The trainers withdrew, but the “elite” arrived. A mysterious American move heightens the concerns of the framework and the factions.

The trainers withdrew, but the “elite” arrived. A mysterious American move heightens the concerns of the framework and the factions.

2025-09-23 06:47

Shafaq News – Translation
The essential details regarding the nature of the transition to a “permanent security partnership between Iraq and the United States,” as well as its mechanisms, boundaries, and timeline, are not yet fully clear, according to the Emirates Policy Center .

In a report translated by Shafaq News Agency, the center does not rule out a link between the redeployment and withdrawal and fears of a new regional escalation between Israel and Iran. It is likely that the al-Tanf base will become the main hub for US forces in the region, replacing Ain al-Assad, where conventional forces have been replaced by elite combat units.

According to him, the Donald Trump administration has not yet clarified its position on the agreement concluded by the Joe Biden administration in 2024 with the Iraqi government regarding the gradual withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. He added that Iraqi militias loyal to Iran remain skeptical of the US withdrawal, pointing to ongoing US threats and Washington’s refusal to support the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) law in the House of Representatives.

The report noted that among the developments raised by the US withdrawal are the renewed military conflict between Iran, Israel, and the United States, the need to secure the Kurdistan Region against militia attacks, and the threat of a resurgence of ISIS. It noted that while US forces are reducing their presence at Ain al-Assad, they are redeploying to the Harir Air Base in the Kurdistan Region and the al-Tanf military base in Syria.

Despite the ongoing redeployment and replacement of forces on the ground, the Trump administration has not issued any clear public statement regarding the withdrawal agreement and security partnership with Iraq. This ambiguity coincides with Washington’s increasingly harsh rhetoric against armed militias, which are seen as potential beneficiaries of the US withdrawal.

The report also mentioned the announced withdrawal and redeployment dates, which were confirmed by the US Department of Defense on September 27, 2024. It stated that the Trump administration has not commented on the agreement concluded under Biden, but noted that Iraqi officials have confirmed that the withdrawal process is currently underway at Ain al-Asad base, where the Iraqi army is assuming control of large parts of the base, which covers approximately 3 square kilometers, and is taking over US equipment and operational responsibilities as the final handover date approaches.

There remains uncertainty regarding the actual movements of American soldiers, particularly in light of reports from US military sources indicating that the former forces at the base, which were tasked with training the Iraqi army, will be replaced by elite combat units, according to the report.

He added that the agreement was initially welcomed in Iraq as a political achievement that would please Tehran and its allied militias. However, recent developments, including the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria, renewed fears of ISIS, and escalating tensions between Israel and Iran, have prompted a more cautious approach. The continued presence of US forces had played an important role in deterring any Israeli military action on Iraqi soil.

The report continued, saying: “As a result, some forces within the Coordination Framework have begun calling for an extension of the US presence, either out of fear that the Syrian conflict will spread to Sunni areas in Iraq, or out of a desire for a strategic arrangement that allows them to adapt to a new local and regional landscape, one that is witnessing a decline in Iranian influence.” It noted that “there is a lack of effective communication between the US administration and the Iraqi government regarding the review of the withdrawal agreement and security arrangements in light of the growing regional unrest.”

He added that despite repeated requests from Baghdad since the beginning of the year, no date has been set for Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani to visit Washington to discuss these issues. He pointed out that Kata’ib Hezbollah recently issued threats against the Iraqi government and US forces, amid warnings of the repercussions of not adhering to the announced withdrawal timetable. He added that despite the US administration’s preoccupation with other priorities, it is possible to review and clarify this issue, especially regarding the remaining ambiguity from the previous period.

According to the report, among the unresolved issues is the use of the phrase “end of the mission of the international coalition to fight ISIS” in official US statements to describe the work of military committees and task implementation schedules. Al-Sudani also used this phrase, but it remains unclear whether he specifically refers to the withdrawal of US forces, or to the end of the multinational international coalition’s mission against ISIS more generally.

According to the report, after Al-Sudani’s visit to Washington in April 2024 and the Joint Military Commission meetings, details of the transition to a “permanent security partnership” were not revealed, despite the announcement of the end dates for coalition forces’ missions. It stressed that “since Trump took office, there have been no public discussions about the nature of this partnership, including the composition and roles of the US forces expected to remain in Iraq. The tasks of current US soldiers, who were previously tasked with training and supporting local army and police units, have not been clarified.”

In November 2024, Kurdish leader Masoud Barzani stated that the Kurdistan Region strongly opposed the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. This position was reinforced by the Israeli-Iranian conflict between June 13 and 24, which led to drone attacks on the region by suspected pro-Iranian groups.

