以及作为人民动员部队一部分作战的民兵组织——在打击“伊斯兰国”方面取得了重大进展。这或许能最大限度地减少美军人员撤离可能带来的行动影响。

“伊拉克安全部队拥有真正的能力和丰富的经验。我与军方人士交谈过，他们都相当有信心能够应对大多数威胁伊拉克主权的事件，”前大使西利曼说。

尽管伊拉克议会在5月份批准了部分内阁成员，但包括国防部长在内的几个关键安全职位仍然空缺。

西利曼表示，伊拉克政府自身仍然缺乏强大的防空能力，如果国内安全局势恶化，这可能会成为一个重大弱点。

他说：“这方面存在一些薄弱环节，因为很明显，亲伊朗的民兵组织一直愿意使用无人机、火箭弹和导弹攻击伊拉克境内的目标，而目前伊拉克军队还没有真正有效的防御手段。”

库尔德官员一直是美国撤军最直言不讳的批评者之一，他们指出，今年伊朗及其支持的民兵组织对伊拉克半自治的库尔德地区发动了一系列袭击，但这些袭击都被美国的反导弹和反无人机武器挫败了。

尽管专家表示，美国可能会在伊拉克保留有限的防空能力以保护其外交资产，但据报道，作为撤军的一部分，美军已将其位于埃尔比勒的“爱国者”和“C-RAM”防御系统从该国撤走。

“威胁是真实存在的——我们很脆弱，我们正在遭受攻击，”库尔德斯坦地区政府总理马斯鲁尔·巴尔扎尼本周告诉《金融时报》。

“现在，被孤立起来，没有任何适当的防御系统，”他补充道，“这太可耻了。”

关系转变

诚然，美军剩余部队的撤离只是美国多年来致力于将美伊关系从军事转向经济的更大努力中的一步。在2003年作为美国领导的“全球反恐战争”的一部分入侵伊拉克之后，美国最初于2011年撤军，但随着“伊斯兰国”的崛起，又重新部署了军队。

扎伊迪在联合国大会上承诺将推动伊拉克经济“复兴”，并誓言要振兴伊拉克的石化产业，同时修建霍尔木兹海峡以外的新化石燃料运输路线。由于美以与伊朗的战争导致霍尔木兹海峡交通受阻，伊拉克受到的影响尤为严重，其石油产量在3月份下降了多达60%。

美国总统特朗普在7月于白宫举行的一次会议上承诺将与伊拉克达成“许多协议”，并指出该国拥有丰富的石油储备。

美国新安全中心中东安全项目兼职研究员哈姆泽·哈达德表示，目前没有迹象表明美国计划对其对伊拉克的政策进行全面转变。伊拉克仍然拥有世界上最大的美国大使馆（位于巴格达）和最大的美国领事馆（位于埃尔比勒）。

但短期内，更深层次的经济一体化可能会停滞不前。

哈达德说：“值得注意的是，要成功实现这一目标，该地区的局势需要改善。”

“伊拉克周边的冲突总是会使经济合作更加困难。更何况，冲突也给了武装团体继续存在的借口。”

国际危机组织中东和北非项目副主任拉希卜·希格尔呼吁华盛顿专注于合作，同时避免“向扎伊迪施压，迫使他与亲伊朗团体进行他不太可能获胜的军事对抗”。

“更好的做法是美国维持双边安全合作，并支持他逐步加强国家机构的努力，”希格尔在社交媒体上发帖说。

她说：“华盛顿不能左右巴格达与德黑兰的关系，德黑兰也不能左右伊拉克与华盛顿的关系。伊拉克真正需要的是找到自身平衡的空间。”

克里斯汀·塔尔曼贡献了报道。