US President Donald Trump has hailed the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq as a “victory for the United States”, “a victory for Iraq”, “a decisive victory over ISIS” and a but for Baghdad, the end of the US military mission marks the beginning of another major security test — bringing the Iran-backed militias under state control.
The US military completed its withdrawal from Iraq on September 30, ending a 12-year mission against the Islamic State group. The final troops left from Erbil in northern Iraq under a 2024 agreement between Washington and Baghdad. The Pentagon said the mission had defeated ISIS as an organised military threat, while the US will continue limited training and intelligence support for Iraqi forces.
Trump described the departure as the end of a “very expensive excursion into Hell”, saying the US had fulfilled its mission of defeating the Islamic State’s territorial caliphate.
Baghdad now faces an unresolved question: Can Iraq establish exclusive state control over weapons while powerful Iran-backed militias remain armed?
The most immediate unresolved question is not simply whether US troops have left, but who controls armed power inside Iraq.
Baghdad has sought to bring non-state armed groups under state authority and initially linked militia disarmament to the September 30 US withdrawal deadline. Some smaller groups agreed to surrender their weapons, but powerful Iran-aligned factions rejected the demand or imposed conditions for disarmament.
The Islamic Resistance in Iraq, an umbrella group of Iran-backed militias, said negotiations with the government had failed to produce an agreement. It declared that it was not bound by any government-announced timeline or agreement, while saying it remained open to dialogue that guarantees Iraq’s sovereignty and dignity.
That leaves Baghdad with a difficult balance: asserting the state’s monopoly over weapons while dealing with armed factions that have their own political influence, military capabilities and ties to Tehran.
Iran-aligned groups have openly portrayed the American departure as a victory.
Abu Mujahid al-Assaf, a security official with Kataib Hezbollah, described the withdrawal as the expulsion of “occupation forces” and the beginning of full Iraqi sovereignty. He also warned the Iraqi government against implementing what he described as American plans.
Reuters reported that Tehran and its allies viewed the US departure as a strategic gain, while analysts warned that the absence of American forces could provide greater room for Iran-backed groups to exercise influence in Iraq.
Does Iran gain from the US exit? The immediate political symbolism clearly benefits Tehran and its Iraqi allies: the US military presence that Iran-backed groups had long opposed is now gone. But the longer-term balance will depend on whether Baghdad can maintain independent control over security policy and armed groups.
The US withdrawal therefore does not automatically mean that Iran controls Iraq. Instead, it removes one major external military presence at a time when Tehran already has extensive political and militia relationships inside the country.
The militia issue predates the US withdrawal.
Prime Minister al-Zaidi had initially pledged to disarm powerful Iran-backed groups by September 30. Reuters reported that the government faced strong resistance from factions that had previously fought US targets and maintained close ties to Tehran.
The disagreement centres on a fundamental question: whether armed groups should operate independently or be placed completely under the authority of the Iraqi state.
Some factions have accepted the principle of regulating weapons, while more powerful groups have rejected an immediate surrender of their arsenals or attached conditions to any disarmament process.
The US departure removes the September 30 deadline’s original parallel with the coalition withdrawal, but it does not resolve the underlying dispute.
Baghdad has now pushed the militia disarmament target to June 2027, according to reporting based on al-Zaidi’s recent comments.
The new deadline matters because it gives the Iraqi government additional time to negotiate with powerful armed factions after failing to secure their disarmament before the US withdrawal.
But June 2027 also becomes an important test of Baghdad’s authority.
If the militias agree to surrender or formally integrate their weapons and command structures into state institutions, Baghdad could demonstrate greater control over Iraq’s security architecture. If powerful factions continue to reject the process, the June 2027 deadline could become another postponed target.
The US withdrawal makes this question more consequential because Iraqi forces now carry primary responsibility for the country’s security.
The Pentagon has said Washington will continue providing targeted training and intelligence support, meaning the end of the combat mission does not represent a complete end to US-Iraq security cooperation.
The challenge for Baghdad is therefore twofold: prevent ISIS from rebuilding while also ensuring that Iran-backed armed groups do not operate beyond state authority.
The US has left Iraq after 12 years of its latest military mission, and Trump has declared the departure a victory. Baghdad has likewise presented the moment as a milestone for Iraqi sovereignty.
But the withdrawal also shifts responsibility squarely onto Iraq’s political and security institutions.
The unresolved militia issue will be central to that new phase. June 2027 is now the next major deadline, and its significance extends beyond the question of whether weapons are handed over. It will test whether Baghdad can establish the authority it says it wants over all armed groups — while maintaining security in a country where Iran-backed factions remain powerful.
