Iraq navigates precarious security balance as final US troops depart

Iraq is marking a symbolic threshold this week: the departure of the last American soldiers from its territory, an exit that closes a military chapter stretching back more than two decades. The government has declared four "Sovereignty Days" to commemorate the moment, a national holiday underscoring what officials frame as a reclamation of Iraqi independence after years of foreign military presence.

The final few hundred US troops—advisors embedded in a coalition operation against ISIS that began in 2015—are leaving as of Wednesday. But their departure is far more than a ceremonial milestone. Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi has positioned the American exit as a political tool, one he intends to use to consolidate state power and disarm the militias that have operated with relative autonomy across Iraq for years. Many of these groups are aligned with Iran and have conducted attacks throughout the region even as Iraq itself has remained comparatively stable since ISIS's territorial defeat in 2017. Al-Zaidi has set June 2027 as the deadline for bringing all weapons under government control—a goal he extended from an initial September target, signaling the delicate nature of the task ahead.

At the United Nations General Assembly last week, al-Zaidi articulated his vision plainly: the state must be the sole arbiter of war and peace, with constitutional institutions holding all instruments of power. He framed the American withdrawal as a transition point, moving the US-Iraq relationship from military cooperation toward economic and development partnership. The logic is straightforward, according to Douglas Silliman, the former US ambassador to Iraq and Kuwait. For years, Iran-aligned militias have justified maintaining their own arsenals and command structures by pointing to the presence of American forces and other foreign actors like Turkey. Remove that justification, and the political ground shifts. "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," Silliman said. Yet it is a gamble with real stakes. Some militias have already signaled they will not surrender their weapons. The move also creates space for Iran to deepen its influence in Iraq, and it risks a confrontation between the government and armed groups that could destabilize the country.

Al-Zaidi has attempted to manage the immediate risks. He secured assurances from both the US and Iran-aligned militias that they would refrain from attacks for 90 days following the withdrawal, a short-term buffer against escalation. But experts are skeptical about what comes after. Renad Mansour, director of the Iraq Initiative at Chatham House, noted that militias aligned with Iran's "axis of resistance" remain in active coordination with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and will likely continue targeting American interests. Behind the government's public optimism, Mansour suggested, there is anxiety—concern that the US might view Iraq as too close to Iran and therefore a target for sanctions or military strikes.

The security landscape Iraq now faces is genuinely complex. The country still contends with ISIS sleeper cells, the instability spilling across its border from post-Assad Syria, and the broader US-Israel conflict with Iran. Yet several key defense positions remain unfilled, including the minister of defense role. More critically, Iraq lacks meaningful air defense capabilities—a vulnerability that has become acute as Iran-aligned militias have demonstrated a willingness to use drones, rockets, and missiles against targets inside Iraq. The US has reportedly removed its Patriot and C-RAM defensive systems from the country as part of the withdrawal, though it may maintain limited air-defense capacity to protect diplomatic assets. Masrour Barzani, prime minister of Iraq's semi-autonomous Kurdish region, was blunt about the exposure this creates: "The threat is real—we are vulnerable, we are being attacked. Now, to be left alone without any, let's say, appropriate defensive system, it's shameful."

The operational question of how Iraq will manage without American military support remains unsettled. The two countries appear to be reverting to a 2008 Strategic Framework Agreement signed under President George W. Bush, which pledges non-binding US security support. A regional source told Al Jazeera the relationship is likely to shift toward intelligence, training, technical support, and capacity-building rather than visible military presence—a test of whether a partnership built for military intervention can evolve into conventional state-to-state cooperation. Iraqi security forces have made genuine strides and some military officials express confidence in their ability to handle most threats. But the absence of clear guidance from either Baghdad or the Pentagon about what this new arrangement will look like leaves significant uncertainty.

Al-Zaidi has also signaled a broader economic pivot. At the UN, he promised an "renaissance" centered on Iraq's petrochemical industry and new fossil fuel export routes that bypass the Strait of Hormuz—a chokepoint that has devastated Iraqi oil output amid regional tensions, with production dropping as much as 60 percent in March. President Trump, meeting with al-Zaidi in July, pledged "a lot of deals" tied to Iraq's vast oil reserves. Yet deeper economic integration may stall in the near term. As one analyst noted, regional conflict makes economic cooperation harder and gives armed groups justification for their continued existence. What Iraq needs, according to observers, is space to find its own balance—not pressure from Washington to confront Iran-aligned groups militarily, and not dictation from Tehran about its relationship with the West. Whether al-Zaidi can navigate that narrow path while simultaneously disarming militias, filling security vacancies, and rebuilding an economy ravaged by regional war remains the central question facing the country in the months ahead.