Iraq after the Americans...sovereignty or strategic space?

Twenty-three years after the American military intervention in Iraq, the last soldiers are leaving. Last Wednesday, via Truth Social, US President Donald Trump wrote: “I am pleased to announce that the last American forces are leaving Iraq.” Does this step really represent “supreme political prowess,” in the words of Tom Barrack, the American ambassador to Turkey and the Trump administration’s envoy to Syria? The departure of American forces represents an opportunity to turn the page on the complex American history in Iraq, but it leaves exciting questions and opens the door to multiple scenarios, between opportunities and challenges, at a time of regional geopolitical chaos. And international alike. To begin with, it can be said that the completion of the military withdrawal allows Iraq to present itself as the one with the highest say and the authority for security decisions within its territory, and without any superficial vision higher than it, imposing certain visions on it that are consistent with its interests. This hypothesis has a positive outcome in the face of the factions that accuse the state of lacking sovereignty, and for this reason retains its right to bear arms. One of the advantages of the American military withdrawal is that it reduces the possibility of making Iraq a land of proxy wars, between the factions loyal to Iran and the American forces. The withdrawal itself gives the Iraqis an opportunity, perhaps the first of its kind, since March 2003, to prove their competence in managing the affairs of their country on their own, and without external interference. But in the face of these opportunities, there remain troubling challenges for the Iraqis, as the withdrawal comes in light of a crisis whose flames are still burning between the United States and Iran, Which makes the issue of ridding the soul of the state from the clutches of factional weapons questionable, especially after the Iraqi government failed to implement the deadline.The original plan was to disarm the various groups, and the process was postponed to June 2027. In this case, Iraq will be facing an extremely dangerous challenge if the American forces withdraw on the one hand, and the weapons remain outside the state’s capabilities, which will inevitably create a very significant security gap, a scenario that could affect the state of civil peace in the entire Gulf region, and not just inside Iraq. Among the challenges that the American military withdrawal from Iraq could create are the possibilities of the return of terrorist organizations, most notably ISIS, even if it no longer owns the land. And the resources that I possessed in 2014. Several intelligence estimates confirm that the organization has actually become much weaker, but they confirm, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there are many sleeper cells capable of expanding and expanding again, if the security hand facing them weakens, taking into account that ideas have wings to fly with, that is, they can spread again in a region that suffers enough from state terrorism represented by Iranian plans and the actions of war agents. Here it is not a secret to say that the forces America was providing the Iraqis with what could not be easily replaced: air support and reconnaissance, drones, logistical momentum and technical capabilities, and all of this within the framework of intelligence estimates and data. The advanced definitions put us before multiple questions, the most important of which is: “Are these hypotheses absent from the eyes and ears of the current American administration, which is currently suffering from Iranian obstinacy? Does the withdrawal of its soldiers at this time, even if it was already scheduled before, have anything to do with the news being promoted about American preparations for the stage of military decisiveness withThe Iranians and this is why Washington preferred to keep its soldiers outside the circle of fire and destruction? While the American forces are leaving, perhaps America should remain in Iraq... Is there an apparent contradiction in the question mark presented? It seems so, but closer consideration of the phrase may lead us to a deeper analytical vision. The argument in favor of continued American involvement in Iraq, in fact, goes beyond the mere fact that the United States spent huge sums of money and blood in Iraq, it is related to long-term American strategic interests. Over the past two and a half decades, every American president has sought to direct his focus towards Asia, and reduce the United States’ interest in the Middle East. However, the reality tells us that all administrations from the beginning of the third millennium have found themselves forced to return to the region, as a result of regional crises. Iraq, in particular, has always had a broader regional impact, and thanks to its population of 45 million people, and its enormous oil and gas resources, it will remain an influential player in the region’s economy, and could be a power. Motivating stability or instability. While Iran and its allies celebrate the withdrawal as a victory, the departure raises questions about the future of security and political balances in Iraq. The departure of American forces may give Iran more space to enhance its influence in Mesopotamia, and the disappearance of a balancing force that has for years limited Tehran’s influence there. In addition, the factions allied with Iran will certainly seek to turn the withdrawal into additional gains in the security and political decision-making process. What should Washington do, in order to preserve its interests, first of all, and the security and stability of Iraq?Next, without forgetting the security balances in the Arab Gulf region and the Middle East as a whole? The United States can strengthen its bilateral security cooperation through a small but competent team of security advisors, a strong US diplomatic presence, including a designated ambassador, and aggressive efforts to expand US trade relations in Iraq. Here, sustained high-level communication from senior US officials appears sufficient to support US priorities, especially in an era in which US policymakers focus on a more careful assessment of risks and benefits, and a modest investment of US time and attention can achieve significant gains for its interests. With continued American support and a reasonable commitment of resources, the United States can use its great influence to serve its Middle Eastern and Asian strategies alike, while at the same time working to reshape Iraq’s political direction in the region away from Iranian spheres of influence. The American withdrawal from Iraq, in any case, reflects fears of a broader issue related to the balance between national sovereignty and the need for external military and intelligence support, and ultimately leaves Iraq facing one of three scenarios: the awakening of the Iraqi state and its victory over previous challenges and advanced fears, and this will only be achieved through the cooperation of the Iraqi societal alloy. However, this is a difficult scenario in light of dogmatic fragmentation and foreign political loyalties.

A country completely dependent on the Iranian regime, and this is a possibility, if the American withdrawal from the confrontation with Iran, or an agreement is reached that saves Washington’s face, without Iranian concessions and commitments, it will stop its hand from neighboring countries. In this case, Iraq will be a renewed threat to its regional neighborhood, perhaps more so than during the time of Saddam Hussein.

Iraq is a point of balance, and this requires an end to the military confrontations in the region, and reaching understandings that end the prolonged state of clashes in the region. In any case, the most important question that will be answered in time remains: “Iraq after the Americans... Will the stage of sovereignty begin, or will a time of strategic leisure prevail?”