RSS
Reduction of US Presence in Iraq Likely to Embolden Iranian Axis, ISIS
Military vehicles of US soldiers are seen at Ain al-Asad air base in Anbar province, Iraq, Jan. 13, 2020. Photo: REUTERS/John Davison
JNS.org – The United States and Iraq have been engaged in talks aimed at transitioning the U.S.-led international military coalition in Iraq into a bilateral partnership, a process that has been delayed due to the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict.
These discussions will determine the future of U.S. military presence in Iraq, a country that Iran intends to take over with the help of its Shi’ite-backed militias, and which remains a critical battleground in the fight against Islamic State.
American officials have reiterated that U.S. military personnel are in Iraq at the invitation of the Iraqi government as part of “Operation Inherent Resolve” to advise, assist and enable the Iraqi security forces in their ongoing fight against ISIS. However, signs are growing that the Biden administration—as well as potentially any administration that follows it—would seek to either draw down or entirely remove the American military footprint in the country, with consequences for the entire region.
The United States currently maintains approximately 2,500 troops in Iraq. Additionally, around 900 U.S. personnel are stationed in neighboring Syria, where they continue to play a critical role in counterterrorism operations.
Bradley Bowman, senior director of the Center on Military and Political Power at the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and a former national security advisor to members of the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees, cautioned against repeating the mistakes of the past in both Iraq and Afghanistan, which enabled radical jihadist forces to fill vacuums.
“The primary reason the U.S. military is in Iraq is to prevent a return of the ISIS caliphate,” said Bowman, who was an active-duty U.S. Army officer, Black Hawk pilot and assistant professor at West Point. “Let’s hope this administration does not force us to endure a sequel of the tragic movie we’ve seen before—a premature U.S. military withdrawal that ignores the advice of commanders and neglects conditions on the ground,” he told JNS.
Bowman drew parallels to the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq in 2011 and Afghanistan in 2021, both of which, he argued, led to significant security setbacks. “That misguided decision to withdraw from Iraq in 2011 catalyzed a series of events that resulted in the ISIS caliphate, eventually forcing the U.S. military to return later to Iraq at a higher cost,” he said.
He noted that the Biden administration risks making the same mistake by withdrawing troops without fully considering the consequences. “In both cases, in Iraq and Afghanistan, we saw a predictable and forewarned disaster,” he added.
The prospect of a U.S. military drawdown in or withdrawal from Iraq has also raised concerns about Iran’s influence.
“The Islamic Republic of Iran wants the U.S. military out of the way,” Bowman stated. He explained that the U.S. presence in Iraq acts as a significant impediment to Tehran’s strategic objectives, which include exerting greater control over Baghdad and using supply lines to arm its proxies in next-door Syria, as well as Hezbollah in Lebanon. “Iran would like to make Iraq like Lebanon, where Tehran uses its terror proxy to undermine national sovereignty and control government decisions,” he explained.
“If you think about it from a Sunni Iraqi perspective—if you have a U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq, what is that going to do? That is going to make you fearful that you have an Iranian takeover in Baghdad. Shi’ites aligned with Iran are going to be perceived as ascendant, and that’s going to make some Sunnis more susceptible to ISIS radicalization and recruitment. So, the obvious consequence, the predictable consequence, of a U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq is more effective ISIS radicalization and recruitment of Sunnis,” Bowman warned.
He pointed to a July 16, 2024, release by U.S. Central Command that warned that “ISIS is on pace to more than double the total number of attacks they claimed in 2023.” The U.S. combatant command responsible for the Middle East said, “The increase in attacks indicates ISIS is attempting to reconstitute following several years of decreased capability.”
“To make matters worse, if there is a credible perception that the prospective U.S. military withdrawal is in response to the more than 170 attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq, Syria, and Jordan since mid-October, then the take-home lesson for Iran and its terror proxies is that aggression against Americans pays,” added Bowman. “That will invite more attacks on Americans.”
Professor Eytan Gilboa, an expert on U.S.-Israeli relations at Bar-Ilan University and a senior fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security, echoed similar concerns regarding a potential U.S. withdrawal.
