Trump administration plans to cut military aid to Kurdish forces as Iran escalates attacks

The Trump administration has decided not to renew a military support agreement with Iraqi Kurdistan's Peshmerga forces, according to four sources with direct knowledge of recent Pentagon meetings. The decision comes as the US prepares to withdraw its remaining troops from Iraq by September 30, formally ending the international military campaign against the Islamic State. For Kurdish officials, the timing could hardly be worse. Iran has launched 158 missile and drone attacks into Iraqi Kurdistan since the US-Iran conflict began earlier this year, and the loss of American military backing threatens to leave the region dangerously exposed.

The security assistance agreement between the Pentagon and the Kurdish Regional Government expires on September 30, the same date as the troop withdrawal. Under the current arrangement, the Peshmerga—a security force of approximately 180,000 troops—received $61 million in fiscal year 2026 for weapons, training, and personnel stipends through the Pentagon's counter-IS program. The Pentagon proposed eliminating all security aid to the Peshmerga in its fiscal year 2027 budget request, arguing that since the Islamic State has been defeated, the funding should be redirected elsewhere. That budget request remains stalled in Congress, but in recent meetings with Kurdish and Iraqi leaders, Defense Department officials made clear the administration does not intend to extend the current memorandum of understanding. Two officials who participated in those talks and two other sources with knowledge of the discussions confirmed this to the BBC on condition of anonymity.

The decision has alarmed Kurdish leadership. They fear that withdrawing military support will create a power vacuum that Iran and its allied militias can exploit. The Peshmerga fought alongside American and coalition forces to defeat the Islamic State, shedding significant blood in a campaign that took more than a decade. Yerevan Saeed, director of the Global Kurdish Initiative for Peace at American University, framed the stakes plainly: the US would be abandoning partners who sacrificed greatly to achieve American objectives in Iraq and the wider Middle East. If the Kurds are left so exposed, he said, it amounts to a major strategic victory for Iran, China, and Russia.

The withdrawal also echoes a painful historical precedent. When the US pulled out of Iraq in 2011, the power vacuum that followed enabled the rise of the Islamic State. American combat troops returned in 2014 after IS seized large portions of Iraq and Syria. James Jeffrey, who led the global coalition against IS during Trump's first term, warned that the current plan risks repeating that mistake. He called continued support for the Peshmerga money well spent, given what happened when the Islamic State rolled into northern Iraq. The US currently has fewer than 1,000 troops remaining in Iraq, down from 170,000 at the height of the Iraq War.

The broader context involves shifting American strategy in the Middle East. Trump has pledged to reduce US foreign entanglements in the region, and the troop withdrawal aligns with that goal. The administration has said it remains open to a bilateral security agreement with Iraq, and recent meetings included discussions of a possible defense pact. Tom Barrack, the US ambassador to Turkey and special envoy to Iraq and Syria, has been a principal voice in these discussions. Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi, elected in May, visited Washington last month and met with Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and members of Congress. Al-Zaidi's office released a statement saying that October 1 will mark a new day for Iraq, free of foreign military presence.

Yet the Pentagon's public statements suggest some ambiguity about the final shape of US security engagement. A Defense Department spokesperson pointed to remarks by Hegseth following his July meeting with al-Zaidi, saying that Iraqi Security Forces, including the Peshmerga, will lead the fight against terrorists in Iraq. A State Department spokesperson told the BBC the administration is focused on implementing the troop withdrawal and ensuring al-Zaidi is positioned to disarm Iran-aligned terrorist militias and safeguard Iraqi sovereignty. One source familiar with Pentagon thinking said a final decision on security engagement between the US and Kurdistan is still under review, and the US is considering ways to maintain some security support in both Iraq and Iraqi Kurdistan after the withdrawal. The Kurdish Regional Government declined to comment.

The irony is sharp. Less than a year ago, in December, the US opened its largest consulate in the world in Irbil, the Kurdish capital, at a cost of $800 million. At the ribbon-cutting ceremony, Michael Rigas, a senior State Department official, called the consulate a testament to the value of the relationship between the United States and the Iraqi Kurdistan Region. Now, as that consulate prepares to operate without the military infrastructure that has underpinned American presence in Iraq, the question is whether the US can sustain a meaningful partnership with the Kurds through diplomatic channels alone. Jason Campbell, a former US defense official now at the Middle East Institute, was blunt about the consequences: if the US moves forward with cutting aid, it will make the Peshmerga perhaps the most vulnerable potential targets of Iran.