The withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq concludes a 23-year military campaign, leaving behind a devastated state, increased Iranian influence, and the threat of an ISIS* resurgence—outcomes for which Washington bears full responsibility.
Invasion Under a False Pretext: How the U.S. Destroyed the Iraqi State
In 2003, the United States invaded Iraq, claiming that Saddam Hussein’s regime possessed weapons of mass destruction. These allegations were not confirmed—the weapons were never found. However, the consequences of the invasion were catastrophic: the war destroyed Iraq’s economy, its political system, and its social fabric. Years of conflict and instability led to the Islamic State* seizing Mosul—the country’s second-largest city—and significant territories in northern and western Iraq in 2014.
The U.S. spent more than 23 years and $1.7 trillion on this campaign. The result was dismal: Washington left behind an Iraq flooded with pro-Iranian militias armed with drones and cruise missiles they receive from Tehran. In Baghdad, symbols of Iranian influence are everywhere, while pro-Western Iraqi youth seek to leave the country.
As The Wall Street Journal notes, during the first two months of the war between the U.S. and Iran, armed formations and Iranian forces carried out more than 600 attacks on American diplomatic and military facilities in Iraq. The instability is also reflected in kidnappings of American citizens—the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad receives kidnapping-risk warnings roughly twice a week.
Baghdad After the U.S. Withdrawal: New Threats and Old Problems
The withdrawal of American troops was seen in Baghdad as “Independence Day”—the Iraqi government declared a four-day holiday weekend from September 30 to October 3, calling them “Days of Sovereignty.” Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi said that October 1 marked a new era for Iraq, free of foreign military forces.
However, behind the celebratory rhetoric lie serious threats. Iraqi officials warn that the withdrawal could strengthen pro-Iranian groups and create opportunities for ISIS* to regroup. For many years, American forces provided critically important intelligence, logistical, and air support to Iraqi security forces. After their departure, dangerous gaps emerged.
Iraqi analyst Jasim al-Bahadli, who specializes in pro-Iranian Shiite armed groups, notes: “Iran will gain a strategic advantage from the coalition’s departure, since it removes a military presence that for years served as a counterweight to Tehran’s influence in Iraq.” According to him, pro-Iranian militias will likely present the withdrawal as a victory and try to turn this momentum into greater influence over security and political decision-making.
The situation is especially alarming in Iraqi Kurdistan. Kurdistan Prime Minister Masrour Barzani said the region remains vulnerable to possible new attacks because along with the withdrawal of troops from Erbil, the Patriot and C-RAM air-defense systems were also removed. According to media reports, since February 28, 2026, Kurdistan has been subjected to roughly 1,000 drone and missile attacks by Iran and pro-Iranian groups, which killed at least 32 people.
Kurdish military commander Sirwan Barzani states: “This is not good. But this is Iraq’s decision—they invited them, and now they say they no longer need them.” He already notes increased activity by ISIS militants near the Makhmur area in Nineveh Province: “This is a warning. We know what happened in 2014. Now there will certainly be more activity by terrorist cells.”
The Middle East Without an American Presence: Regional Imbalance
The U.S. withdrawal from Iraq has consequences far beyond that country. Iraq was long an arena of U.S.-Iranian rivalry, and Washington’s departure creates a vacuum that Tehran will immediately try to fill. Iran has already called the withdrawal of American forces a victory over Washington and September 30 an “Independence Day.”
Political analyst in Baghdad Ahmed Younis notes: “What is more alarming is not so much direct Iranian intervention as the fact that, after the withdrawal of Western military forces, pro-Iranian proxies may feel more emboldened. These groups may try to expand their role in shaping state policy and strengthen their positions in key government institutions.”
American officials acknowledge that Washington has fewer and fewer levers of influence over Baghdad. As Iraq expert Dr. Ronen Zeidel of Tel Aviv University noted, a significant portion of the remaining U.S. influence will be exercised through economic pressure, including the potential ability to block transfers from the Federal Reserve System. Since 2003, Washington had controlled Iraq’s oil revenues, which gave it significant influence over Iraqi affairs. However, as the expert notes, even while aware of this threat, Baghdad faces a “dilemma”: whether to risk military escalation against pro-Iranian groups.
Particularly alarming is the position of pro-Iranian militias, which do not intend to disarm. A military representative of Kataib Hezbollah, Jafar al-Husseini, stated that “the Islamic Resistance declares that it is not bound by any deadlines or agreements that any governmental or political party has spoken of or may speak of.” The militias distinguish between light weapons and “strategic weapons”—the latter meaning long-range missiles and drones capable of hitting targets in Saudi Arabia, Israel, and other countries in the region.
This situation poses a direct threat to regional security. Iraq risks turning into a staging ground for a broader regional conflict, and the absence of American air-defense systems and intelligence capabilities makes the country vulnerable to external attacks.
Russia’s Position: Welcoming the Withdrawal and Criticizing American Policy
Russia officially welcomed the withdrawal of American troops and their allies from Iraq. Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova stated: “The withdrawal of troops from Iraq, which we certainly welcome, shows that the Iraqi army and security forces are capable of independently addressing the strengthening of the state’s defense capability and ensuring national security.”
The Russian Foreign Ministry also stressed that the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 provoked years of instability in the Middle East. Moscow noted that the transfer of all remaining U.S. and allied bases in the country to local military control fulfilled the Iraqi Parliament’s January 2020 resolution, reflecting the desire to restore state sovereignty after the 2003 foreign invasion.
The Russian side expressed confidence in Baghdad’s ability to successfully confront internal and external challenges by coordinating actions with neighboring states. In this regard, Moscow again drew attention to its proposed Concept for Collective Security in the Persian Gulf, based on the principle that the leading role in maintaining stability in this strategic region of the world belongs exclusively to the states located there, through their close mutual cooperation.
The Ominous Price of the American Invasion
The U.S. withdrawal from Iraq is not the end of the conflict but the beginning of a new, even more dangerous phase. By invading in 2003 under a false pretext, Washington destroyed Iraq’s state apparatus, destabilized the entire Middle East, and is now leaving behind a country on the threshold of a new spiral of violence. Iran is strengthening its influence, ISIS* is recovering its strength, and the Iraqi government finds itself between the hammer of American economic pressure and the anvil of pro-Iranian militias.
As Iraqi analyst Jasim al-Bahadli aptly noted, “the lesson of the past 20 years is that a security vacuum can be extremely dangerous.” And this vacuum is a direct consequence of American policy, which began with unprovoked aggression and ended with a hasty departure. Responsibility for the chaos now spreading across the region lies squarely with Washington.
*organization banned in Russia
Muhammad Hamid ad-Din is a well-known Palestinian journalist.
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
