Barsam Mohammadi \u2013 Expert on regional affairs<\/p>\n
September 30, 2026 (Mehr 8, 1405) is considered the end point of 23 years of direct American military presence in Iraq; the day when the last forces of the Washington-led coalition withdrew from Erbil Air Base and Baghdad named it “Sovereignty Day.”<\/p>\n
The complete withdrawal of American forces, which was realized under the influence of public opinion pressure, parliament, governing institutions, and especially Iraqi resistance groups, is of strategic importance. However, this development should not be interpreted as the end of American intervention in Iraq. Washington can still, despite the end of direct military presence, employ other tools to maintain its influence. Therefore, the main question is whether the military withdrawal means the end of American influence and intervention in Iraq, or whether Washington, by changing the tools of intervention, is beginning a new chapter of influence?<\/p>\n
Separating the withdrawal of military forces from intervention and strategic influence<\/strong><\/p>\n Experts familiar with the pattern of American imperialist behaviors know that the withdrawal of American forces should not necessarily be considered the end of the “influence strategy” but merely the end of “direct military presence.” America continues to pursue influence through remote physical presence and direct control. Intelligence cooperation, training of Iraqi forces, arms sales, bilateral defense agreements, and financial and economic pressures are among the tools that can maintain the possibility of Washington’s intervention and influence on Baghdad’s decisions without a large-scale deployment of forces.<\/p>\n From this perspective, the withdrawal of American soldiers, more than the complete elimination of the exercise of power, means a change in its form; therefore, measuring the extent of Iraq’s independence of action is not possible only by the number of foreign forces present on its soil, and non-military and indirect tools of influence must also be considered.<\/p>\n Financial lever; a tool of pressure without military presence<\/strong><\/p>\n One of Washington’s most important levers in Iraq is control over the country’s financial system. Since 2003, Iraq’s oil revenues have been held in accounts with the US Federal Reserve, and part of Baghdad’s access to the global financial system has passed through this route. Such a mechanism allows America to influence Iraq’s financial and economic policies without a large military presence.<\/p>\n In April 2026, America halted the shipment of dollar consignments to Iraq; an action that created concerns in the country’s currency market and economy. About 90 percent of the Iraqi government’s budget depends on oil revenues, and any restriction on access to dollars can exert considerable pressure on Baghdad’s economy. From this perspective, the financial lever can become an important tool for Washington to exert pressure on the Iraqi government.<\/p>\n Therefore, military independence without reducing financial dependence will not by itself mean complete independence. To reduce the scope of American influence, Iraq must, alongside strengthening political and security sovereignty, also reduce its vulnerabilities in the financial and monetary system.<\/p>\n Iraq between two approaches and the risk of intensifying internal division<\/strong><\/p>\n The American withdrawal has made the power equation in Iraq more complex. Some resistance groups consider the end of the presence of American forces an important development and emphasize maintaining their defense capability. Kata’ib Hezbollah and the Al-Nujaba Movement have also announced that they will not accept disarmament and will not even adhere to the June 2027 deadline set by the Iraqi government.<\/p>\n On the other side, Washington can use the issue of military withdrawal as a lever to influence Iraq’s internal arrangement by pressuring Baghdad to disarm these groups. If this disagreement intensifies, the risk of a security issue turning into a political and social rift will increase; therefore, one of the important challenges after the American withdrawal is managing internal differences without creating grounds for new instability.<\/p>\n Security vacuum and concern about the repetition of past scenarios<\/strong><\/p>\n Concern about the creation of a security vacuum after the American withdrawal is noteworthy, especially given the experience of 2011 and the emergence of ISIS in subsequent years. In the narrative presented about that period, the vacuum caused by the withdrawal of American forces was one of the factors that provided the conditions for intensified insecurity. According to this perception, some of Iraq’s security developments were considered not merely the consequence of unwanted events, but part of a process through which the possibility of the legitimized return of foreign forces was provided.<\/p>\n In the current situation as well, there is concern that the provocation and renewed intensification of terrorist activities or increased insecurity by the United States would create the necessary pretext for the return of American security influence. In this scenario, terrorism can transform from a security threat into a tool for redefining the necessity of the presence of foreign forces and once again place the Iraqi government before the option of requesting foreign assistance.<\/p>\n From this perspective, the most important issue for Baghdad is preventing the formation of security vacuums, strengthening the capability of internal forces, and maintaining the cohesion of governing institutions. The more independently the Iraqi government acts in managing security and confronting terrorist threats, the more the possibility of foreign actors using insecurity to return to the internal equation will decrease.<\/p>\n The American withdrawal from Iraq has marked the end of Washington’s direct military intervention and presence, but it does not mean the end of its influence. America can still affect developments in Iraq through financial, economic, intelligence, and political levers and, if conditions permit, use internal differences or economic pressures to increase the scope of its influence.<\/p>\n Therefore, the post-withdrawal phase of American forces is of special importance for Iraq. Converting military independence into real independence requires reducing financial dependence, strengthening internal security capability, managing political differences, and preventing the creation of security vacuums. If Baghdad can strengthen these components simultaneously, the withdrawal of American forces can lead to the consolidation of national sovereignty; otherwise, there is a possibility that the form of American presence will change without its strategic influence in Iraq having completely ended.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" SCFR Online – Opinion: The withdrawal of American forces from Iraq has marked the end of Washington’s direct military presence in the country; however, America’s financial, political, and security levers can still affect and cause problems for the future of this country.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":422669,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[13268,17,12726],"tags":[27790,49555,49554,49551,49550,49553,43200,49549,49552,23109],"class_list":["post-422698","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-note","category-politics","category-10-en-2","tag-barsaam-mohammadi","tag-consequences-of-us-withdrawal-from-iraq","tag-future-of-iraq-us-relations","tag-iraqs-financial-independence","tag-iraqs-national-sovereignty","tag-iraqs-security-vacuum","tag-iraqi-resistance-groups-en","tag-us-influence-in-iraq","tag-us-pressure-levers","tag-withdrawal-of-american-troops"],"yoast_head":"\n