In September 2024, Washington agreed to a gradual withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, coinciding with the lead-up to the US presidential elections. This decision came in the wake of demands from the Iraqi government, which argued that the ISIS threat had diminished and that Iraqi forces were now capable of addressing security challenges independently. However, the withdrawal timeline faces significant uncertainty for various reasons. First, the threat of ISIS in Iraq is far from over, and the country is grappling with a turbulent political landscape as well as regional escalation on multiple fronts involving Iraqi militias. Additionally, Trump’s return to the White House will play a role in US military posture, especially in Iraq, not only because of the latter’s geostrategic importance and proximity to Iran but also because of what Washington stands to gain from securing its interests in this region of the world.

Key Drivers

The US military presence in Iraq hinges upon counterterrorism efforts and numerous other factors, including:

1- Heightened tensions amidst the Gaza war: The US troops stationed Iraq have long been a target of Iran-backed proxies, but the recent escalation in the Middle East and the war in Gaza have resulted in increased activity of these proxies. Iran-backed militias that were once instrumental in the fight against ISIS in Iraq now frame themselves as defenders of Palestine and promote anti-American and anti-Western rhetoric. US troops could find themselves in an increasingly risky situation if Trump decides to keep the bases and use them as a launchpad for targeting high-ranking leaders inside those militias, not unlike what occurred with the killing of Qassem Soleimani at the Baghdad Airport. During his first term, Trump made clear that he was using the bases to monitor Iran. When the US embassy in Iraq was attacked, he deployed more troops from Kuwait to Iraq to protect US citizens there. Should the Gaza conflict persist without diplomatic engagement involving Iran, US bases will likely remain targets of continued attacks. While withdrawing troops from Iraq might reduce immediate threats to US forces, it risks leaving the country increasingly under the influence of these militias, which are gaining both military and political power.

2- Disrupting Iran’s third-party oil exports: The current Iraqi government plays a crucial role in helping Iran evade US sanctions and mitigate the effect of these sanctions on Iran’s economy. Iraq has leveraged its need for natural gas to operate power plants by agreeing to export crude and black oil to Iran. In July 2023, Baghdad and Tehran signed a deal to swap Iranian gas for Iraqi crude oil. This agreement also allows Iraq to repay its debts to Iran, as Iraq is prohibited from sending money directly to Tehran under current sanctions.

During Trump’s first term, sanctions on Iran were in full swing with the aim of cutting off Iranian oil from global markets. The recent deal between Iraq and Iran has helped Iran circumvent these sanctions, especially after Biden scaled back some of the restrictions. This agreement legitimizes Iran’s oil smuggling operations, enabling it to circumvent sanctions with legal cover. Several Iraqi border crossings are informally controlled by the Iran-backed Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) militias who play a role in facilitating these trade agreements.

3- Intercepting Iran’s supply route to Syria: Many US bases in Iraq are in proximity to the Iraqi-Syrian border, including Al Qayyarah Base, one of the largest strategic military bases, which is reportedly located 58 kilometers south of Mosul. There is also an important military airport, Alton Kopri Base, in the northwestern Kirkuk Governorate, about 50 kilometers from the city of Erbil, and four other bases in Kurdistan: one in Sinjar, one near Atrush, and two in the city of Halabja in the Sulaymaniyah Governorate near the Iranian border. This is in addition to at least two other bases in Al Anbar Governorate, which borders eastern Syria. These bases could play a crucial role in advancing US interests in both Iraq and Syria. On the one hand, these bases can monitor and disrupt the supply conduit of logistics, personnel, and arms sent from Iran to Syria via Iraqi land and airspace to support the Assad regime. On the other hand, they can counterweight the Russian influence in Syria by enabling limited US surveillance and reconnaissance operations.

