Why the US Shouldn’t Leave Iraq and Syria
The United States has invested blood, treasure, and time into Iraq and subsequently, Syria for the past 20 years. As the US “pivots” from CENTCOM to the Indo-Pacific, it should maintain a sustainable military presence in both nations to counter Iran, Russia, and China, support indigenous allies, and safeguard human rights in the region.
With the Syrian civil war at a de facto end, the ongoing conflict between Israel, Hamas, and Iranian proxies, and the rising Chinese threat in the East, the US is uncertain of how to adapt its Middle East policy to a rapidly changing environment. With the region in turmoil, the US must double down on its deterrence vis-à-vis Iran by maintaining its military forces in Iraq and Syria. The 2,500 American troops in Iraq and 900 in Syria serve a dual purpose. The first is an explicit mission to prevent another rise of the Islamic State (IS) and to eliminate any forces that still remain under its command. The second is containing Iranian influence and deterring Iranian military action in the region, while acting as a backstop to Chinese and Russian interests.
The fight against IS began in earnest with Operation Inherent Resolve in 2014. US forces, largely relying on Kurdish groups like the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and well-trained partner forces such as the Iraqi Counter Terrorism Force (CTF) did a remarkably effective job of dismantling IS’s then-powerful “caliphate,” with their final stronghold falling in 2019. After the general defeat of IS, US and partner forces switched to a containment policy, supported by raids and intelligence sharing–that effort is still ongoing and has taken on new importance given the possibility of an IS resurgence. Contrary to Iraqi Prime Minister Shia al-Sudani’s view on IS, the group surpassed its total number of attacks inside Iraq from 2023 during January to June 2024 alone. Rather than seeing the IS threat whittled down to something akin to “drug trade” or “criminal offenses,” there has been an uptick in large-scale IS attacks outside of Iraq, including in Iran and Russia. With an almost complete US withdrawal from Iraq agreed upon, it is plausible that IS will take the opportunity to begin rekindling its operations in Iraq and Syria, and increase its ongoing efforts to radicalize and recruit the tens of thousands of IS families stuck in disparate refugee camps like Al-Hol, Syria. Additionally, the small number of US forces in Iraq have consistently illustrated their value to the Iraqi government, including through a recent raid on IS in Iraq’s Anbar desert which killed 14 militants, 4 of whom were key IS leaders. Such operations allow the Iraqi government to focus on preventing democratic backsliding and provide assistance to its citizens to rebuild after decades of war. Without US forces, the Iraqi military would be left without vital reconnaissance, air support, training and funding, a risk that US military leaders have consistently warned could lead to an IS resurgence.
Not only do US forces act as a counter-terror strike force, but they also act as a counterweight to Iranian influence. Iraq has long had to balance its Iranian neighbor with the US as its strategic partner. The clerical regime in Iran has sought to influence Iraqi politics since the 2003 US invasion and is now bringing pressure on the Iraqi government to force a complete US withdrawal. This pressure has proved far more potent in the backdrop of US support for Israel amidst the Hamas-Israel conflict, causing more extreme Iraqi factions to pressure the Iraqi government. Just last year Prime Minister Sudani claimed to support an indefinite US presence in Iraq, changing tack this year after greater political pressure from anti-US militias in the Iran-backed Coordination Framework and the Iraqi Government's Popular Mobilization Forces. The Iraqi government has also quietly expanded relations with both Hamas and Hezbollah, bending to Iranian pressure as Tehran attempts to expand its “Axis of Resistance.”
US forces in the region provide greater leverage to the US in dealing with Iran and reassure important allies in the region, namely Saudi Arabia. Such political and strategic capital lends the US greater heft during negotiations regarding Arab-Israeli normalization, the ongoing conflict between Hamas and Israel, and the overall direction of the region. They project US power to stabilize regional relations and provide tangible backing to US deterrence, as proven by Iran’s carefully measured response to Israeli actions. Without US forces present in Iraq and Syria to counter Iranian influence and reassure US allies, American influence and power will wane in the Middle East. This is particularly important amidst allied concern about the US pivot to the Indo-Pacific. As Russia and China continue to gain a larger foothold in the region, the US must maintain its presence in the Middle East, while simultaneously learning to deal with its pacing and acute threats. As illustrated by China’s continued attempts at diplomacy between Iran, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian factions, and its economic ties with Iraq, US engagement in the region is not only vital for global stability but also for US-Sino competition.
With Bashar Al-Assad’s brutal government in Syria largely readmitted into the Arab world, Russia has also emerged as a significant strategic threat in the Middle East. The burgeoning Iranian-Russian relationship contributes to instability and war around the world, including in Ukraine and the African Sahel region, again illustrating the importance of the Middle East to both strategic competition and global stability. Withdrawing troops from Syria in particular would leave an important US ally–the Kurdish people–vulnerable to attack from the Syrian regime, which has proven its willingness to use chemical weapons, torture, and other inhumane tactics to achieve its goals. It would also encourage a US ally, Turkey, to pursue its unilateral goals against the Kurds along the Syrian-Turkish border.
Abandoning the Kurdish people would deal a blow to the US’s reputation and be an act entirely out of line with US values. It would serve only to hurt US interests in the region and create yet another opportunity for an IS resurgence. While the withdrawal agreement between Iraq and the US accounts for US support to its Syrian forces, it indicates a desire to fully withdraw from the region and encourages action contrary to US interests.
The United States has always had a complicated relationship with the Middle East, characterized by a lack of understanding of the region’s politics, history, and culture, and inconsistent strategic decision making influenced by the American democratic process. With the Middle East now at an inflection point, the US must ensure its actions are in line with its strategic goals and take efforts to ensure partisan politics don’t affect sound decision making. With growing instability in the Middle East, rising competition in China, a resurgent extremist threat, and domestic and foreign pressure to decrease regional engagement, the US must prevent reactionary decisions from becoming its Middle East strategy.