Ain al-Asad evacuation signals ...
Page 1
Therefore, one of the key considerations for the US is that any aggression against Iran, or any operation involving the country, could trigger a response targeting this base. Consequently, the US has attempted to mitigate potential casualties and, as it’s said, pull out the base.
However, reports also suggest that alternative facilities have been deployed to the base, featuring a reduced human presence. Regardless, the US will likely adopt similar precautionary measures for its various bases. It’s evident that US forces in the region will move out more quickly from countries where local opposition to their presence is strong. This could be perceived as a signal that the US is concerned about Iranian retaliation should any action be taken by the US.
However, domestic conditions in Iraq also appear to be a major factor in the base’s evacuation, as political forces opposed to the presence can quickly react should the US undertake action against neighboring countries.
In its broader strategy, the US tends to avoid direct involvement in the defense activities of its allied countries in the region, preferring to hand over defense to those countries themselves. Yet, Iraq is an exception to this rule, and this principle has not necessarily driven the decision to evacuate Ain al-Asad.
Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has characterized this move as a sign of strengthened Iraqi independence and has welcomed the action. To what extent does this assessment align with the realities on the ground in Iraq, and what new opportunities and threats does it create for Iran’s national interests?
Iraq has established a strategic cooperation framework with the US, under which US combat forces in Iraq were intended to have a minimal presence, focusing instead on providing training on advanced technologies. Therefore, the withdrawal of these forces can also be seen as a step toward implementing this framework, as parliamentarians have repeatedly called for the departure of foreign forces, primarily US, allied, and occasionally Turkish forces. Parliament has consistently emphasized and continues to emphasize the implementation of this resolution, and the Iraqi government is obligated to respect and enforce parliamentary resolutions. Therefore, if the withdrawal is seen as part of the implementation of the Iraqi parliament’s resolutions, it can certainly be interpreted as a positive sign of Iraq’s desire for independence.
For Iran, if this withdrawal is genuine and fully implemented, it will naturally reduce the threat to the Islamic Republic in this geographic area. However, the situation would be different if these troops were simply relocated to Syria or the Kurdistan Region, as that would be seen as a way of circumventing the Iraqi parliament’s resolutions.
How do you analyze the recent meeting between the Iranian and Iraqi foreign ministers amid current domestic and social tensions in Iran? What messages does this meeting convey to domestic, regional, and international actors?
Most political factions in Iraq are unwilling to see Iraq become a source of conflict or, potentially, a tool for exerting pressure on Iran. Therefore, the foreign minister’s visit can be seen as a valuable opportunity for Baghdad to pronounce its policies and stances regarding this issue, especially as Trump continues to threaten the Islamic Republic of Iran. This visit can be a signal to the US regarding the potential escalation of tensions between Iran and Iraq, which could lead to the expansion of conflict to the entire region and parts of Iraqi territory that host US forces and could be subject to Iran’s retaliatory measures. Furthermore, it will send a message to other countries in the region that if their territories or airspace become a venue for conflict against Iran, they could face repercussions. Therefore, it can be interpreted as a clear and constructive signal that other countries should also distance themselves from the effects of the current crisis.