The deadline has passed. The US military announced on September 30 that it had completed the withdrawal of all American troops from Iraq, ending a 12-year mission against the Islamic State group. Most of the work was done earlier. US troops left bases in most of Iraq last year but kept a small presence of hundreds of troops in the Kurdish north. The final pullout from the Erbil air base closed that chapter, and what comes next matters for Iraq, the region and Washington. PBSabc
A deal made before the war with Iran
The timetable is older than the current crisis. The Biden administration negotiated the withdrawal with Iraq in 2024, and the Trump administration kept to the plan, which set September 30 as the final date. The setting has changed since then. The exit comes amid an ongoing war between the United States and Iran, which has sometimes spilled into Iraq, with Iran-backed militias firing on US troops. The US is therefore leaving in the middle of a regional conflict, not after a period of calm. That raises the stakes of every consequence below. abcnewswashingtontimes
1. Iraq’s sovereignty claim gets a symbolic boost
For Baghdad, the political meaning is large. Iraq is marking the exit with four “Sovereignty Days,” a national holiday from September 30 to October 3. Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi described it as the start of a “new phase” defined by sovereignty, institutional strength and “balanced partnerships.” Ending a foreign military presence that many Iraqis resented is a real domestic win for the government. The test is whether it can turn that symbolism into actual control of its security. Al JazeeraPBS
2. The ISIS question
The mission existed to defeat the Islamic State, and the US is now handing that job over. A Pentagon spokesperson said primary responsibility for remaining challenges, including ISIS remnants and Iran-aligned militias, now rests with the Iraqi government. Iraqi forces are far stronger than in 2014, but they have relied on coalition intelligence, air power and surveillance. Two factors raise the risk of an ISIS resurgence: upi
- Syria next door. Trump ordered the complete withdrawal of American forces from Syria in February 2026, and it was completed in April. With both countries now without US troops, the border region where ISIS cells have historically moved is less monitored. Wikipedia
- Reduced intelligence reach. Without a physical presence, the US will find it harder to run the partnered raids and surveillance that kept ISIS leadership under pressure.
Whether the group regroups is uncertain, and Iraq’s own forces may well cope. But a resurgence in the first few years is the main security risk analysts watch.
3. Iran’s influence and the militia problem
This may be the most consequential implication. Iran-allied groups in Iraq have celebrated the US withdrawal. Many of those groups are tied into Iraq’s state structures, and they gain leverage when the main counterweight leaves. abc
Baghdad had tried to manage this. It initially declared that September 30 would also be the deadline for all armed groups in Iraq to surrender their weapons. That deadline appears not to have been fully met. If armed factions keep their weapons while the US departs, the balance of power inside Iraq tilts toward Tehran-aligned actors, and the state’s “unity of decision-making” becomes harder to achieve in practice. Al Jazeera
There is a counterargument. Without US troops as targets, the militias lose their main stated reason for attacking, and Baghdad may be better placed to ask them to stand down. Which effect dominates depends heavily on how the US-Iran war develops.
4. The Kurdistan Region feels exposed
The withdrawal has raised Kurdish defence concerns. The Kurdistan Region has hosted the last American presence and has long viewed it as a security guarantee against both ISIS and pressure from Baghdad and Tehran. Erbil has faced drone and missile attacks from Iran-aligned groups in the past. Its Peshmerga forces are capable but divided and dependent on outside support. The Kurds’ relationship with Baghdad, over oil revenue, budgets and disputed territories, could become more fraught without a US presence to act as informal mediator and deterrent. abc
5. Strategic consequences for Washington
Trump called the withdrawal a victory and described the war as “a very expensive excursion into Hell.” The practical implications are more mixed: PBS
- Fewer US targets. Roughly 2,500 troops in range of militias has been a persistent vulnerability during the Iran conflict. Removing them lowers that exposure.
- Less leverage. Bases in Iraq gave the US intelligence, logistics and a forward position near Iran. Losing them narrows its options and pushes more dependence on Gulf bases and naval power.
- Influence through other means. Washington will rely on diplomacy, sanctions policy, security assistance and its economic ties, including Iraq’s use of the dollar system and its oil revenue accounts.
- A precedent. Observers will compare this to the 2011 exit, which was followed by the rise of ISIS in 2014 and a US return. Critics will warn history could repeat. Supporters will say Iraq is a different country now and that open-ended deployments have not delivered stability either.
6. Regional ripple effects
Other powers will adjust. Turkey, Gulf states and Israel each have interests in Iraq’s stability, its Kurdish region and Iranian activity there. Russia and China may see openings for energy deals and arms sales. Iraq itself has said it wants “balanced partnerships,” which implies hedging between Washington, Tehran and regional neighbours instead of choosing one.
What to watch
- Whether Iraqi forces maintain pressure on ISIS cells without coalition support.
- Whether armed factions are actually disarmed or integrated into the state.
- Any sign of attacks on Kurdish areas, and how Baghdad responds.
- Whether the US keeps a quieter security relationship, such as advisers, training or intelligence-sharing, under new arrangements.
- How the US-Iran war evolves, since it will shape nearly everything else.
Conclusion
The withdrawal ends an era and delivers on a promise made by two American administrations and the Iraqi government. It can be read as Iraq’s coming of age or as a gamble taken at a dangerous time. Its outcome will turn less on the departure itself than on whether Iraq’s institutions can hold the line against ISIS, militias and outside pressure at the same moment. The answer will probably take years to become clear.
Note: this reflects reporting from September 30 to October 1, 2026, and the situation is moving fast. I can put this in a Word document or similar if you’d like, or adjust the length and tone for a specific publication