4- Avoiding a potential resurgence of ISIS: The withdrawal of American troops from Iraq could create a security vacuum, paving the way for the resurgence of ISIS and other destabilizing forces. According to a UN report, ISIS retains an estimated 10,000 fighters across Iraq and Syria despite significant military setbacks, and continues to exploit economic and political instability. Between January 2020 and September 2021, ISIS claimed responsibility for dozens of monthly operations in Iraq, primarily targeting the Salah ad-Din, Kirkuk, and Diyala governorates. The group’s activity has been fueled by unresolved sectarian divisions, the marginalization of alleged ISIS-linked families, and unaddressed economic stagnation. Since US forces provide a critical deterrent to these militias and support local counterinsurgency efforts, a full withdrawal of US forces could leave Iraq vulnerable to both the ISIS insurgency and the growing influence of militias with political and military power. Meanwhile, cross-border instability, such as Turkey’s operations in Syria, threatens to redirect resources away from ISIS containment.

5- Offsetting China’s influence in Iraq: China is becoming a significant arms supplier to Iraq, offering cheap, apolitical arms sales agreements. China’s exports of arms, ammunition, equipment, and accessories to Iraq have soared since 2020. According to Trading Economics, the volume of Chinese arms sales to Iraq rose from $245,000 USD in 2019 to $430,000 USD in 2020, and has been incrementally increasing year-on-year, reaching an all-time high in 2022 at $1 million USD. This has been seen as part of China’s efforts to leverage its influence in the Middle East as well as an attempt to explore new avenues for reviving its economy especially after the COVID-19 pandemic. In April 2024, the latest version of the Caihong drone (CH-5) was featured at the International Defense Exhibition in Iraq (IQDEX). Iraq first bought Chinese drones in 2015 when it acquired CH-4 drones, which it used against ISIS in Ramadi. The new CH-5 sales are a further sign of expanding Chinese arms sales to Iraq. China is also an economic rival for the US in Iraq as the two countries are top importers of Iraqi oil. In January, the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) replaced ExxonMobil as the lead contractor for Iraq’s West Qurna 1 oilfield. This seems to point to a troubling trend towards Washington’s waning influence in the country.

A Challenging Environment

The continued US military presence in Iraq is facing domestic and regional challenges, which can be summarized as follows:

1- Iraqi regime increasingly supportive of Iran: Speculations are mounting about the motives behind current Prime Minister Al-Sudani’s policies. Al-Sudani was nominated in 2022 by the Coordination Framework, a coalition of Shi‘ite factions in Iraq that includes figures aligned with Tehran such as Qais Al-Khazali, the leader of Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq (AAH), a group that has claimed responsibility for thousands of attacks against US forces since its creation in 2006. Al-Sudani has faced scrutiny for his political ties; this was not his first nomination for the position. In 2019, following the resignation of then-Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi amid protests over economic decline and corruption, Al-Sudani’s candidacy was roundly rejected. More recently, in an interview with Bloomberg, Al-Sudani stated that US forces are no longer necessary in Iraq, and asserted that the Iraqi military is capable of managing the country’s security. This stance aligns with the demands of Iran-backed militias, fueling concerns that Al-Sudani might be politically aligned with Tehran. If these concerns are confirmed, it could complicate US-Iraq security cooperation moving forward.

2- Escalation on multiple fronts in the Middle East: The ongoing escalation across multiple fronts in the Middle East is dragging Iraq into direct confrontation with Israel, due to the heightened activities of Iran-backed militias against US bases in the country. Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar said at the UN: "This evening, I sent a letter to the president of the UN Security Council in which I called for immediate action regarding the activity of the pro-Iranian militias in Iraq, whose territory is being used to attack Israel." Saar added that his country would take "all necessary measures to protect itself and its citizens." The letter raised alarm inside Iraq, and the Iraqi government has urged the UN Security Council to intervene and halt Israeli threats. In a statement, Iraq’s foreign ministry emphasized the need for the UN Security Council to act against Israeli aggression. Diplomatic efforts are intensifying as Baghdad tries to avoid the scenario of a direct confrontation with Israel. Al-Sudani has called for de-escalation and urged Washington to intervene to prevent Israel from launching an attack on Iraq.