“The Iranians and their media outlets are pushing for a complete U.S. withdrawal,” he said. He also warned that a reduction in U.S. forces could lead to increased ISIS activity and further destabilize the region.
“It’s clear that if the United States pulls out, ISIS attacks will intensify,” he said, noting that U.S. forces are being targeted by radical Shi’ite Iranian-backed militias while they remain in Iraq to combat Sunni ISIS.
On Aug. 13, Pentagon spokesman Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder said that eight U.S. service members had been treated for traumatic brain injury and smoke inhalation following an Aug. 9 drone attack on the Rumalyn Landing Zone base in Syria, adding that an Iran-backed militia had launched the attack.
Gilboa also highlighted the strategic significance of the U.S. presence in Iraq, particularly in relation to Israel and other U.S. allies in the region. “Any move that strengthens Iran and its proxies harms Israel’s national security,” he stated.
Gilboa warned that if the U.S. withdraws, Iraq could become a failed state similar to Lebanon and Yemen, where Iranian-backed militias exert significant influence. “The American presence is a buffer that helps prevent the full takeover of Iraq by Iranian forces,” he explained.
Gilboa questioned whether planners in Washington were thinking about the long-term consequences of such an action.
He assessed that Washington could be keen to pull out of Iraq no matter who wins the next presidential elections in November, adding, “If Kamala Harris wins, she will not continue the Biden policies. Trump, for his part, has said that he will continue his actions from his first term, but that’s also unlikely. People change, and both could be susceptible to isolationist influences.”
As the future of the American footprint in Iraq appears uncertain, the stakes are high.
The potential for a U.S. withdrawal raises concerns that go beyond the resurgence of ISIS, and which touch on increased Iranian influence and effects on U.S. allies—including Jordan, which Iran has attempted to infiltrate, destabilize and use as an arms conduit via Iraq to the east.
The post Reduction of US Presence in Iraq Likely to Embolden Iranian Axis, ISIS first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Merz Says Criticism of Israel in Germany Has Become Pretext for Hatred of Jews
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz attends celebrations of the newly completed renovation of Reichenbach Strasse synagogue in Munich, Germany, Sept. 15, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Angelika Warmuth
Chancellor Friedrich Merz said on Wednesday that criticism of Israel was increasingly being used in Germany as a pretext for stoking hatred against Jews.
Speaking at an event to mark the 75th anniversary of the founding of the Central Council of Jews, Merz said that antisemitism had “become louder, more open, more brazen, more violent almost every day” since the Hamas-led attacks on Oct. 7, 2023, that ignited the Gaza war.
“‘Criticism of Israel‘ and the crudest perpetrator-victim reversal is increasingly a pretext under which the poison of antisemitism is spread,” he said.
Germany is Israel‘s second biggest weapons supplier after the US, and has long been one of its staunchest supporters, in part because of historical guilt for the Nazi Holocaust – a policy known as the “Staatsraison.”
Last month, however, Germany suspended exports of weaponry that could be used in the Gaza Strip because of Israel‘s plan to expand its operations there – the first time united Germany had acknowledged denying military support to its long-time ally.
The decision followed mounting pressure from the public and his junior coalition partner over the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
In his speech in Berlin on Wednesday, Merz mentioned his about-turn, saying that criticism of the Israeli government “must be possible,” but added: “Our country suffers damage to its own soul when this criticism becomes a pretext for hatred of Jews, or if it even leads to the demand that Germany should turn its back on Israel.”
RSS
Israeli Anti-Missile Laser System ‘Iron Beam’ Ready for Military Use This Year
Iron Beam laser defense system. Photo: X/Twitter screenshot
A low-cost, high-power laser-based system aimed at destroying incoming missiles has successfully completed testing and will be ready for operational use by the military later this year, Israel’s Defense Ministry said on Wednesday.
Co-developed by Elbit Systems and Rafael Advance Defense Systems, “Iron Beam” will complement Israel’s Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and Arrow anti–missile systems, which have been used to intercept thousands of rockets fired by Hamas terrorists in Gaza, by Hezbollah from Lebanon, and by the Houthis in Yemen.
