President Trump is again declaring the need to end “the era of endless wars.”
Speaking at the U.S. Military Academy graduation Saturday, he cited the defeat of the Islamic State as a symbol of the imperative to pull back from military commitments abroad.
But as strategic dialogue with the Iraqi government enters its second week, whether the president believes U.S. troops in Iraq are part of that era or not could determine Iran’s influence and the future of a resurgent ISIS, experts say.
“It is clear that ISIS is regaining strength,” James Phillips, senior research fellow for Middle Eastern affairs at the Heritage Foundation, told the Washington Examiner.
“The White House may be focused more on November elections than on a granular look at what’s going on on the ground inside Iraq,” he added.
Similarly, Iran’s influence in Iraq could grow and further strengthen ISIS.
“Iran sees the U.S. as a greater threat than ISIS,” Phillips said. “Iran wants to see the emergence of a weak and divided Iraq that is dependent on Tehran for its security, even if that means greater threats in terms of ISIS.”
Trump has often said he is committed to containing Iran, but his promise to withdraw from the Middle East may be at odds with that promise.
On Saturday, Trump declared that ISIS was finished, and the United States would no longer participate in “ancient conflicts in faraway lands that many people have never even heard of.”
Whether Trump believes the U.S. is still in Iraq to stem ISIS was not clear when he said the group had been routed.
“The savage ISIS caliphate has been 100% destroyed under the Trump administration,” the president proclaimed, listing terrorist leaders killed.
“The fight against ISIS isn’t finished,” Phillips said. “It doesn’t control territory during the day, but at night, it is growing stronger and denying territory to the government.”
The military case for troops
U.S. Central Command leader Gen. Ken McKenzie made clear that continuing the fight against ISIS and deterring Iran remained vital reasons why U.S. troops were in Iraq.
“In terms of holding ground, the caliphate no longer holds ground, but they still have the capability to carry out attacks,” McKenzie said of ISIS at a Middle East Institute virtual discussion Thursday.
“It is an aspirational goal of Iran to eject the United States from Iraq,” the general overseeing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan said.
A sudden decision by Trump to proclaim victory and pull out of Iraq is not the only factor in negotiations with an Iraqi government beholden to powerful Shia parties sympathetic to Iran.
Those party members voted to expel U.S. troops in January in a nonbinding resolution after the drone strike that killed Iranian Revolutionary Guard Quds Force leader Qassem Soleimani.
Iraq at the time did not have a functioning government.
In May, Iraq’s Parliament elected as prime minister Mustafa al Kadhimi, a former intelligence chief well aware of the threats in his country beyond politics and notions of sovereignty.
“The question is how can the Shiite parties, which dominate the Iraqi government, reduce the U.S. military presence without hurting themselves in regard to an ISIS resurgence,” Phillips said.
“The Iraqi government does not want to commit suicide in the sense of pushing the U.S. out prematurely before it can obtain other support against ISIS,” he said. “If the U.S. pulls out, if Iran regains undisputed control over the Iraqi government, it will continue to generate friction with Iraqi Sunnis that could greatly aid ISIS and its long-term goals of returning to Iraq.”
The U.S. has levers in the negotiation, Phillips said.
Millions of dollars in security assistance and exceptions that allow Iraq to import Iranian natural gas and electricity are two. Perhaps most important is Trump’s commitment not to repeat the perceived mistakes of President Barack Obama.
“President Trump was very critical of President Obama for moving out of Iraq too quickly, and I don’t think he wants to repeat that,” Phillips said.
The case for NATO troops
A likely result of negotiations is a gradual drawdown of U.S. troops, who would be replaced by NATO troops, Phillips said, thereby diminishing the political symbolism of having Americans in Iraq that are targeted by Iranian-supported militias.
A NATO official told the Washington Examiner Monday that its mission in Iraq was different.
“The NATO Mission Iraq is a noncombat mission,” the official said, describing goals to build sustainable and effective security institutions and armed forces capable of fighting terrorism, including ISIS.
In a February meeting, NATO defense ministers agreed to enhance NATO’s role in Iraq.
“The last months have been challenging, but our mission in Iraq is getting back to business, and we are moving ahead in planning for the future, together with our Iraqi partners,” the official said. “We are doing so in light of the situation on the ground.”
But the NATO mission is just a fraction of the U.S. presence, at around 500 advisers, trainers, and support staff.
McKenzie called the current negotiations with the Iraqi government “very important” and said he believed they favored a continued U.S. presence.
“It is my belief that the government of Iraq is going to want to retain U.S. and coalition forces,” he said last week.
A continued U.S. troop presence in Iraq may come down to whether Trump views it as vital to U.S. national security, the bar he described to West Point cadets.
“We are ending the era of endless wars,” the president said. “In its place is a renewed, clear-eyed focus on defending America’s vital interests.”
