Israel’s conflict in Gaza flares once more as the United States finds itself drawn deeper into Middle East tensions. The region has long been a focal point for American policy, even as officials hinted at a pivot toward Asia. Yet renewed interventionism is stirring its own set of challenges. In recent weeks, Washington has been pressured to respond to pro-Iran militias harassing American forces since October 7. The push for a withdrawal or reassessment of troop presence surfaces alongside ongoing debates about regional strategy and security commitments.
U.S. operations have expanded into Yemen, Iraq, and Syria since late January, following a deadly drone strike on a base in Jordan that claimed the lives of three service members. The campaign targets arsenals, command centers, and positions tied to pro-Iran militias, yet casualties include militants, some civilians, and, on occasion, friendly forces who find themselves caught in the crossfire. In Baghdad, an airstrike near the capital reportedly hit militants and, in some cases, civilians. The Pentagon later indicated that one victim had participated in past attacks on U.S. troops, even as Iraqi officials voiced strong disapproval.
Some observers note a pattern of U.S. actions being interpreted as a challenge to Iraqi sovereignty. The Iraqi leadership has argued that Washington should withdraw its roughly 2,500 troops, arguing that the presence complicates national security and sovereignty. Analysts and regional scholars have weighed in, suggesting that Iraq cannot become a broader battlefield for external rivalries. The discussions in Washington and Baghdad reflect a tension between deterrence, alliance commitments, and the risk of entanglement in wider regional rivalries.
An outdated authority
Since rebuilding its presence in Iraq starting in 2014, the United States has acted with a degree of authority granted by Baghdad after the 2003 invasion and subsequent campaigns. American forces were reintroduced to assist Iraqi and Kurdish security forces in countering threats from the Islamic State, which had been driven from most urban centers by 2017 but not eliminated. The ongoing role, however, has raised questions about mission scope and long-term objectives. Some argue that the core function continues to be countering Iran’s expanding influence in the country, which is predominantly Shiite.
Similar dynamics emerged in Syria, where the Islamic State was largely defeated by 2019 while a residual force and allied Kurdish groups remained active in the northeast. Washington maintained a contingent presence while insisting that it operates with the consent of Damascus in practical terms, though the regime regards the occupation as a violation of sovereignty. Analysts describe the American posture as a way to sustain leverage in regional politics and to shape outcomes for neighboring states. Critics warn that continued involvement could entrench cycles of intrusion and retaliation.
Experts point to the strategic complexity of keeping troops in the area without a stable political framework on the ground. Some scholars argue that such deployments are less about defeating insurgent groups and more about securing regional influence and economic interests tied to oil resources. The broader question remains whether this approach helps or hinders regional stability.
Regional fracture
The Kurdish question looms large in the northeast of Syria, where Kurdish militias have received U.S. backing in the fight against ISIS. Nearby, Turkey has intensified its military pressure on those same Kurdish groups, arguing that they pose a strategic threat and demanding greater freedom to act in its own backyard. Ankara has used its leverage to seek a more rapid American withdrawal from the region, arguing that joint ventures with Kurdish forces complicate Ankara’s regional objectives. These moves reveal a wider pattern: most neighbors want American troops to depart, seeing continued presence as a source of instability and a barrier to their own ambitions.
The White House reiterates that its military actions target pro-Iran militias and seek to deter future escalations. Yet observers note that such raids may accelerate a broader pullback from local theaters. Analysts quote regional observers who say that U.S. actions, in effect, hammer a fragile equilibrium and could force allied governments to re-evaluate their own security calculations. Some voices contend that the current campaign may precipitate a reassessment of U.S. commitments in the region.
Media coverage and policy briefs alike highlight a possible shift: the administration weighs a withdrawal from Syria while pursuing deconfliction and dialogue with Iraq to close certain campaigns against ISIS. Spain, among other nations, has contributed troops at various times, illustrating the multinational dimension of the struggle.
As the situation evolves, the question remains how the region will answer. President Biden faces a complex political landscape ahead of the next election, with domestic pressures weighing on foreign policy choices. The fear is that missteps could lead to a broader regional crisis, echoing past interventions that did not unfold as planned. In the months ahead, observers will watch how the administration navigates competing imperatives in a volatile neighborhood.