Last UK and US troops leave Iraq as anti-Islamic State mission ends

Iraq has long been advocating for the withdrawal of US troops, yet the removal of foreign forces does not guarantee an end to the country's security issues. The US-led coalition's mission has evolved since ISIS dominated significant territories in Iraq and neighboring Syria, and Baghdad has a legitimate desire to regain control over its security.

However, the departure of foreign troops only shifts the responsibility; it does not resolve Iraq's security challenges. ISIS remains a threat, albeit significantly diminished compared to its peak years, and the government is still striving to integrate armed groups under its jurisdiction. The deadline for this integration was initially set for today but has been pushed to June next year.

Iran has been steadily enhancing its political and military presence in Iraq over the past two decades, a trend that is unlikely to cease with the withdrawal of American troops. The risk lies not in Iraq becoming a pawn of Iranian interests but in the potential emergence of new power centers to fill the vacuum left by the departing Americans.

The US presence does not signify the end of American involvement in Iraq. US officials have already hinted at a broader bilateral relationship encompassing defense and economic cooperation. Prime Minister Ali Al Zaidi has a cordial relationship with US President Donald Trump, having met twice since assuming office in May. However, the ongoing Iran war has underscored the complexity of Baghdad's balancing act between Tehran and Washington.

Iraq found itself in the crosshairs of the Iran-Iraq proxy war, with militia groups targeting not only US assets but also neighboring nations, straining Baghdad's relations with key Gulf partners. Internal divisions within Iraq, particularly among the Kurdistan Region, pose a similar challenge. While progress has been made in unifying the Peshmerga forces, the rift between the Kurdistan Democratic Party and Patriotic Union of Kurdistan remains a significant obstacle.

The absence of a unified stance makes Baghdad the dominant player in any dispute or negotiation with Erbil. As Baghdad seeks to assert greater control over armed power, the distinction between federal and regional security forces may become a contentious issue. Some Iran-aligned groups have suggested that integrating the Peshmerga into military command should be part of the broader process of bringing other armed factions under state control.

This symbolic call highlights the internal Kurdish divisions, which gain more significance in the context of reduced US military involvement. The real question is whether Baghdad can strengthen its state swiftly enough to prevent other power centers from exploiting the situation created by the departing Americans. The withdrawal of US troops should not be equated with the end of security problems.

Four years ago, Iraq welcomed the troops back to assist in defeating ISIS, and the situation could potentially repeat itself. The key questions to be answered are Iraq's readiness to thwart any resurgence of ISIS, its ability to integrate armed groups under state authority, and its capacity to manage its relationship with Iran without allowing Iranian influence to expand further.