TEHRAN — The Iraqi government’s announcement of a full U.S. withdrawal from its federal territory is more than a procedural update; it is the culmination of years of public anger, political pressure, and a growing national conviction that the American military presence was never truly about Iraq’s security. For many Iraqis, the U.S. presence was a revolving door of justifications — each one crafted to replace the last whenever it became too discredited to sustain.

From the moment U.S. troops entered Iraq in 2003, the narrative shifted constantly. First, it was weapons of mass destruction, then democratization, then counterinsurgency, then the fight against the ISIL terror group, and finally the vague language of “advising and assisting.”

Each new rationale functioned less as a strategic necessity and more as a political excuse to maintain influence over Iraq’s territory, airspace, and decision-making. The fact that U.S. forces remain in the Kurdistan Region only reinforces the widespread belief that Washington withdraws selectively, not fully, and only when forced to do so.

Anti-U.S. sentiment in Iraq is not a fringe phenomenon. It is rooted in lived experience: years of occupation, civilian casualties, political interference, and the use of Iraqi soil as a battleground for Washington’s confrontations with Iran. The 2020 assassination of top Iranian general Qasem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al Muhandis on Iraqi territory marked a turning point, convincing even many previously neutral Iraqis that the U.S. presence was a liability rather than a stabilizing force. 

The U.S. departure from Al Asad Air Base is framed as a strategic victory — not just militarily, but symbolically. It represents the erosion of Washington’s ability to dictate the terms of Iraq’s security architecture. It signals that Iraq, despite internal divisions and external pressures, is reclaiming the space to define its own future. And it validates years of political and military pressure from groups that argued that sovereignty cannot coexist with foreign troops on Iraqi soil.

Yet the continued U.S. presence in Erbil complicates the picture. Many Iraqis view it as a loophole that allows Washington to maintain a foothold under the cover of partnership with an autonomous region. This fuels ongoing skepticism about American intentions and reinforces the belief that the U.S. continued military presence was never purely about ISIL or stability, but about maintaining strategic leverage in a region Washington considers too important to leave entirely.

Iraq’s leaders now insist that their armed forces are capable of securing the country without foreign troops. Whether this confidence is fully warranted is a separate debate, but the political message is unmistakable: Iraq wants to close the chapter of foreign military dependency. For many Iraqis, the U.S. withdrawal is not simply a logistical development; it is a long-awaited correction to years of interference justified by shifting excuses. It is a reminder that sovereignty, once compromised, is restored only through persistent pressure — political, diplomatic, and at times armed.