As the saying goes, "no blessing comes but no misfortune comes alone", and before the U.S. military had time to respond to the Houthi actions in the Red Sea, all of a sudden Iraq began to move and plan to clear the U.S. military base. The 70-year U.S. presence in the Middle East was in jeopardy, and the Middle East finally began to fight back.
Reuters reported that Iraqi Prime Minister Al-Sudani's office said it would end the operations of the US-led coalition in Iraq. Officially, the move stemmed from a U.S. airstrike that killed a militia leader. The armed group to which the leader belongs asked Iraq to end the presence of U.S. coalition forces in Iraq.
However, in my opinion, things may not be as simple as they seem. At a time when the Middle East is changing, Iraq has chosen to act at this critical juncture, and the timing is clearly deliberate and likely to be guided by high-level strategy. What is the reason for this?
First, Israel's invasion of Gaza has led to a rare unanimous voice from all parties in the Middle East: condemning Israel and the United States, and even multiple Iranian-backed forces that have repeatedly carried out attacks on American bases.
With the withdrawal of the USS Ford and two amphibious landing ships, the Mediterranean Sea fell into an aircraft carrier "vacuum", which led to the decline of US military power in the Middle East to an all-time low. Taking action against the US military base at this critical moment can be said to have taken advantage of the favorable conditions, and the feasibility of implementation is very high.
However, there is still resistance. The U.S. military's overseas bases are part of its global deployment and an important part of U.S. global hegemony. An action against a US military base is tantamount to an action against US hegemony.
The United States has been operating in the Middle East for more than 70 years, since the United States recognized the establishment of Israel in 1984. So far, only in Afghanistan have US troops retreated because of Taliban pressure, and the rest have been withdrawn due to lack of interests or internal contradictions.
It is a question of whether the current Iraq has enough strength to put pressure on the US military and shake the complex power structure of the US in the Middle East.
The extremist group Islamic State has recently become more aggressive, even launching terrorist attacks against Iran, and although the truth remains murky, the group played a major role in the terrorist attack.
The excuse for the US coalition to stay in Iraq is to fight ISIS, so will Iraq be able to defend itself against ISIS without the US coalition? Will the US coalition use this as an excuse to refuse to withdraw? These are all questions.
Iraq is not alone, and Iran and Iraq, despite their bitter conflicts, have taken a common position in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and relations have been improving recently. Even if Iran is not directly involved, it can provide some external support.
Neighboring Syria, similar to Iraq, has a U.S. military presence, but unlike Iraq, the U.S. military presence in Syria is purely illegal and often involves resource theft. Syria is more of a headache for the presence of U.S. military bases, and the two countries' common positions may have some effect for now.
China has an important role to play in this matter, as it has always spoken for Syria and has repeatedly defended Syria at the United Nations, calling for an end to the illegal U.S. presence in Syria. In addition, China-Iran relations are good, and China will not sit idly by at a critical moment.
Whatever the outcome, Iraq, once it acts, has in fact started the process of "de-U.S. base-based" in the Middle East. As we all know, together we can overcome any difficulty. I firmly believe that none of the indigenous forces in the Middle East want to see the US military arrogant and impudent on their territory. This move opened a crisis that made the US military base unsustainable.