Will The Iraqis Succeed In Getting Rid Of US Occupation Forces?

Omar Ahmed

Ramadan 01, 1446 2025-03-01

News & Analysis

by Omar Ahmed (News & Analysis, Crescent International Vol. 55, No. 1, Ramadan, 1446)

The enduring presence of US military forces in Iraq has been a contentious issue, both within Iraq and on the international stage. As of February 2025, at least 2,500 US troops remain stationed in the country, primarily under the pretext of countering the remnants of Daesh.

However, the true motives and implications of this prolonged occupation warrant a critical examination, especially in light of recent geopolitical developments and historical patterns of US intervention in the region.

Understandably, the Iraqi populace harbours a complex and predominantly negative perception of the US military presence – seen as a continued occupation of the country. While some factions within the government view the US as a counterbalance to regional influences, notably Iran, a significant portion of the citizenry perceives the occupation as an affront to national sovereignty and a catalyst for ongoing instability. Mass protests and public demonstrations have frequently called for the withdrawal of foreign troops, underscoring a widespread desire for genuine autonomy.

This sentiment is not unfounded. The illegal US invasion in 2003, based on dubious claims of weapons of mass destruction, led to a cascade of turmoil, including sectarian violence, the rise of extremist groups, and the erosion of Iraq’s infrastructural and social fabric. The promise of democracy and stability has instead manifested as a protracted struggle for self-determination amidst external interferences.

While mostly Iranian-aligned Shia-led factions have been the most vocal and active in opposition to US military presence in Iraq, the toppling of Bashar al-Asad’s government in neighbouring Syria has caused some factions to reconsider the impact of such a move. This is likely given the empowered former Al-Qaeda affiliated rebels now in power in Damascus.

The US has a storied history of meddling in Iraqi political affairs, often under the guise of promoting democracy or combating terrorism. In reality, these interventions have frequently served to advance American strategic interests at the expense of Iraq’s sovereignty.

One of the most insidious methods of manipulation has been the fostering of divisions within Iraq’s political scene. By supporting certain factions over others, the US has exacerbated sectarian tensions, leading to a fragmented political environment that is easier to influence and control. This divide-and-conquer strategy ensures that a unified front against foreign occupation remains elusive.

Moreover, the US has leveraged economic tools to sway Iraqi politics. For instance, the recent pressure exerted on Iraq to resume Kurdish oil exports, with threats of sanctions for non-compliance, exemplifies economic coercion aimed at aligning Iraq’s policies with American interests. This manoeuvre not only undermines Iraq’s economic sovereignty but also stokes internal divisions, particularly between the central government and the Kurdish regional authorities.

Washington has also effectively held the country hostage by weaponizing the dollar against it, amid Baghdad’s aspirations to de-dollarize: “Since 2003, all Iraqi oil revenues have been paid into an account with the US Federal Reserve. Although Iraqis formed a sovereign government after the US invasion and occupation of their state, Iraq is still restricted from opening accounts for its oil earnings outside the United States.”

The collapse of Asad’s government in Syria has reignited fears of a Daesh resurgence. While the ostensible rationale is to prevent a security vacuum, this development provides a convenient pretext for prolonging the occupation, despite previous agreements outlining a phased withdrawal.

A decisive moment for Iraq came in January 2020, when the US assassinated Iranian Quds Force General Qassem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the deputy head of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), in a drone strike ordered by then-President Donald Trump.

The attack, carried out near Baghdad International Airport, triggered immediate outrage across Iraq and led to an unprecedented parliamentary resolution calling for the complete withdrawal of US forces. The Iraqi government initiated diplomatic efforts to expel foreign troops, engaging in negotiations with Washington and regional actors to transition towards a self-sufficient security framework. However, these efforts have largely stalled, with successive Iraqi administrations struggling to enforce the resolution amid US resistance and internal political divisions.

With Trump’s return to the Oval Office, concerns over a renewed escalation have intensified. His previous administration had actively worked to dismantle Iraqi resistance factions, and his reinstatement signals the possibility of further military entrenchment rather than a strategic withdrawal. Trump’s past rhetoric suggests a willingness to maintain control over Iraq’s resources while using the country as a staging ground for broader regional confrontations, particularly with Iran.

The role of the PMF, an umbrella of predominantly Shia paramilitary groups within the region’s Axis of Resistance, is also pivotal in this context. Formed in response to the rise of Daesh, the PMF has evolved into a significant military and political force.

While some factions within the PMF align closely with Iran, others emphasise their loyalty to Iraq’s national interests. Within the PMF, the Islamic Resistance of Iraq (IRI) has stood out over its daring intervention in support of the people of Gaza, amid the zionist state’s genocidal war. Prior to the ceasefire agreement, the IRI launched almost daily attacks over the past year.

The US has repeatedly attempted to weaken or disband elements of the PMF under the pretence of combating Iranian influence, but in doing so, it undermines a crucial component of Iraq’s security apparatus. The demonisation of the PMF serves a broader US objective of justifying its continued presence by portraying Iraq as incapable of defending itself.

This blatant disregard for Iraqi sovereignty showcases the asymmetrical nature of US-Iraq relations. Despite official statements portraying the US as a partner, Iraq remains a de facto client state, subject to Washington’s strategic calculus rather than its own national interests.

Another critical aspect is the cultural and ideological battle over Iraq’s future. Western soft power, through media, educational programmes, and civil society organisations, plays an underappreciated role in shaping Iraqi public opinion.

Pro-western elites, many of whom were installed in government following the 2003 invasion, continue to advocate policies that align with American interests. This ideological subjugation, reinforced by economic dependency, ensures that Iraq remains within Washington’s orbit even if US troops were to leave.

While the challenges are formidable, the aspiration for an autonomous and stable Iraq is not beyond reach. It requires resolute leadership, a commitment to national unity, and a strategic disentanglement from the vestiges of foreign domination.

The question remains: will Iraq seize this pivotal moment to reclaim its destiny, or will it remain ensnared in the web of occupation and manipulation? The next few years will be decisive in determining whether Iraq emerges as a truly sovereign state or continues to be a battleground for foreign interests.