US completes Iraq troop withdrawal as Baghdad takes full control of security mission

The United States completed the withdrawal of its remaining troops from Iraq on September 30, 2026, formally ending the latest phase of an American military mission that stretched across more than two decades of war, counterterrorism operations and political upheaval. The final US forces departed Erbil Air Base in Iraq’s semi-autonomous Kurdistan Region under a long-planned agreement between Washington and Baghdad, bringing Operation Inherent Resolve’s military role inside Iraq to a close. The Pentagon said Iraqi forces will now assume primary responsibility for the country’s security, while the United States and coalition partners remain positioned elsewhere in the region to respond to a renewed Islamic State threat if necessary.

Baghdad has presented the departure as a major step toward full sovereignty and greater control over national security policy, while Washington says the withdrawal reflects the increased ability of Iraqi forces to counter Islamic State independently. The move does not end the broader US-Iraq relationship, with Washington expected to continue providing intelligence, training and other forms of security cooperation through bilateral channels rather than a large permanent military deployment. At the same time, the withdrawal is being celebrated by Iran and several Iran-aligned armed groups, which have spent years demanding that American forces leave Iraq and are portraying the departure as a strategic victory.

The transition nevertheless creates significant uncertainty because Iraq must now balance several competing security pressures without American troops stationed inside the country. Islamic State no longer controls large territories as it did at the height of its power, but cells remain active, while heavily armed militias retain substantial political and military influence outside the traditional state security structure. Kurdish officials have also expressed concern that the departure could weaken security in northern Iraq at a time when drones, missiles and wider regional tensions continue to threaten the Kurdistan Region.

The final US departure ends a military mission that repeatedly changed over more than two decades

The modern American military presence in Iraq began with the US-led invasion in March 2003, which toppled Saddam Hussein and was followed by years of insurgency, sectarian violence and political instability. American combat forces formally withdrew in 2011, but the rise of Islamic State brought US troops back three years later after the extremist group seized large areas of Iraq and neighboring Syria. That renewed mission developed into Operation Inherent Resolve, under which the United States and coalition partners trained Iraqi forces, conducted airstrikes, supplied intelligence and supported operations that eventually dismantled Islamic State’s territorial caliphate.

For years, roughly 2,500 American troops remained in Iraq as part of the anti-Islamic State mission, even after the group lost nearly all of the territory it once controlled. Their role gradually shifted away from direct combat toward advising, training, intelligence and logistical support for Iraqi forces, including the Iraqi Counter Terrorism Service and Kurdish Peshmerga units. Washington and Baghdad eventually agreed to a phased transition beginning in 2024, with coalition operations in federal Iraq winding down first and remaining support for operations against Islamic State in northeastern Syria continuing from Iraqi territory through September 2026.

The final departure from Erbil completes that timetable and removes the last American military units based inside Iraq. US officials say some capabilities and personnel connected to the wider regional counter-Islamic State mission have been repositioned to neighboring countries, including Jordan, rather than disappearing entirely from the Middle East. The United States can therefore continue supporting operations against extremist threats without maintaining the same permanent troop footprint inside Iraqi territory.

Baghdad is portraying the withdrawal as proof that Iraqi forces can manage security independently

Iraq’s government has emphasized sovereignty and institutional maturity in explaining the withdrawal, arguing that its military and security services are increasingly capable of confronting major threats without a permanent foreign combat presence. Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi described the departure as a milestone rather than the end of cooperation with Washington, stressing that Iraq will continue working with international partners against terrorism. The government’s message is designed to reassure both domestic audiences and foreign governments that the American exit does not represent the abandonment of Iraq’s security architecture.

The Pentagon has offered a similar assessment, saying the 12-year campaign against Islamic State succeeded in eliminating the organization as an organized conventional military threat inside Iraq. US Central Command chief Admiral Brad Cooper said coalition forces elsewhere in the region remain prepared to respond if Islamic State regains enough strength to threaten Iraq or neighboring states. Washington will also continue some intelligence-sharing, training and military cooperation with Iraqi institutions under a bilateral relationship rather than through Operation Inherent Resolve.

That transition is important because the threat from Islamic State has changed rather than disappeared entirely. The group no longer governs major Iraqi cities or controls large territorial corridors, but militants continue to operate in remote areas and exploit weak governance, local grievances and security gaps. Iraqi forces will now carry greater responsibility for preventing those networks from rebuilding into a larger insurgent movement.

Iran-aligned militias are celebrating the US exit while resisting pressure to disarm

Iran and its allies have openly welcomed the American withdrawal, presenting it as the culmination of years of political pressure and armed resistance against US forces. Several Iraqi militias linked politically or ideologically to Tehran have repeatedly demanded the removal of foreign troops and attacked American installations during periods of heightened regional tension. Asaib Ahl al-Haq, one of Iraq’s most influential Iran-aligned movements, described the end of the coalition presence as a historic step toward restoring Iraqi sovereignty.

Their celebration creates a more complicated problem for Baghdad because many of those same groups maintain heavily armed forces that operate with substantial independence from the central government. Iraqi officials have faced pressure to bring militia weapons more firmly under state control, particularly as foreign troops depart and the argument that militias are necessary to resist occupation becomes less relevant. The government has reportedly extended a deadline for some armed groups to disarm into 2027, while several factions continue to resist the idea that Baghdad should determine their military future.

