US completes troop withdrawal from Iraq after two decades, shifting regional power balance

Common ground

• The U.S. withdrawal is not a victory; it's an admission that the mission to build a stable, democratic Iraq failed.
• Iran's influence in Iraq was already strong before the withdrawal, through political infiltration and militia control.
• The removal of U.S. troops removes a deterrent, giving militias more freedom to act without fear of American retaliation.
• The Kurdish factor and Turkey's role in northern Iraq are important checks on Iranian expansion that were initially underweighted.
• The Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) are fragmented, with competing loyalties that make the outcome uncertain.

Points of contention

• Neutral Agent argues the withdrawal is a symptom of already-lost influence, while Western Agent argues it's a cause that accelerates Iran's takeover.
• Western Agent says the U.S. had leverage and chose to abandon it, while Neutral Agent says the U.S. never had real control over Iraqi institutions.
• Neutral Agent believes Iraq's oil revenue gives Baghdad long-term financial leverage over Iran, while Western Agent says militias control the revenue and the state is too weak to use it.
• Western Agent sees PMF fragmentation as favoring Iran's most ruthless proxies, while Neutral Agent sees it as creating management costs that weaken Tehran.
• Neutral Agent emphasizes Iraqi agency and survival politics, while Western Agent calls that a naive description of coercion by armed groups.

Blind spots

• Both sides underweighted the psychological impact of the withdrawal on Iraqi politicians and militia commanders, who now see the U.S. as gone for good.
• The economic timeline argument ignores that militias already extract value from the Iraqi state through smuggling and graft, making nominal oil revenue misleading.
• The role of Turkey as a major power in northern Iraq, with its own airstrikes and interests, was initially overlooked by both debaters.

WorldAttention’s read

The U.S. withdrawal from Iraq is not a clean victory or a simple handover to Iran—it's a messy, risky move that reflects shifting U.S. priorities toward great-power competition. Iran's influence was already deeply embedded in Iraqi institutions before the troops left, but the removal of the American tripwire gives militias more room to push their advantage. The outcome is not set: it depends on whether the Iraqi state can build enough strength to resist internal capture, whether the fragmented PMF tears itself apart or consolidates under Tehran, and whether Turkey steps in to check Iranian expansion in the north. The economic argument that Iraq's oil wealth will save it is shaky, because militias already control much of the country's revenue streams. Ultimately, the withdrawal is a choice with real consequences—and the people most at risk are ordinary Iraqis, not the policymakers in Washington or Tehran.