3- Unstable domestic political scene: Inter-party rivalries are also fueling Iraq’s political instability. In 2022, the country found itself on the verge of civil war as tensions erupted between the Sadrists and Coordination Framework, along with widespread street protests over the formation of the new government. This exposed a split within the Shi‘ite bloc over control of the political landscape. Following these events, Muqtada Al-Sadr eventually withdrew from the political scene, leaving space for the Coordination Framework, which includes factions with ties to Tehran, to form the new government. However, in recent months there have been reports of a potential return of Al-Sadr, a strong opponent of Al-Sudani, in the upcoming elections although these reports have not been officially confirmed. Al-Sadr also published a controversial statement which he signed with a different name for his movement: the National Shi‘ite Movement, instead of the Sadrist Movement. This comes as no surprise since group tensions were never resolved and thus dynamics between Shi‘ite factions in Iraq have become a powder keg ready to explode as Al-Sadr returns to the scene. Moreover, Sunni and Kurdish factions are likewise facing divisions and struggles over political power. The removal of parliamentary speaker Mohammed al-Halbousi was perhaps one sign of inter-Sunni fractures.

4- Unlicensed weapons in Iraq: Iraq has long suffered from the distribution of unlicensed weapons, a situation which worsened after the US invasion in 2003 and the dissolution of the Iraqi army. Weapons were stolen and sold at low prices to civilians, with estimates indicating that the civilian population owns around between 7.5 and 10 million weapons, some of which are heavy weaponry. Despite the government’s efforts, the problem remains unsolved. The government’s attempts to establish a budget of 15 billion dinars to purchase weapons from civilians have not succeeded, since citizens are hesitant to give up their arms due to fears of a deterioration in security. In addition, weapons are used for tribal disputes, personal revenge, and political violence, which leads to daily casualties.

5- Deteriorating economy: The Iraqi economy has seen a slight recovery following the shock of the COVID-19 pandemic and soaring oil prices in 2020. However, the economy’s heavy reliance on the US dollar still looms large among average citizens, with fluctuating exchange rates and control by the US Federal Reserve directly impacting economic stability. This dependency has led to rising costs of goods and services, declining wages, and reduced purchasing power for Iraqi citizens. The correlation between worsening economic conditions and violent extremism is all too clear. Many individuals join the PMF primarily for economic reasons, as its salaries are more competitive compared to other options in Iraq. During the fight against ISIS, the Iraqi Armed Forces deliberately targeted individuals from lower socio-economic classes in order to address the shortage of recruits following the PMF’s effective recruitment efforts. The PMF’s burgeoning economic empire is built on control of customs revenues worth $10 billion USD annually, illegal taxes of $300,000 USD daily, and profits from the scrap metal trade. The persistence of economic woes and the rising influence of the PMF and other militias are key risk factors for nation-wide instability.

6- Rising tensions between Baghdad and Erbil: Baghdad and Erbil are at odds over the continued presence of US military forces in Iraq. Erbil sees US military bases as essential for its security against Turkish attacks and persecution, while Baghdad, which lacks leverage with Tehran, has aligned with Iran’s goal of entirely removing US bases from Iraq. The ongoing US support for its Kurdish allies will continue to strain relations between Washington and Baghdad, since the US is perceived as undermining Baghdad’s sovereignty over all Iraqi territory, including the Kurdistan Region. These tensions will ultimately hinder Washington’s efforts to counterbalance Iran’s influence in Iraq.

Trump 2.0

Before addressing potential scenarios for US engagement in Iraq, it is imperative to reflect on Trump’s previous presidential term. The underlying themes of his policy can be summarized as follows:

1- Lack of a predictable strategy: Trump’s first term was characterized by significant deviations from traditional US foreign policy. He questioned the value of US membership in NATO, abruptly withdrew from Syria, abandoned the JCPOA with Iran, and initiated trade wars with China. He was a staunch critic of Biden’s handling of the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan. He met with Putin despite US sanctions that had been imposed due to the former’s alleged meddling in US presidential elections. Trump frequently broke presidential protocol, culminating in his refusal to invite Biden to the White House following the 2020 election and his continued assertions of election fraud, which contributed to the tensions leading up to the January 6 Capitol attack. Following his recent electoral victory, Trump seemed to be following the same streak. For example, he withheld the identities of private donors supporting his presidential transition. With regard to the Middle East, Trump made contradictory statements on the withdrawal of US troops. At times, he has stated that the US cannot remain the world’s police force, while at other moments he has emphasized the need to counter Iran’s influence. He criticized the Iraqi Council of Representatives’ motion to expel foreign troops from the country, even threatening sanctions. These precedents suggest that Trump may deviate from agreements reached between Baghdad and the Biden administration.

