An Abrupt Withdrawal of U.S. Forces from Iraq Would Undermine Our Successful Iran Strategy
By Hayvi Bouzo
The death of Qasem Soleimani was the biggest blow to the Islamic revolution in Iran since it took over in 1979. This was a bold decision to save American lives and protect our national security interests. Yet, this action by the Trump administration could be undermined with a fast-uncalculated withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iran’s only breathing tube, Iraq.
Hours ago, Iran conducted a dozen ballistic missile strikes against military bases in Iraq housing U.S. and international coalition forces. Iran’s main objective is pressuring the U.S. to withdraw its forces from the country. To Iran, getting the U.S. to leave will enable them to maintain their power and influence in Iraq.
Currently, Iran holds a large grip on countries like Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. However, these countries are more of a burden on Iran’s economy than an asset as they are economically collapsed, unstable, and face international sanctions and isolation. Contrast to that, Iraq, holds large oil reserves, and is not isolated politically or diplomatically, hence it still is an active member in the international global economy. Things the Iranian regime desperately needs.
A complete American withdrawal from Iraq would ultimately result in handing all of Iraq’s assets and American trained security forces to Qassim Soleimani’s successor, Esmail Ghaani and his proxy militias. Not long ago, President Obama’s commitment to pull out from Iraq resulted in Iran’s infiltration of the Iraqi governmental system, Iranian proxy militias becoming stronger, and Sunni terrorist groups growing in power. All of these outcomes led our forces back into Iraq to defeat the monster-sized terrorist organization known as ISIS and deal with a new reality; a weak Iraqi government and Iran now being the dominant power broker in the country.
In Syria, President Trump’s instinct to finish “endless wars” was faced with the same reality. A complete withdrawal would undermine our policy of “maximum pressure” against Iran, and risk an ISIS comeback. Shortly thereafter, President Trump decided to keep hundreds of U.S. forces in Syria to protect the oil fields, and maintain an American foothold.
The president’s decision to keep U.S. troops in eastern Syria and protect the oil fields was not received well by the region’s villainous actors including Iran, Bashar Al-Assad, and Hezbollah. These actors all share the same objectives; getting the U.S. out of the region, and taking over the oil fields and other resources to fund their regional wars of influence.
This same scenario is now replaying in Iraq. However, this time Iran is using its ties to members of the Iraqi parliament to push for the removal of America’s troops out of the country. Few days ago, the Iraqi parliament voted on a resolution to expel U.S. forces from the country. But this decision didn’t reflect everyone’s position. Kurdish and Sunni members in the Iraqi parliament
boycotted the session while enough Shiite members, voted to pass the bill. Though the resolution is non-binding it is still considered a vital tool for the Iran backed members in the Iraqi government. As a matter of fact, Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi already started utilizing this bill to negotiate a U.S. exit strategy out of Iraq.
President Trump has declared many times that he wants to ultimately pull U.S. forces out of the Middle East. Still this must not be done at the expense of our national security. Allowing malicious regional powers such as the Islamic Republic in Iran to win the war in Iraq, all over again, may not be our best option.
A practical solution for this dilemma would be to maintain a small presence of U.S. force in the autonomous Kurdistan region and Iraqi Sunni areas. The Iraqi Kurds are an important ally of the U.S. and would welcome a sustained presence of U.S. forces. One mustn’t forget how the Peshmerga fought bravely alongside U.S. forces against ISIS, while heads of the Iraqi security forces infamously ran away from their posts when ISIS attacked the city of Mosul, leaving their check points and soldiers behind.
Maintaining an American military base in Sunni majority areas is also important to avoid an ISIS resurgence. This would assure that no Iranian backed Shiite sectarian cleansing would take place, against the Sunni population. Sunni regions in Iraq have endured years of abuse and sectarian cleansing by Iranian-backed Shiite militias. This explains their fear of what could a U.S. departure mean to them and thus for why they boycotted the Iraqi parliamentary session. Furthermore, ISIS is still a national security threat and leaving the Sunni areas where ISIS might still have sleeper cells would be a dangerous decision.
Everything considered, sustaining a smaller U.S. presence to monitor the situation in Iraq and avoid further destructive gains by Iran and other bad regional actors would preserve our progress in the region, sustain our leverage, and prevent the U.S. from repeating, preventable, past mistakes that turned out to be much more costly to American lives and national security.
