Washington Pulls the Rug Out: The Repeated Pattern of U.S

Washington Pulls the Rug Out: The Repeated Pattern of U.S. Abandonment and the End of the Support Model in Erbil

Erbil

Washington has sent yet another clear signal reminiscent of painful chapters in the history of abandoning allies. On September 30, the Trump administration is preparing to halt more than $60 million in direct defense funding, ground training, and operational support for the Iraqi Kurdish Peshmerga, as the current Memorandum of Understanding expires.

For two decades, the United States provided support and arms programs to the Peshmerga forces, which essentially served as an advanced defensive shield against terrorism.

Today, Washington is repeating its historical pattern of abandoning the Kurds once their usefulness has been exhausted, leaving these forces to confront the consequences of a model that for years relied on shifting American promises.

Why is this happening now ⁉️

This is not merely an administrative delay. It is a strategic shift reflecting the pragmatic nature of U.S. policy, which has repeatedly ended with the abandonment of its allies:

The End of the “Necessity” Argument

The Peshmerga played an active role and made major sacrifices in the campaign to defeat ISIS.

But as military operations decline and the U.S. presence is reduced, the Pentagon is once again following its historical approach of distancing itself from partners once its immediate interests disappear, regardless of whether local stability still requires continued support.

Washington’s Frustration with Political and Military Division

For years, U.S. officials have pressured the Kurdistan Regional Government to accelerate the unification of the Peshmerga under the Ministry of Peshmerga Affairs. However, political leadership in the region has remained divided, with Peshmerga forces effectively split between the spheres of influence of Erbil—the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and Unit 80 formations—and Sulaymaniyah—the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) and Unit 70 formations.

Washington has increasingly cited this administrative and military division as grounds for reducing funding, while overlooking the complexities of the region’s domestic political landscape.

The Shift Toward Baghdad-Centered Relations

U.S. policy has increasingly been compelled to align with Baghdad’s demand for unified military decision-making, prompting Washington to redesign its presence around arrangements with the central government.

The Legacy of Disorder: Between Local Responsibility and External Abandonment

Reliance on American promises was not an easy choice; rather, it emerged from a complex reality that contributed to fragmenting the security landscape:

Undermining National Sovereignty

Foreign support gave the region a broad margin of autonomy. But reliance on Washington’s shifting promises made security decision-making increasingly dependent on the calculations of a great power that has frequently failed to honor its strategic commitments over the long term.

Expansion and Field Tensions

After initially focusing on defending its territory and protecting its security against the threat of invasion in 2014 and afterward, the Peshmerga—following major victories and the liberation of territory, in coordination with Iraqi military operations and the efforts of the Iraqi Armed Forces and Popular Mobilization Forces—expanded their deployment into so-called “disputed territories,” including Kirkuk and areas such as Hawija.

Relying on American and international backing, this process ultimately contributed to the crisis surrounding the September 2017 independence referendum, after which the Iraqi state reasserted federal control over those areas and brought that trajectory to an end.

Internal Conflicts

Alignment with external polarization did not help build a professional national military institution. Instead, it fueled partisan and familial competition within the region.

What Does This Mean for Iraqi Sovereignty and Security?

The termination of U.S. support represents a genuine test for the future relationship between the Kurdistan Region and Baghdad:

Pressure Toward Institutional Integration

Since salaries and core funding are formally linked to the federal treasury in Baghdad through the national budget, the suspension of American logistical, weapons, and training support will increase the need for Kurdish leadership in Erbil and Sulaymaniyah to coordinate militarily with Baghdad. This, in turn, creates greater pressure to accelerate the genuine unification and integration of these forces into Iraq’s national defense institutions.

The End of the Illusion of Permanent Alliances

The move is a reminder that relying on foreign patronage comes at a heavy price and often ends in repeated abandonment.

A Potential Security Gap

The Peshmerga’s tactical readiness and intelligence capabilities could be temporarily affected by the absence of direct U.S. support. This would require Baghdad and the Kurdistan Regional Government to close the resulting gap in order to ensure the stability of Iraq’s northern border areas.

Conclusion

What has happened—and what is now unfolding—reinforces a recurring historical principle: the United States has no permanent allies, only temporary interests.

The Peshmerga have paid the price for trusting Washington’s shifting promises. Today, the question is no longer whether the Kurdistan Region can continue with its previous model, but rather:

Will Kurdish leaders in Erbil and Sulaymaniyah absorb the lesson of American abandonment and consolidate their cooperation and trajectory with the Iraqi state and its federal institutions—protecting their people without gambling their future on external powers?