September 28, 2024
By Nasser Kandil
What appears to be a joint U.S.-Iraqi statement announcing an agreement to end the mission of the U.S.-led coalition forces in Iraq by September 2025 and in Syria by September 2026 is essentially a U.S. statement, as the request for ending the mission came from the Iraqi side, and this was Washington’s response.
Weeks ago, an Iraqi official mentioned that a similar agreement had been reached between American technical officers and their Iraqi counterparts. The U.S., however, declined to formalise the agreement due to upcoming presidential elections and the volatile situation in the region. The current statement reaffirms Washington’s reluctance to formalise an official deal. While the Iraqi side, represented by Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani, is clearly identified, there is no clear American counterpart. The statement is nothing more than a draft, which any future administration could easily deny, as it lacks formal recognition. Official agreements typically go through the appropriate channels, including the Department of Defense and the White House. In this case, what we have is merely a proposal from technical officers, which could be accepted or rejected by the Defense Secretary, let alone the President.
The proposed timelines indicate that the fate of these commitments is entirely dependent on the next administration. In short, no concrete steps toward withdrawal will occur before the presidential elections. The new administration could easily deem the withdrawal hasty and alter the principles or timelines.
The insistence on issuing the statement comes from the U.S. side, as it is tied to certain demands. These include requests for the Iraqi government to pressure resistance forces to halt their operations against U.S. troops, under the pretext that an agreement has been reached. In reality, the agreement is merely a draft, easily ripped and discarded in a trash bin. Many similar drafts exist in various U.S. departments, none of which hold any significance unless they are properly ratified and respected by the relevant governments.
This statement is simply a U.S. attempt to buy time until a new administration takes office in Washington, free from resistance operations against its forces, it is not a genuine expression of U.S. intent to withdraw.