2- Picking hardliners against Iran for transition team: Donald Trump’s recent selections for his administration underscore a hawkish policy toward Iran and a staunchly pro-Israel stance. Mike Huckabee, Trump’s pick for US ambassador to Israel, has previously denied Palestinian national identity and supported Israeli settlements. This appointment received praise from figures like Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, who are prominent members of Israel’s right-wing political sphere.

Trump’s new team signals a return to a "maximum pressure" campaign that emphasizes sanctions to curtail Iranian influence and economic capacity. Figures like Senator Marco Rubio and Representative Michael Waltz have adopted a hardline approach to Tehran, labeling it a terrorist regime and advocating for sanctions and military deterrence. Rubio even supported Israel’s right to respond "disproportionately" to Iranian threats. These attempts to isolate Iran economically and militarily would not be complete without a strong foothold in Iraq, since the latter’s regime has become increasingly pro-Iran.

3- Warning against a full withdrawal from Iraq: During his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump promised to start an incremental withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. In September 2020, a few months before the US presidential elections that year, a reduction from 5,200 troops to 3,000 was announced. This move that was viewed by many as either belatedly delivering on an election promise or an attempt to respond to the Iraqi government’s demand that the US leave the country after the strike against Soleimani in Baghdad, which had exacerbated the already shaky security situation. However, Trump also repeatedly highlighted during his first term that a withdrawal of the US troops in Iraq would work in favor of Iran to further consolidate influence there. While some might view these stances as contradictory, Trump’s perspective on Iraq’s strategic importance has largely stayed consistent, since Tehran has been and will always be part of the US calculus on its Iraq policy.

4- Transactional pragmatism dominates relationships with allies: Victor Cha’s commentary on how Trump approaches his allies is not far from reality. This "transactional" pragmatism was a hallmark of Trump’s first presidential term. Cha proposed a framework that suggests Trump considers a country to be "safe zone" or "danger zone" based on whether that country has a trade surplus or deficit with the US and whether it spends at least 3 percent of its budget on defense. In 2019, Trump questioned the utility of NATO membership, which he considered to be a burden on the US, since the US is the largest contributor to the alliance. Regarding the US military presence in the Middle East, Trump said that the US has a "very extraordinarily expensive air base that’s there. It cost billions of dollars to build. We’re not leaving unless they pay us back for it."

Potential Scenarios

In conclusion, the US will maintain or increase its military presence in Iraq insofar as the new administration is antagonizing Iran. Iraq is falling further under Iran’s influence, both through proxy militias and significant economic leverage over the former’s resources. This influence is further bolstered by an Iraqi government that appears aligned with advancing Iran’s agenda, including efforts to push out US forces, particularly given its leader’s contentious political background and affiliations. Meanwhile, ISIS remains a threat lurking the shadows that could go on the offensive at any second. Regional tensions in Gaza, Syria, and Lebanon also remain volatile.

Trump’s recent appointments for his upcoming administration reflect a hawkish stance toward Iran, and suggest the development of policies that could move away from a complete withdrawal of US forces by 2026 and instead focus on reinforcing US strategic interests. While Trump can be unpredictable at times, the strategic and economic importance of Iraq and Trump’s transactional approach to politics and stance against Iran have remained consistent and are unlikely to shift significantly. One scenario that could emerge is that the US might impose new sanctions on Iraq to further isolate Iran and to escalate its maximum pressure campaign. More troops could be deployed if Washington perceives a threat towards US interests in Iraq. These strategic, economic, and security considerations and dynamics will turn Iraq into a battleground for settling scores between Washington and Tehran.

How Will Trump Approach the US Military Presence in Iraq?