Will America leave Iraq? “The story has the rest” monitors the scenarios of the planned withdrawal policy

In its episode on 12/1/2025, the program “The Story Has the Rest” renarrated this file with a balance that combines an extensive report reviewing the roots of the crisis, and an in-depth discussion with its guests about the implications of the current transformation and its possible results.

The episode’s report begins by tracing the political path that brought Baghdad and Washington to an agreement stipulating the withdrawal of American forces in two stages ending at the end of 2026.

He points out that the positions of successive American administrations and the pledges of Iraqi Prime Minister Muhammad Shiaa al-Sudani reflected a different will in form, but they agreed on the idea of ​​moving from the occupation model to the partnership model, even if the details remain controversial.

The report monitors the size of the current military presence, which is approximately 2,500 soldiers spread among bases whose roles have been reclassified.

But the testimonies documented by the report confirm that this presence is not reduced to numbers, as it is linked to broader files that include air monitoring, intelligence, and maintenance of the weapons systems on which the Iraqi army depends, which made the idea of ​​complete withdrawal more complex than it appears in the official statements.

The report captures the pressure lines left by the attacks on American bases after the 2023 Gaza War, and the re-evaluation within Baghdad of the relationship with Washington.

Analysts have Iraqi political concerns that the presence of the forces may drag the country into additional clashes, while others believe that their departure without mature security arrangements may open the door to a dangerous gap in the regional balance, especially with the clash of Syrian and Iranian factors in the scene.

The report also indicates that the accounts are not just security; Iraq still depends on a financial system that controls the flow of dollars through the US Federal Bank, which makes the Iraqi economy an inseparable part of the military presence equation.

Repositioning

In the analytical part of the episode, Dr. Harith Hassan, a researcher at the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies, believes that what was marketed as a “withdrawal” is in essence a “repositioning,” as American forces will remain mainly concentrated in the Kurdistan region, while reducing their presence in Baghdad and Anbar.

He points out that the current agreement opens the door to a new framework of understanding, not to completely end the security relationship.

Harith explains that Iraq, from a purely military perspective, is unable to fill the gap left by the departures; American aerial monitoring, reconnaissance capabilities, and the technical structure for maintenance and armament have not yet been completed locally.

He adds that the government fears that the withdrawal of forces may take away from it one of the most important cards of containment in the file of armed factions, as it has used this file for years to impose a delicate balance between internal forces.

Harith’s analysis extends to the economic dimension, which he classifies as “the most dangerous factors in the scene,” explaining that Baghdad depends entirely on the flow of dollars from the US reserve, and that any modification in the conversion mechanisms or restrictions on the movement of the currency is capable of causing widespread economic turmoil.

He believes that Washington is fully aware of the sensitivity of this paper, and is dealing with it as part of engineering the relationship with Iraq, and not as a separate financial file.

Syria is present

As for former US Ambassador Douglas Silliman, he gives the discussion another impetus, considering that the American presence in Iraq is closely linked to the Syrian equation.

He points out that American forces in Syria depend logistically on their bases in northern Iraq, and that a complete withdrawal from Iraq will force Washington to review its presence in Syria as well, which is a scenario that carries great security risks for Iraq, especially with the presence of prisons and camps that contain elements of ISIS.

Silliman believes that the withdrawal cannot be separated from the regional balance of power, explaining that Washington realizes that Iraq stands at a sensitive point of contact between Tehran, Ankara, and Riyadh, and that any quick vacuum may be distorted in favor of parties over which the United States does not have direct influence.

He adds that Washington is not looking for a “complete exit” as much as it is looking for a “reduction in engagement” while maintaining effective contact papers.

The episode concludes that Iraq stands in a gray space that does not lean decisively towards any party. Iranian influence is witnessing fluctuations, and the armed factions are betting on a transitional moment that may give them greater influence, while the government is trying to build a balanced path that guarantees the continuation of international support without allowing Iraq to turn into an arena of direct conflict between regional powers.