By Payraw Anwar
Since the U.S.-led coalition liberated Iraq in 2003 and overthrew Saddam Hussein’s Baathist regime, Washington has remained a decisive actor in shaping the country’s politics. The U.S. was not only instrumental in dismantling dictatorship but also in setting the foundation for Iraq’s semi-democratic system. Elections are now regularly held, civil society has emerged, a constitution was drafted and approved by referendum, and the handover of power—although flawed—has become a recurring practice among competing political forces.
In this sense, relative democracy does exist in Iraq, largely because Washington has continuously pressured both Sunnis and Shiites to uphold democratic values and human rights. Without U.S. intervention, Iraq’s Shiite majority might never have assumed power. Historically marginalized since the state’s founding, the Shiites seized upon the fall of Baathism as a golden opportunity to end decades of exclusion. Yet, despite benefitting from this shift, Shiite leaders are now among the strongest voices calling for the expulsion of U.S. forces, particularly from Baghdad and Anbar, where American military bases remain.
This growing pressure has raised an important question: if Washington leaves central and southern Iraq, why does it maintain its presence in the Kurdistan Region—an autonomous entity but not a sovereign state? The answer lies in a mix of history, geopolitics, and strategy.
First, the Kurdistan Region has been a reliable U.S. partner since 1991, when the United States, alongside its allies, championed the creation of a safe haven through UN Security Council resolutions and enforced the no-fly zone. This period marked the beginning of a unique partnership, one in which the Kurds came to see the United States as a protector and ally, while Washington recognized the Kurdish region as a stabilizing force in an otherwise volatile Iraq.
Second, Erbil offers security and stability at a time when much of Iraq remains volatile. Should Washington decide to withdraw from Baghdad and other provinces, there is little doubt it would retain a presence in Erbil. For U.S. policymakers, security is paramount in the Middle East, and Kurdistan stands out as one of the few areas where safety is relatively guaranteed.
Third, symbolism and strategy converge in the construction of the largest U.S. consulate in the Middle East—set to open in Erbil. This move is more than a diplomatic gesture; it signals Washington’s intent to anchor its long-term presence in the Kurdistan Region. Unlike Baghdad, where Iranian-backed militias wield significant influence and openly oppose American troops, Erbil is regarded as a trustworthy partner, free from the same level of external pressure.
Fourth, the Kurdistan Region’s track record on human rights and minority protection strengthens its value in Washington’s eyes. Over the past two decades, the region has provided refuge for Yazidis, Christians, Turkmen, and others fleeing violence in Baghdad, Mosul, and elsewhere. Legal protections and cultural rights are enshrined for minorities, even as many have emigrated to Europe. The fact remains that Kurdistan has offered sanctuary where the rest of Iraq has often failed—a fact that resonates strongly with U.S. policy, which consistently highlights minority rights as part of its broader human rights agenda.
Taken together, these factors explain why the Kurdistan Region holds a unique place in Washington’s Iraq strategy. While political leaders in Baghdad continue to push for foreign forces, even UNAMI, to leave the country, Erbil represents a different calculation. The U.S. does not view Kurdistan merely as a fallback base but rather as a long-term partner that aligns with American interests in stability, security, and human rights.
Thus, if the United States ever departs Iraq proper, it does not necessarily mean it will depart the Kurdistan Region as well. In fact, the trajectory of U.S.–Kurdistan ties suggests the opposite: that Erbil will remain central to Washington’s Iraq policy long after its footprint in Baghdad and the south diminishes.
The enduring American presence in Kurdistan is not accidental. It reflects both necessity and choice—a necessity born of Iraq’s instability, and a choice grounded in the region’s consistent partnership with the West. For Washington, Erbil is not just a temporary outpost but a strategic anchor in the Middle East.