By: Mansoor Nizamani
Published By:ANI News Agency
September 30,2026 will be remembered as an important day in Iraq’s political and security history. On that day, the United States completed the withdrawal of its remaining military forces and equipment from Iraq, including from Erbil Air Base, bringing the U.S.-led military mission against ISIS in Iraq to an end. The development has been widely presented in Baghdad as a symbol of Iraqi sovereignty, while responsibility for the country’s security has shifted primarily to Iraqi institutions. The United States has said that ISIS no longer poses the systemic threat it once did, while Iraqi forces are now expected to lead efforts to prevent its resurgence.
However, an important question remains: does the departure of foreign troops represent the completion of Iraq’s sovereignty, or does it open a new phase involving significant political and security challenges?
The current withdrawal is not the result of a decision taken on a single day. Rather, it is the outcome of a process that has unfolded over more than two decades. In 2003, a U.S.-led military operation overthrew the government of Saddam Hussein, after which Iraq experienced years of political instability, sectarian violence and armed conflict. U.S. troops were withdrawn in 2011, but returned in 2014 after ISIS seized large areas of Iraq, including Mosul. The subsequent international campaign helped Iraqi forces recover territory from the militant group. The latest withdrawal therefore marks another major turning point in Iraq’s long and complicated security history.
The end of the U.S. military mission should not be viewed simply as the conclusion of an agreement between Washington and Baghdad. Within Iraq, different political and armed groups have their own interests and positions regarding the future of the country's security structure. Some Iran-aligned armed groups have long opposed the U.S. military presence and have regarded its departure as a political victory. Their continued existence, however, raises a broader question for the Iraqi state: to what extent can all armed groups operating within the country be brought under the authority of state institutions and the constitutional framework?
This remains one of the most difficult challenges facing Baghdad. The Iraqi government has sought to address the issue of armed groups, but disagreements remain over disarmament and the integration of armed factions into the state system. According to recent reporting, Baghdad has extended its deadline for armed groups to surrender their weapons to June 2027 after resistance from some factions.
Another major challenge is the remaining ISIS network. Although ISIS has lost the territorial control it once possessed and is considerably weaker than it was a decade ago, its cells have not disappeared completely. The group continues to retain the ability to exploit security gaps and carry out attacks. Iraqi forces will therefore need effective intelligence, surveillance, counterterrorism capabilities and coordination to prevent ISIS from reorganising.
The end of the U.S. military mission does not mean that all cooperation has ended. Washington has indicated that it will continue providing targeted training and intelligence support to Iraqi partners, while the U.S.-led coalition's broader regional counter-ISIS activities continue from outside Iraq, including operations connected with Syria. This means the relationship is shifting from a large military presence toward a different form of bilateral security cooperation.
The Kurdistan Region is also particularly important. Kurdish Peshmerga forces worked closely with the international coalition during the campaign against ISIS, particularly in northern Iraq. Relations between Baghdad and Erbil have periodically been affected by political, financial and security disagreements. Continued coordination between the federal government and the Kurdistan Regional Government will therefore be important for maintaining security and preventing militant groups from exploiting political divisions.
Iraq's relationship with neighbouring countries will also shape the country's post-withdrawal environment. Iran has deep religious, political, economic and security links with Iraq, while relations between Tehran and Washington remain highly strained. Iraq has previously found itself caught between competing regional and international interests. With the departure of U.S. forces, Baghdad faces the challenge of maintaining an independent foreign and security policy based on its own national interests.
The meaning of sovereignty therefore goes beyond the physical absence of foreign soldiers. A state exercises meaningful sovereignty when its institutions have effective authority over its territory, borders, security forces, laws and national decision-making. If armed groups continue to operate outside effective state control, if political divisions weaken institutions, or if external powers exercise disproportionate influence over domestic affairs, questions about the practical strength of sovereignty will remain.
Iraq has consequently entered a new phase. The withdrawal of U.S. troops represents a significant transition, but it also places greater responsibility on Iraqi institutions. The government will have to demonstrate that it can prevent ISIS from rebuilding its networks, strengthen coordination between Baghdad and Erbil, address the question of armed groups, maintain balanced relations with neighbouring states and further develop the capacity of its national security institutions.
The coming years will show how effectively Iraq manages these responsibilities. The end of a foreign military mission does not automatically resolve the political and security problems that developed during decades of conflict. Rather, it creates an opportunity for Iraqi institutions to demonstrate their capacity to protect the country, maintain national unity and pursue an independent policy.
For the Iraqi people, the hope is that this new phase will bring greater stability, security and dignity. The country's future will ultimately depend on the strength of its institutions, the ability of its political leadership to manage internal differences and the willingness of all major actors to place Iraq's national interests at the centre of their decisions.
