In 2016, Donald Trump promised American military disengagement abroad. "I campaigned with the promise to bring our soldiers home as quickly as possible," he recalled in October, when he announced the US withdrawal from Syrian territory.
However, on January 2, the Pentagon promised to send 3,000 additional soldiers to the Middle East. And the next day, the American president ordered the drone attack on Iraqi territory which killed Iranian general Qassem Soleimani. Five days later, Iran fired more than a dozen ballistic missiles at American targets in Iraq.
Supporters of Donald Trump support the idea that General Soleimani, as the architect of Iranian military strategy and secret services for 20 years, was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American soldiers in Iraq and the Gulf.
But the assassination of Qassem Soleimani came at a time that is not trivial in the American calendar, notes Annick Cizel, professor at Sorbonne Nouvelle University, researcher specializing in American foreign policy: "Donald Trump is campaigning for the next presidential election. His decision to strike in Iraq is to be assessed from the point of view of electoral gains, and not of consistency as commander-in-chief of the American forces. "
When the war in Iraq officially ended in 2011, the withdrawal of American troops had been announced by President Barack Obama, but a few thousand soldiers were to remain there, notably for a training mission on behalf of NATO.
The final withdrawal of American soldiers from Iraqi territory would have been a notable achievement for the Trump administration, said Annick Cizel: "He would have surpassed Obama in this area of intervention." But, pointed out the academic, the Pentagon is not concerned with electoral considerations. "The Pentagon is doing its job, which is to defend American interests and the life of the military. This divergence of interests explains for many the contradictions that we hear between the different actors in Washington today", judge Annick Cizel.
Threats of sanctions
Last Sunday, Parliament in Baghdad reacted to the American missile fire on Iraqi soil by voting in favor of the expulsion of American troops. Donald Trump then threatened Baghdad: if the Americans were forced to leave the country, Washington would send the Iraqi government the "extraordinarily expensive" note to pay for having an air military base in their country. "They will have heavier sanctions than ever. In comparison, the sanctions against Iran will look pale," said the American president.
The possibility of an American withdrawal had however been confirmed on Monday by a letter sent by the head of American troops in Iraq, General William Seely. This missive was then quickly overturned by the Minister of Defense, Mark Esper, as well as by Donald Trump himself, forced to remind several times that a withdrawal of troops from Iraq was not on the agenda. .
"At some point, we will leave, but this is not the right time," said Donald Trump on Thursday. "If we withdraw our troops, it will leave the field for Iran to expand its grip on Iraq, which the Iraqis do not want. I can tell you," he told reporters, thus turning his back on one of his campaign promises, and even when he is stuck in a dismissal procedure.
Iran, a major player in Iraq
Departing from Iraq in 2011, American soldiers returned there three years later, invited by the government to fight the advance of the Islamic State organization in the region. This new situation then prompted the United States to revisit its relations with Iran. "This rebalancing with Tehran, initiated in order to counter the plans of the Islamic State, opened a period of truce with the Iranian enemy. A period of neutrality in a long history of enmity," analyzes Annick Cizel.
The international anti-Jihadist coalition led by the United States, in which 79 countries and institutions such as the Arab League, NATO and the European Union collaborate, had to count on Iran's support. "Iran being a bulwark against the organization Islamic State, it shared a common enemy with Washington. The urgency created this opportunity of a truce, it is all the irony of the situation. When Barack Obama negotiated the nuclear agreement with Tehran, Iran was once again in a position of strength in the region, "said the academic. "It is the paradoxical consequence of a war which was transnational."
Missed Opportunities
In October 2019, Iraqis took to the streets to protest Iran's increased control over their country. Discontent has spread to the south, yet the majority Shiite, including Kerbala and Najaf, where the Iranian consulates were targeted by the demonstrators.
These events presented a real opportunity for the Americans to "finally reconnect with popular reality" in Iraq, writes Jean-Pierre Filiu on his blog. "But Trump quickly appears incapable of considering Iraq other than as a field of maneuver against Iran," continues the historian, specialist in the Middle East.
But escalating tensions in Iraq, since President Trump's decision to target pro-Iranian militias, followed by the attack on Iraqi protesters against the American embassy in Baghdad on December 31, followed by the death of General Soleimani during of an American air attack, tipped Iraqi opinion in favor of Iran. On January 4, the resigned Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdel Mahdi himself took part in the homage paid to Baghdad to General Soleimani, in the midst of a crowd carrying pro-Iranian flags and chanting anti-American slogans.
Fragility of the Iraqi state
Since 2003, the Americans have gradually sought to restore security and political power to the Iraqis, through logistical and financial support. This is also the policy adopted in Afghanistan, as elsewhere, and this remains the creed of the Trump administration. But now that Iran's influence over its Iraqi neighbor is increasing, the situation is turning against Washington. "The Americans have given weight to the Shiite militias in Iraq, who in turn are pushing the Americans to" departure ", summarizes Annick Cizel.
The fragility of the Iraqi state, after 17 years of American presence, remains a problem. Iraq remains a land of influence, torn between Iran, the United States and the Islamic State organization - which has not given up carrying out attacks in the country.
If Washington or NATO decide to leave Iraq definitively, this would have the consequence of "leaving Baghdad in the hands of Iranian militias or in a failing state," said the professor. "The Pentagon is well aware that this will be extremely destabilizing for the entire region, and would affect American military positions in the vicinity."
Donald Trump would therefore have abandoned a campaign promise, which had become untenable, and preferred to launch a military action with several political merits: to make a diversion from the dismissal procedure and to revive the patriotic fervor in the middle of the electoral campaign.
Newsletter Don't miss anything from international news
Don't miss anything from international newssubscribe
google-play-badge_FR