Current rocket interceptors cost at least $50,000 each while the cost is negligible for lasers, which focus primarily on smaller missiles and drones. “Now that the Iron Beam’s performance has been proven, we anticipate a significant leap in air defense capabilities through the deployment of these long-range laser weapon systems,” the ministry said.
After years in development, the ministry said it tested Iron Beam for several weeks in southern Israel and proved its effectiveness in a “complete operational configuration by intercepting rockets, mortars, aircraft, and UAVs across a comprehensive range of operational scenarios.”
The first systems are set to be integrated into the military‘s air defenses by year-end, it said.
Shorter-range and less powerful laser systems are already in use.
Iron Beam is a ground-based, high-power laser air defense system designed to counter aerial threats, including rockets, mortars, and UAVs.
“This is the first time in the world that a high-power laser interception system has reached full operational maturity,” said defense ministry Director-General Amir Baram.
Rafael Chairman Yuval Steinitz said that Iron Beam, which is built with the company’s adaptive optics technology, “will undoubtedly be a game-changing system with unprecedented impact on modern warfare.”
For its part, Elbit was working on the development of high-power lasers for other military applications, “first and foremost an airborne laser that holds the potential for a strategic change in air defense capabilities,” CEO Bezhalel Machlis said.
RSS
Iran and European Ministers Make Little Progress as Renewed UN Sanctions Loom, Diplomats Say
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi speaks during a meeting with foreign ambassadors in Tehran, Iran, July 12, 2025. Photo: Hamid Forootan/Iranian Foreign Ministry/WANA (West Asia News Agency)/Handout via REUTERS
Iranian and European ministers made little progress in talks on Wednesday aimed at preventing international sanctions on Tehran over its nuclear program being reimposed at the end of this month, two European diplomats and one Iranian diplomat said.
Britain, France, and Germany, the so-called E3, launched a 30-day process at the end of August to reimpose UN sanctions. They set conditions for Tehran to meet during September to convince them to delay the “snapback mechanism.”
The offer by the E3 to put off the snapback for up to six months to enable serious negotiations is conditional on Iran restoring access for UN nuclear inspectors – who would also seek to account for Iran‘s large stock of enriched uranium – and engaging in talks with the US.
The status of Iran‘s enriched uranium stocks has been unknown since Israel and the US bombed Iranian nuclear sites in June.
TALKS WITH EUROPEANS FOLLOWED ACCORD WITH IAEA
Wednesday’s phone call between the E3 foreign ministers, the European Union foreign policy chief, and their Iranian counterpart followed an agreement between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency last week on resuming cooperation, including, in principle, the inspection of nuclear sites.
Several Western diplomats have said, however, that the accord is not detailed enough, sets no timeframe and leaves the door open for Iran to continue stonewalling.
There has also been no indication of a willingness from Iran to resume talks with Washington.
Iran says it is still refining how it will work with the IAEA.
In the call, Iran‘s Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi expressed willingness to reach a “fair and balanced” solution, according to a statement on Iranian state media.
“The Islamic Republic of Iran has entered into dialogue with the International Atomic Energy Agency with a responsible approach … on how Iran will fulfil its safeguards obligations in the new situation … It is now the turn of the opposing parties to use this opportunity to continue the diplomatic path and prevent an avoidable crisis,” Araqchi said.
GERMANY SAYS IRAN HAS NOT MET CONDITIONS
Germany’s foreign ministry said on X that the E3 had “underscored that Iran has yet to take the reasonable and precise actions necessary to reach an extension of Resolution 2231,” adding that sanctions would be reimposed unless there were “concrete actions in the coming days.”
The sanctions would hit Iran‘s financial, banking, hydrocarbons, and defense sectors.
Four European diplomats and an Iranian official said before the call that the most likely scenario would be the E3 going ahead with a reimposition of sanctions.
An Iranian diplomat said Tehran had reiterated that it would retaliate if the decision to restore UN sanctions was made.
“The understanding in Tehran is that the UN sanctions will be reimposed. That is why Tehran refuses to give concessions,” an Iranian official said.
The West says the advancement of Iran‘s nuclear program goes beyond civilian needs, while Tehran says it wants nuclear energy only for peaceful purposes.