What are the legal authorities (authorizations, SOFAs, NATO or coalition agreements) governing US presence in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan in 2025?
Executive summary
U.S. forces in 2025 operate under a mix of coalition mandates, bilateral agreements and advisory missions—not a single standing legal instrument: the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS announced its military mission in Iraq will conclude by September 2025 and transition to bilateral security partnerships [1] [2], while the Coalition’s Syria role was scheduled to continue from a platform “determined in the HMC” until September 2026 [1] [3]. NATO complements advisory work through NATO Mission Iraq (NMI) and political partnership frameworks, but NATO does not replace bilateral U.S.–Iraq arrangements [4] [5].
1. How the “coalition” frame governs Iraq and Syria today — a scheduled end, not a legal vacuum
The primary multilateral legal construct for U.S. operations against ISIS in Iraq and Syria has been the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS (Operation Inherent Resolve). Governments of the U.S. and Iraq issued a joint statement saying the coalition’s military mission in Iraq would be concluded by end-September 2025 and transitioned to bilateral security partnerships; the statement also said coalition operations supporting Syria would continue from a platform to be determined through September 2026 [1] [2]. Analysts describe this as ending coalition military leadership and moving to bilateral agreements rather than an outright U.S. departure [3].
2. Bilateral U.S.–Iraq arrangements: transition to “bilateral security partnerships”
Officials and think-tanks report the 2024–25 understanding envisions a phased drawdown of coalition bases and a pivot to bilateral security pacts between individual coalition countries and Baghdad, including the United States [6] [3]. Reporting indicates hundreds of U.S. troops would leave by September 2025 with remaining forces drawn down by end-2026 and elements consolidated in the Kurdistan Region to continue support for Syria-based operations if needed [6] [7] [8]. The State Department joint statement ties the transition to existing frameworks such as the U.S.–Iraq Strategic Framework Agreement [1].
3. Status-of-forces legal tools: SOFAs historically central, but current status unclear in sources
Historically the U.S.–Iraq SOFA (ratified 2008) shaped troop status and rights to be present in Iraq; multiple background sources note SOFAs as the standard vehicle to govern U.S. forces abroad [9] [10]. Available sources document past SOFA instruments and debate about new SOFA talks, but current reporting in the provided set describes a shift toward negotiated bilateral security partnerships and does not reproduce a newly agreed, public SOFA text for 2025 [1] [11]. Therefore: available sources do not mention a specific new U.S.–Iraq SOFA text concluded and published in 2025.
4. NATO’s role: advisory and capacity-building, not combat command
NATO operates a non‑combat advisory mission in Iraq (NMI) that strengthens Iraqi security institutions and runs under partnership arrangements with Baghdad; NATO’s activities are framed as respect for Iraqi sovereignty and capacity-building rather than combat operations [4] [5]. NATO expansion of advisory roles has political logic—reducing U.S. profile—but NATO’s mandate is distinct from the U.S.–led coalition’s combat-authority constructs [12] [13].
5. Afghanistan: legal authorities after 2021 are sparsely covered by these results
The provided sources discuss Afghanistan mainly in historical and allied contexts (NATO’s past ISAF role and continuing strategic concerns) but do not set out a current 2025 legal basis for any ongoing U.S. military presence there. Reporting in the collection focuses on Middle East missions; therefore: available sources do not mention a standing U.S. legal authorization or SOFA for Afghanistan in 2025.
6. How U.S. domestic authorizations figure into the picture — not documented here
Congressional and Pentagon materials in the set reference authorizations for counter‑ISIS partnership programs through late 2024 and note Congress watching changes to U.S. footprint, but none of the provided pieces lay out a single U.S. legal authorization (AUMF revisions, Title 10/Title 22 distinctions, etc.) governing 2025 deployments [14] [15]. Thus: available sources do not enumerate the specific U.S. domestic legal authorities authorizing operations in 2025.
7. Competing perspectives and political drivers
Sources present competing views: U.S. and coalition officials pitch a transition to bilateral partnerships to preserve counter‑ISIS capacity [1] [3]; critics and some Iraqi factions press for full withdrawal to affirm sovereignty and reduce militia targeting of foreign forces [2] [16]. Think-tanks warn that moving to bilateral agreements could leave unresolved legal and operational gaps and may politicize basing decisions [7] [16].
8. Bottom line for readers: what legal instruments exist and what remains open
In 2025 the operative legal architecture is a mix: an announced coalition timeline (joint U.S.–Iraq statement) setting the end of the coalition mission in Iraq [1] [2]; ongoing bilateral negotiations and expected bilateral security partnerships to take its place [3] [6]; and NATO advisory mandates operating under partnership terms [4]. Available sources do not provide a publicly available, new U.S.–Iraq SOFA text for 2025, nor do they specify U.S. domestic statutory authorizations in play that year; those details remain subject to the bilateral negotiations and future disclosures [1] [9] [14].