The United States withdraws its troops from Iraq: the end of an era marked by the fight against terrorism.

The geopolitical chessboard of the Middle East continues to shift, and one of the most important pieces, the troop presence in Iraq , is about to change places. In a move that had been simmering, the US Department of Defense, known to everyone as the Pentagon, confirmed what had been an open secret: the reduction of its military contingent in the Mesopotamian country. The official justification is the "joint success" in the war against the Islamic State (ISIS), a specter that, although decimated, still casts its shadow over the region.

“The United States and its coalition partners will reduce their military mission in Iraq,” Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell stated in a statement. The declaration is not accidental and seeks to frame the withdrawal not as a defeat or a retreat, but as the culmination of a job well done. “This reduction reflects our shared success in the fight against the Islamic State and marks an effort to transition to a lasting security alliance between the United States and Iraq,” the official added. Rhetoric is key: it moves away from talk of occupation or a combat mission to a language of cooperation and strategic alliance. A necessary change of skin after more than two decades of a military presence that generated both stability and phenomenal chaos.

According to Washington, this new phase will "strengthen Iraq's capacity to achieve economic development, foreign investment, and regional leadership." This is an ambitious promise for a nation that continues to grapple with endemic corruption, sectarian divisions, and interference from its neighbors, primarily Iran. The truth is that the withdrawal of troops from Iraq has been a strong demand from Baghdad, not only from the government but also from a significant segment of society, especially the powerful pro-Iranian militias that view US soldiers as an occupying force.

The withdrawal of troops from Iraq: from invasion to advice

To understand the weight of this announcement, you have to rewind the tape. The history of troops in Iraq in the 21st century is a roller coaster of political decisions and bloody consequences. It began with the 2003 invasion, a war based on premises that proved false and that dismantled the Iraqi state, opening a Pandora's box of sectarian violence. After years of a harsh occupation, there was a first withdrawal under the Obama administration, which many analysts believe left a power vacuum that was the perfect breeding ground for the birth of ISIS.

It was precisely the brutal advance of this jihadist group in 2014, which took Mosul, the country's second largest city, and controlled a third of the territory, that forced the return of the US military. But this time, the role was different. It was no longer a massive combat force, but an international coalition led by Washington to advise, train, and provide air support to the Iraqi security forces and the Kurdish Peshmerga, who were the spearhead on the ground. This mission is now considered over, at least in its combat phase. The idea is that the Iraqi forces are now sufficiently seasoned to handle the fight against the terrorist remnants alone.

A success with asterisks: the ghost of ISIS and the influence of Iran

While the territorial defeat of the ISIS "caliphate" was an undeniable achievement, celebrating a resounding "success" may be premature. The organization has mutated. It no longer controls cities, but its cells remain active in desert and mountainous areas, carrying out guerrilla attacks, ambushes, and attacks. The big question is whether the Iraqi army, without the umbrella of US intelligence and air support, will be able to maintain the pressure and prevent a resurgence.

But the other key player on this chessboard is Iran. The withdrawal of troops from Iraq is a strategic victory for Tehran, which has been working for years to consolidate its influence in Baghdad through political parties and armed Shiite militias. Pressure from these groups to expel the Americans has been constant, especially after the assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in a drone strike at Baghdad airport in 2020. That episode brought the two countries to the brink of war and prompted the Iraqi parliament to vote on a resolution calling for an end to the foreign military presence. The withdrawal, therefore, can also be interpreted as a concession by Washington to the Iraqi political reality and the impossibility of sustaining a military deployment in such a hostile environment.

The New Chapter: What Does This Security Alliance Mean?

The fine print of the agreement is crucial. The end of the "combat mission" doesn't mean all US soldiers will board a plane tomorrow. What is ending is their active role in operations. However, a contingent, likely smaller and lower-profile , will remain in the country with "advice, assistance, and intelligence sharing" duties. It's a change of label that, in practice, seeks to calm the internal waters in Iraq without the United States completely losing its foothold in a strategically vital country due to its oil and geographic location.

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hussein Allawi himself had already announced that the withdrawal schedule would be completed in the coming weeks, complying with the agreement reached a year earlier between Baghdad and Washington. The model to follow is a bilateral security alliance, similar to the one the US has with other countries in the region. Meanwhile, the situation in neighboring Syria is different. There, the coalition's military operations will continue at least until 2026, in a much more complex scenario where, in addition to ISIS, the interests of Russia, Turkey, Iran, and Bashar al-Assad's regime intersect. The withdrawal of troops from Iraq , ultimately, closes one of the most turbulent pages of US foreign policy in recent decades, but raises new questions about the fragile balance of power in the Middle East.