However, the report also noted that the Kurdistan Regional Government has not yet issued an official position on the planned withdrawal of US forces from Harir base in September 2026, adding that it is unclear whether this delay is merely an administrative measure or whether there is a separate agreement allowing the KRG to request a continued US presence at Harir base, separate from Baghdad’s agreement with Washington.

Another point that needs clarification, according to the report, is that the majority of the 2,500 troops stationed in Iraq are stationed at Ain al-Asad and Harir. Additional forces are also stationed at Camp Victoria near Baghdad Airport to ensure safe transportation to and from the US Embassy and other Western diplomatic missions. Additionally, US forces within the Joint Operations Command in the Green Zone are responsible for protecting the US Embassy using air defense platforms. The report noted that the agreement did not specify the future status of these forces.

Militias and Iran

He explained that “the concerns of Iraqi militias linked to Iran are growing over recent US military movements, particularly indications of a reduction in the US military presence at bases.” He added that these concerns relate not only to strategic repositioning, but also to the possibility of US-Israeli operations targeting militia leaders and diminishing their influence.

The report indicated that the militias’ greatest concerns relate to the possibility of a coup against them by other Shiite factions under US pressure or with the support of prominent figures such as the highest Shiite authority, Ali al-Sistani, and the Sadrist leader, Muqtada al-Sadr. It also noted the unprecedented move by the US administration to prevent the passage of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) law in the Iraqi parliament.

The report also addressed what it called growing popular discontent with the militias and the Popular Mobilization Forces, and al-Sudani’s assertions that he rejects the use of weapons outside the state’s framework. It emphasized that “this evolving scene reveals a widening rift within the Coordination Framework and its associated militias ahead of the crucial parliamentary elections, the results of which are expected to determine the extent of each party’s influence in the next government.”

The report noted that the ongoing US political, security, and economic pressure on the Coordination Framework forces, armed factions, and their associated economic networks—including sanctions and the potential for military intervention—has deepened internal divisions. It added that these tensions are being exacerbated by Iranian pressure to push Iraq toward a potential conflict with Israel and the United States. Therefore, it is not unlikely that the political and militia rift will widen in the coming period.

Withdrawal scenarios

The report stated that the first scenario is a complete withdrawal according to the announced schedules, noting that the transfer of sites and equipment from Ain al-Asad base to Iraqi control enhances the credibility of this scenario.

He stated that Washington had previously carried out similar operations, including evacuating diplomats, senior military leaders, and equipment from this base to the Harir base in Erbil and the al-Tanf military base during the recent confrontation between Iran and Israel. He believed that such a complete withdrawal would allow Washington to engage with armed groups in Iraq without the burden of protecting its forces.

However, the report considered this scenario unlikely due to its timing, which is inconsistent with the possibility of a military conflict involving Israel, the United States, and Iran. It noted that “if Iran uses Iraqi territory to engage in a confrontation with Israel, it could face diplomatic and economic isolation, pushing it further toward the Iranian axis.”

He pointed out that “ensuring the security of the Kurdistan Region against militia attacks and preventing the resurgence of ISIS activity in Sunni areas, especially amid the ongoing unrest in Syria, will pose significant challenges.”

The second scenario, according to the Emirates Institute’s report, concerns reducing forces and restructuring missions. The report explained that, given the previous challenges, this scenario appears more likely.

He continued, saying that under the current circumstances, Washington and Baghdad would postpone the task of defining a “permanent security partnership” and would instead choose to conduct broad and in-depth consultations. He added, “Under this scenario, the al-Tanf base in Syria, located about 150 kilometers from the Ain al-Asad base, would become the main base for US forces, and elite units would remain in small camps inside Ain al-Asad, as well as at Camp Victoria near the US embassy.”

The report added, “There are indications that Harir Airport in Erbil, which is currently not seeing military activity, will see the arrival of additional air defense equipment and helicopters, perhaps as part of a plan to reduce the number of US troops there in 2026.”

According to the report, this scenario is supported by the current US administration’s tendency to reduce the presence of US forces abroad, including reducing military bases globally, while increasing reliance on advanced military technology and highly trained combat personnel.

He concluded by saying that the recent increase in armed militia activity in Iraq is linked to three main factors: growing speculation about a potential military conflict between Israel and the United States on the one hand, and Iran on the other; the Iraqi elections, which will determine the shape of the next government and gauge the extent of Iranian influence; and the third factor: the implementation of the first phase of the agreement to end the international coalition’s mission against ISIS, including the withdrawal of coalition forces from the Ain al-Asad base in Anbar this month, and broader questions about the future of the US military presence in Iraq.

The report concluded by noting that Iran is closely monitoring the US withdrawal, focusing on managing the activities of various Shiite forces to maintain their unity and prevent their disintegration. It anticipates the possibility of a resumption of conflict with Israel and the United States, with its regional allies ready to support it on the ground.

shafaq.com