This issue could become one of the most important tests of Iraq’s post-withdrawal political order. If the government cannot establish a clearer monopoly over armed force, militias could continue shaping security and foreign policy independently of national institutions even after the United States leaves. Iran would also retain considerable influence through political, economic and militia networks despite the disappearance of American troops from Iraqi bases.

Kurdish officials fear the withdrawal could expose northern Iraq to greater security risks

The greatest public concern about the withdrawal has emerged in Iraq’s Kurdistan Region, where American forces had long worked closely with Kurdish Peshmerga units. Kurdish authorities warned before the final departure that removing coalition forces without a sufficiently strong replacement defense structure could create vulnerabilities during an already unstable period. Those concerns have intensified amid missile and drone attacks linked to the wider conflict involving the United States and Iran.

Erbil Air Base had served as an important location for coalition support, intelligence operations and protection of northern Iraq. Its closure to American forces means Kurdish authorities will depend more heavily on their own security institutions and coordination with Baghdad, relationships that have sometimes been strained by disagreements over budgets, territory and military command structures. The shift could therefore test not only Iraq’s ability to manage external threats but also cooperation between the federal government and the Kurdistan Regional Government.

Kurdish officials are particularly sensitive to the continued presence of Islamic State cells in disputed and mountainous areas where federal and regional security responsibilities overlap. Any reduction in intelligence coverage or rapid-response capability could create openings for militants if coordination between Baghdad and Erbil remains weak. Washington is expected to continue supporting both Iraqi and Kurdish forces through training and intelligence relationships, but that assistance will now operate without American troops permanently stationed at Erbil.

The withdrawal changes America’s military footprint without ending its influence over Iraq

The troop exit marks a significant reduction in direct US military involvement, but Washington remains deeply connected to Iraq through diplomacy, security cooperation and financial relationships. American officials have emphasized that the bilateral relationship will continue after Operation Inherent Resolve, while US advisers can still provide intelligence and training from elsewhere in the region. Iraq also remains strategically important because of its geographic position between Iran, Syria, Turkey and the Gulf states.

Washington also retains influence through Iraq’s oil-revenue system, which has remained closely connected to US financial institutions since the 2003 invasion. Reuters reported that Iraqi oil earnings continue to flow through arrangements that give the United States substantial financial leverage, demonstrating that military withdrawal does not amount to complete American disengagement. Iraq will therefore continue balancing its relationship with Washington against its close economic and political ties with neighboring Iran.

That balancing act has defined Iraqi politics for much of the past two decades and is unlikely to disappear after the final troops leave. Baghdad wants normal relations with both Washington and Tehran while avoiding becoming a battlefield for competition between them, yet Iran-aligned parties and militias remain influential inside Iraq’s political system. The absence of American bases may reduce one source of confrontation, but it could also increase the relative political weight of Tehran-backed actors.

Iraq’s next security phase will depend on whether state institutions can fill the gap

The success of the withdrawal will ultimately be measured by what happens after the final aircraft and military equipment leave Erbil. If Iraqi forces continue containing Islamic State, strengthen cooperation between Baghdad and the Kurdistan Region and gradually bring powerful militias under greater state control, the departure could validate the government’s claim that the country no longer needs a permanent foreign military presence. A resurgence of militant attacks or greater militia autonomy would instead reopen questions about whether the transition occurred before Iraq’s security institutions were fully prepared.

The end of the mission also closes an important chapter in American military history. More than 4,500 US service members died during the broader period of military involvement in Iraq, while the conflict caused enormous Iraqi civilian losses and reshaped the political balance across the Middle East. The 2026 withdrawal does not erase that legacy, but it changes the practical relationship between Washington and Baghdad from one defined partly by troops and military bases toward one centered more heavily on diplomacy, intelligence, trade and security partnerships.

For Iraq, the moment combines sovereignty with responsibility. The government now has the foreign troop withdrawal long demanded by many political factions, but it also inherits greater responsibility for preventing Islamic State from rebuilding, controlling armed groups and protecting regions that previously depended heavily on coalition support. How Baghdad handles those challenges will determine whether September 30 becomes remembered primarily as the successful conclusion of a long foreign military mission or the beginning of a more uncertain security phase.

Key takeaways from the completion of the US military withdrawal from Iraq

• The United States completed its military withdrawal from Iraq on September 30, ending Operation Inherent Resolve’s remaining troop presence inside the country.
• The final American forces left Erbil Air Base under a transition agreement negotiated by Washington and Baghdad several years earlier.
• Iraqi security forces will now hold primary responsibility for containing Islamic State, while US forces elsewhere in the region remain available for limited support.
• Baghdad is portraying the withdrawal as a major sovereignty milestone and says continued US-Iraq cooperation will focus on bilateral training, intelligence and security assistance.
• Iran and several Iran-aligned Iraqi militias are celebrating the departure after years of demanding an end to the American military presence.
• Powerful militias remain a major challenge because several groups continue resisting government pressure to surrender weapons or place their forces fully under state control.
• Kurdish leaders have expressed concern that the withdrawal could weaken security in northern Iraq, particularly amid continuing drone, missile and Islamic State threats.
• The American troop departure reduces Washington’s direct military footprint but does not end US diplomatic, financial or security influence inside Iraq.