Iraq’s security gamble after international coalition withdrawal

Iraq is entering a new security phase following the end of the military mission of the United States (U.S.)-led international coalition on 30 September 2026, described as “Sovereignty Day,” marking a major transition in the country’s post-2003 security landscape. While Baghdad presents the withdrawal as a milestone of sovereignty and argues that Iraqi forces are now capable of assuming full responsibility for national security, the departure comes at a sensitive moment.

Three interconnected challenges will shape the post-coalition period: the continued threat posed by Islamic State (ISIS) cells, Iraq’s limited air-defense capabilities against missiles and drones, and the unresolved issue of weapons held by armed groups outside the direct control of state institutions. The end of the coalition raises questions about whether Iraqi institutions can independently maintain the intelligence, surveillance, and defensive capabilities that international forces helped provide over the past decade.

A strategic long overdue withdrawal, not a sudden departure

According to Iraqi political analyst and head of the Australian Arab Center for Strategic Studies, Ahmed Al-Yasiry, the coalition withdrawal should be understood within a broader transformation in U.S. military strategy rather than solely as an Iraqi decision.

Speaking to The Beiruter, Al-Yasiry explained that successive U.S. administrations have sought to reduce direct military deployments in the Middle East while shifting toward reliance on technological capabilities, including air power, naval power, and missile systems.

Noting that Washington’s strategic priorities have increasingly focused on other regions, particularly competition with China in the Indo-Pacific, he said that

the United States is changing the way it deploys its power globally.

For Iraq, however, the withdrawal carries a particular sensitivity because of the country’s experience following the 2011 U.S. military withdrawal. Iraqi officials and observers fear that a similar security vacuum could emerge, recalling how the departure of American forces was followed by a deterioration in security conditions and eventually contributed to the rise of ISIS, which dramatically changed Iraq’s internal political and security landscape in 2014.

At the same time, the continued presence of U.S. forces had increasingly become a political and security burden for Baghdad. Armed factions repeatedly targeted American bases, raising concerns that continued attacks could expose Iraq to international pressure or possible sanctions. As a result, the Iraqi government sought to manage the withdrawal as a political compromise: reducing the burden associated with the U.S. military presence while using the process as leverage to encourage armed factions to reorganize and move toward greater integration within official state structures, including the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF).

According to Al-Yasiry, Baghdad sought to transform the withdrawal into a political opportunity by reducing external pressure while simultaneously attempting to reorganize the relationship between armed factions and state institutions.

The ISIS threat: Reduced but not eliminated

One of the central concerns following the coalition’s departure is whether Iraq can prevent ISIS from exploiting any security gaps.

Although the organization has lost its territorial control and military structure that allowed it to declare a so-called “caliphate” in 2014, its remaining cells continue to operate in remote areas, particularly in western and northern Iraq.

Al-Yasiry argued that the security environment today differs significantly from the period preceding ISIS’s rise. He pointed to changes in Iraq’s political and social conditions, particularly in Sunni-majority areas where ISIS previously benefited from feelings of marginalization. Sunni communities now have greater political representation and have fewer incentives to support a group that threatens their gains.

The environment that allowed ISIS to expand has changed.

He also highlighted the importance of Iraq’s intelligence capabilities, particularly the Counter-Terrorism Service and the National Security Service, which were developed specifically to confront decentralized extremist organizations. “These institutions were built around combating groups such as al-Qaeda and ISIS,” Al-Yasiry explained, arguing that Iraqi forces now possess greater experience and operational capacity.

However, he warned that the main challenge is not necessarily military capability but political stability. “The security decision is always affected by the political decision,” he said, stressing that internal political disputes could undermine security achievements.

Al-Yasiry estimated that several thousand ISIS fighters remain dispersed across Iraq, maintaining a low-level insurgency rather than posing the same conventional military threat witnessed a decade ago.

Kurdistan’s security concerns after the withdrawal

The impact of the coalition’s departure is particularly sensitive in the Kurdistan Region, which has maintained close security cooperation with international forces and relied partly on coalition capabilities to counter missile and drone threats.

During recent regional tensions involving the U.S., Israel, and Iran, Erbil faced numerous attacks involving drones and rockets, increasing concerns about its ability to defend itself without the same level of external support. Kurdistan Regional Government Prime Minister (PM) Masrour Barzani warned that leaving the region without adequate defensive capabilities could expose it to greater risks.

The issue is especially significant because armed groups in Iraq and neighboring countries continue to possess missile and drone capabilities. The withdrawal of coalition assets could create vulnerabilities if Iraq’s national air-defense systems are unable to fully replace them.

However, Al-Yasiry described the consequences for Kurdistan as complex. While the coalition presence provided security assistance, it also made the region a target for attacks by groups opposed to the U.S. presence. He argued that the withdrawal could potentially push Erbil and Baghdad toward closer security coordination, as both sides become more dependent on each other.

While suggesting that the new security environment may encourage greater integration between federal and regional institutions, he asserted that

the Kurds are part of the Iraqi state.

The unresolved challenge of armed groups

The coalition’s departure coincides with another major security debate: the government’s efforts to place all weapons under state authority.

PM Ali Al-Zubaidi’s government has set 30 June 2027 as a target date for completing the process of regulating weapons outside state control. However, the timeline means Iraq will enter the post-coalition period while armed groups continue to maintain significant military capabilities.

The issue has divided Iraqi factions. Some groups (notably Saraya al-Salam led by influential Iraqi Shiite cleric Muqtada al‑Sadr) have expressed openness to integrating their forces into official institutions, while others (most prominently the Iranian-backed Iraqi groups of Kataib Hezbollah and Harakat al-Nujaba) have maintained conditions before surrendering their weapons.

According to Al-Yasiry, the withdrawal could have both positive and negative effects on this issue. On one hand, removing the U.S. military presence eliminates a key justification used by some armed factions to maintain their mobilization and claim a resistance role. On the other hand, he warned that some groups could attempt to expand their influence after the departure of American forces, particularly given Iran’s interest in reducing U.S. military presence near its borders.

The question is whether the withdrawal strengthens the state or strengthens actors outside the state.

The coalition’s departure may become a genuine step toward Iraqi sovereignty if Baghdad succeeds in consolidating state authority. But if political divisions deepen and security institutions remain fragmented, the withdrawal could expose vulnerabilities that international forces had previously helped contain.