U.S. reverses Iraq withdrawal plan, keeps troops at Al-Asad Air Base amid rising regional threats – NaturalNews.com

• The Pentagon reverses plans to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq’s Al-Asad Air Base, keeping 250-350 personnel.
• Troops will assist in counter-ISIS operations and coordination with forces in Syria.
• The decision follows the collapse of Syria’s Assad regime and fears of ISIS exploiting regional instability.
• The move contradicts last year’s U.S.-Iraq agreement to reduce troop levels below 2,000.
• Iraq seeks neutrality amid tensions between Washington and Tehran-backed militias.

In a sudden policy shift, the Pentagon has halted its planned withdrawal from Iraq’s Al-Asad Air Base, opting instead to maintain a contingent of 250-350 U.S. troops. The decision, confirmed by Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani on Monday, comes amid escalating regional instability following the fall of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad regime and renewed fears of an ISIS resurgence. Originally slated for full withdrawal by September 2025 under a bilateral security agreement, Al-Asad will now serve as a hub for U.S. surveillance and coordination with forces at Syria’s Al-Tanf base.

The reversal underscores Washington’s lingering concerns over jihadist threats despite official claims that ISIS no longer poses a major danger inside Iraq. The Al-Asad base, located 100 miles west of Baghdad, has been a focal point of U.S. military operations since the 2003 invasion and was targeted in 2020 by Iranian-backed militias in retaliation for the killing of Qasem Soleimani.

Why the sudden change?

The decision reflects a broader recalibration of U.S. strategy in the Middle East. Last year’s drawdown agreement, which aimed to reduce troop numbers from 2,500 to below 2,000, was framed as a step toward ending America’s “forever war” footprint. However, the abrupt collapse of Syria’s government in late 2024—triggering fears of ISIS exploiting abandoned weapons and ungoverned spaces—forced a reassessment.

Al-Sudani framed the troop retention as a temporary measure, emphasizing Iraq’s desire to avoid entanglement in U.S.-Iran tensions. Yet the presence of U.S. forces remains contentious, particularly among Iran-aligned factions like the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), which have sporadically attacked American bases.

Iraq’s delicate balancing act

Caught between Washington and Tehran, Iraq’s government has sought neutrality—a stance al-Sudani reiterated by urging renewed U.S.-Iran diplomacy. “We put Iraq first,” he stated, rejecting proxy warfare while acknowledging Iran’s regional influence. Meanwhile, Baghdad faces domestic pressure to rein in armed groups, with proposed legislation to formalize PMF integration into Iraq’s military sparking U.S. objections.

The prime minister’s comments coincide with Iraq’s upcoming parliamentary elections, where factions once aligned with militias now seek political legitimacy. “Armed factions that have transformed into political entities have the constitutional right to participate,” al-Sudani noted, signaling a potential shift toward demilitarization.

Broader implications for U.S. strategy

The Al-Asad reversal highlights Washington’s struggle to disentangle from Iraq while maintaining counterterrorism operations. Though framed as a limited advisory role, the extended troop presence risks provoking fresh militia attacks—especially if perceived as a long-term occupation.

Moreover, the move raises questions about the durability of last year’s withdrawal pact. While al-Sudani assured that other bases are seeing gradual reductions, skeptics argue that U.S. forces may remain indefinitely under evolving security pretexts—mirroring past “mission creep” in Afghanistan.

A fragile status quo

The U.S. military’s extended stay at Al-Asad underscores the enduring complexities of Middle East engagement. Despite pledges to wind down operations, regional instability and jihadist threats continue to dictate policy. For Iraq, balancing sovereignty with security dependencies remains precarious—a reality that may only deepen as Washington and Tehran vie for influence.

As tensions simmer, the critical question lingers: Will this tactical pause in withdrawal evolve into another prolonged deployment? For now, the answer lies in the hands of policymakers—and the volatile landscape they seek to navigate.

In the shadow of shifting alliances and unrelenting threats, America’s Iraq mission endures—despite promises of an exit.

Sources for this article include:

News.Antiwar.com

Military.com

Yahoo.com