The US Congress voted to revoke the authorisations for the wars against Iraq, marking a historic decision that ends the justifications for the 2003 invasion and the 1991 Gulf War, while also raising new questions.

On 10 September 2025, the United States House of Representatives, by a vote of 261 to 167, approved an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2026, repealing the Authorisation for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against Iraq for 1991 and 2002. 

The decision ends the legal powers used to justify the first Gulf War in 1991 and the 2003 invasion of Iraq, based on false claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. These authorisations also underpinned the 2020 assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad. The wars cost trillions of US Dollars and thousands of lives, most of them Iraqi. 

The resolution reflects a profound shift in US policy toward foreign intervention after decades of war. It represents a watershed moment that redefines the role of the United States in Iraq and the Middle East and opens new prospects for the Iraqi government to strengthen national sovereignty. 

The historic resolution passed with bipartisan support led by Democrat Gregory Meeks and Republican Chip Roy, reflecting a rare consensus. Democrats viewed the repeal as restoring Congress’s constitutional authority under Article I, which grants it the exclusive power to declare war. Anti-interventionist Republicans, such as Representative Patrick Meacham, supported the move as a means of limiting “endless wars”, particularly amid fears of escalation with Iran or China. Statements by Vice President J. D. Vance, who supported the repeal as a senator in 2023, reinforce this trend. Vance argued that US focus should shift to strategic threats, such as China, rather than involvement in regional conflicts. 

This shift is not isolated from popular will, as reflected in public opinion polls such as the 2024 Gallup survey, which found that 62 percent of Americans oppose prolonged military interventions—a sign of changing sentiment. 

The Biden administration, which had previously supported the repeal in 2021, described the authorisations as “outdated”, while the Trump administration’s backing of this approach stems from its ‘America First’ policy. However, the decision still faced opposition, as some Republicans fear that repealing the authorisations could weaken Washington’s ability to counter Iran. Some analysts in the United States and abroad view the measure as largely symbolic, arguing that it would have little immediate impact on Iraq, since US forces are already present under separate agreements such as the campaign against ISIS. 

The repeal will not lead to the immediate withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. The presence of about 2,500 soldiers is based on the 2008 Strategic Framework Agreement and on Baghdad’s invitation for them to remain, not on the two revoked authorisations. It is worth noting that the decision comes almost simultaneously with the withdrawal of US-led international coalition combat forces from Iraq, except for the Kurdistan region. Statements issued by the White House in 2025 confirm that current operations focused on combating ISIS do not rely exclusively on the 2002 authorisation, meaning that security missions would continue in the near term. Yet the repeal limits the administration’s ability to expand operations or launch new strikes without congressional approval, reducing the risk of military escalation. 

On the Iraqi side, the decision strengthens political calls for a reduction or end to the US presence, particularly after waves of attacks by pro-Iranian armed groups on US bases—more than 170 since October 2023, according to a report by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. The repeal could accelerate a gradual withdrawal like that which followed 2011, with a focus on training and advisory roles. 

Regionally, the decision curtails Washington’s ability to use Iraq as a platform for strikes against Iran or its allies in Syria, thereby contributing to a regional balance of power. It might also prompt allies such as Saudi Arabia and Israel to bolster their own defence capabilities, while giving Iraq greater room for political manoeuvre. The Strategic Cooperation Agreement remains in force, ensuring continued US commitment to counter-terrorism, but signals a shift toward a less intrusive and slower-response model of engagement. 

The cancellation of the two authorisations also presents a rare opportunity for the Iraqi government to strengthen its sovereignty and end its military dependence on the United States. This was expressed by Karim al-Mohammedawi, head of the Iraqi Parliament’s Security and Defence Committee, who welcomed the decision as “a step toward restoring full sovereignty”. Full sovereignty, he added, requires redefining Baghdad’s relationship with Washington to move toward a strategic partnership. 

According to this vision, several opportunities can be identified. First, renegotiating military cooperation agreements to transform them into economic and technological partnerships, such as energy or reconstruction projects, thereby reducing dependence on US assistance. 

Second, strengthening political sovereignty by refusing to allow Iraqi territory to serve as an arena for US-Iranian confrontation, thus easing internal tensions with pro-Iranian factions. Third, Baghdad could exert diplomatic pressure to accelerate the closure of US bases, leveraging regional support from Gulf states that view Iraq’s stability as integral to their economic integration agenda. 

Nonetheless, Iraq faces internal challenges. ISIS cells, which carried out 132 attacks in 2024 according to a UN report, might exploit the decision and any future withdrawal to escalate their activity. Armed groups allied with Iran could also fill the potential vacuum left by departing US forces to expand their own operations and political influence. Capitalising on the repeal therefore requires political cohesion and a clear plan to develop Iraqi security capabilities, including strengthening the air force and intelligence services. 

The repeal of the 1991 and 2002 war authorisations is not merely a legislative act, but a strategic turning point that reshapes US policy and its relations with Iraq. For Washington, it marks a move toward a more disciplined foreign policy. For Iraq, it is a gain that must be invested wisely—by reinforcing security institutions, easing domestic tensions, and building regional partnerships to secure lasting stability and genuine sovereignty. 

* This article is published in partnership with the Iraqi Network for Investigative Journalism (NIRIJ).