Iraq has entered a new security and political phase following the end of the international coalition’s mission, with full responsibility for the country’s security and stability transferred to the Iraqi side, according to Prime Minister Ali al-Zaydi. The shift places completing national sovereignty and bringing weapons under state control among the main challenges of the next phase, alongside the repercussions of regional competition between the United States and Iran.
An episode of the programme ‘Scenarios’, broadcast on 1 October 2026, discussed the significance of the withdrawal and the expected paths that may follow, particularly the ability of Iraqi institutions to manage the security dossier independently.
The course of the US military presence in Iraq
It also examined the position of the Islamic Resistance in Iraq, which refuses to commit to any timetable or agreement concerning weapons unless it is issued by bodies it recognises. The end of the mission marks a new chapter in the US military presence in Iraq, which began with the invasion in 2003.
US forces withdrew in 2011, before returning in 2014 as part of the international coalition fighting Islamic State, at the request of the Iraqi government at the time. Victoria Taylor, a former deputy assistant secretary of state for Iraq and Iran and former director of the Iraq Initiative at the Atlantic Council’s Middle East programme, described the withdrawal as an important symbolic stage for Iraq and the United States.
She said the end of the US military presence closes a chapter of military participation and security relations between the two countries. Taylor linked the current development to the return of US forces in 2014 at Iraq’s request, but stressed the difficulty of separating that return from the legacy of the 2003 invasion. She pointed to currents within the United States that regard the invasion of Iraq as a mistake, alongside a broader trend in Washington towards reducing the number of US forces deployed in the Middle East.
US and Iraqi assessment of the withdrawal’s significance
Security and strategic expert Fadel Abu Ragheef, for his part, focused on the sovereignty dimension, saying that the departure of the last US and coalition soldier would complete part of Iraq’s restoration of its sovereignty. He based his assessment on the development in the capabilities of Iraqi security institutions over recent years.
Abu Ragheef explained that these capabilities include field and combat forces, intelligence and information services, as well as the Counter-Terrorism Service and border forces. He said the development of these institutions gives Baghdad greater ability to take its security decisions independently after the coalition’s mission ends.
Weapons control and the challenge of internal sovereignty
Salim Zakhor, a researcher specialising in constitutional law and political systems, called for a distinction between external and internal sovereignty. He said the departure of foreign forces represents a step towards completing sovereignty, while bringing weapons and decisions on war and peace under state institutions remains a major challenge to consolidating internal sovereignty.
Zakhor linked the issue to the new deadline granted to the Iraqi government, saying that the withdrawal could represent an important step in this process but would not end other US instruments of influence. He identified the main ones as financial mechanisms linked to oil revenues, military cooperation and economic pressure, along with diplomatic and political tools.
Taylor, by contrast, said discussion of Iraqi sovereignty could not be separated from Iranian influence and Tehran’s support for a number of armed groups inside Iraq. In her view, completing sovereignty requires the state to extend its security control over all Iraqi territory alongside the end of the US military mission.
Taylor also placed the withdrawal within a broader vision of the Donald Trump administration aimed at reducing the US military presence in the region. This makes the next phase dependent on Baghdad’s ability to manage its security and confine the instruments of force within its institutions, while external channels of financial, military and political influence remain in place.
