Skip to Content Facebook Feature Image

Twenty-three years of an absurd war, the US leaves Iraq in a vacuum.

Blog

Twenty-three years of an absurd war, the US leaves Iraq in a  vacuum.
Blog

Blog

Twenty-three years of an absurd war, the US leaves Iraq in a vacuum.

2026-10-06 09:50 Last Updated At:09:50

The biggest mistake the United States has made in the past 30-plus years is this: it never learns the lessons of history. It just keeps repeating the wrong moves.

Troops Out, Vacuum In: US Exits Iraq After 23 Years

On the last day of September, the US military withdraws its last troops from Iraq. The war has run for 23 years and killed between 300,000 and 500,000 people, most of them civilians. Another 4,400 American soldiers are dead, and in the end, it has all come to nothing. The film Once Upon a Time in the Middle East 《歡迎來龍餐館》is set against this era of blood and tears.

The 'absurd tragedy' of the invasion of Iraq has finally reached its curtain call. Yet Trump is already restaging the same play in Iran. Today, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) seizes the moment to launch a 'psychological warfare' campaign, calling on American voters to vote pro-war politicians out of office.

The midterm elections are closing in. The full US pullout from Iraq ratchets up the pressure on Trump to end the war, and makes the squeeze even harder to take.

US Iraq invasion ends, leaving a worse mess.

US Iraq invasion ends, leaving a worse mess.

The 'long-running drama' of the US invasion of Iraq follows a 'plot pattern' strikingly close to that of the War in Afghanistan (2001-2021). In the opening act, US forces drive deep and sweep all before them, rapidly occupying the whole country and toppling the regime. Then the plot sours into a long war quagmire, ending in a hurried retreat that leaves a mess behind.

This time, the US exit from Iraq is not as humiliating as Afghanistan's, but it is still rushed. The reason is blunt: Iran had set Iraqi bases as strike targets, so US forces had to leave in a hurry.

Just as in Afghanistan, the moment US troops pack up and leave in full, a military vacuum opens across the region. The Shiite Iraqi militia groups are one of the region's major armed forces. Long backed by Iran, they are a member of the 'Axis of Resistance.'

Together with the Houthis now running rampant in Yemen, they are Iran's 'good brothers.' Both look to exploit the vacuum after the full US withdrawal and expand their power further. Iraq's government security forces will struggle to check them.

Iraq pullout piles pressure on Trump before midterms.

Iraq pullout piles pressure on Trump before midterms.

Once Iran's military power inside Iraq grows dominant, it will threaten the Gulf states more directly. Tehran will also hold more cards in its game with Trump, leaving him at an even greater disadvantage.

The IRGC knows the maxim 'press your advantage when winning, retreat when losing.' So it rides its momentum and opens a 'psychological war' against the United States. Seizing on the US exit from Iraq, it sends the American public a 26-page open letter. The letter urges voters to use their ballots in the midterm elections to drive Trump's allies who backed the Iraq war out of Congress.

The letter also opposes continued US support for Israel's invasions of other countries.

 

Tehran's Letter and the Midterm Squeeze on Trump

This psychological warfare offensive is clearly no accident. It was carefully calculated.

When Trump campaigned for president, he repeatedly claimed he would avoid launching new wars. He called the attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan mistakes. Now he has broken that promise and gone to war with Iran, leaving many MAGA (Make America Great Again) followers deeply unhappy.

The open letter from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps takes aim at exactly that voter psychology. It goes straight for Trump's weak spot.

How the tables turn. For years, the United States and Israel kept inciting the Iranian people to "rise up" and take to the streets to overthrow the regime.

Who would have thought it? Iran has now flipped the game, calling on American voters to "bring down Trump."

Anti-war sentiment among American voters is indeed surging. According to a Reuters poll, only 34% of voters support going to war with Iran. A Wall Street Journal poll, meanwhile, puts Trump's approval rating at 37%, the lowest level of any president heading into a midterm election.

The trend in public opinion is unmistakable. So some Republican candidates are rushing to distance themselves from Trump, urging that the war be ended immediately. That leaves him facing even greater pressure to stop the fighting.

 

Washing Powder at the UN: The Absurd Arc of the Iraq War

Back to the "absurd war" that was the invasion of Iraq. After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, US President George W. Bush was in a rush to launch his "great retaliation." He forced a pretext into place, relying on crude intelligence to falsely accuse Iraq of possessing "weapons of mass destruction."

Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell went one step further. At a United Nations meeting, he held up a vial of washing powder and passed it off as evidence.

Not a single country believed the lie. In the end, only the United States and Britain sent troops.

As in Afghanistan, the mighty US military machine needed just one month to occupy Iraq. Then the rot set in. The team Washington sent to clean up the mess governed disastrously, social order collapsed, and factional rivalries sharpened. The plan to transplant democracy failed completely.

Civil strife erupted, and the endless military conflict claimed more than 300,000 lives, most of them civilians. The US military also lost 4,400 personnel.

The scenes in the film Once Upon a Time in the Middle East  were a true portrait of the hell on earth of those years.

A war that ran for 23 years deserves the label "utterly absurd." When Trump first ran for president in 2016, he said the invasion of Iraq was wrong.

But in his second turn in power, he repeated his predecessors' mistakes, launching a war against Iran on irrational instinct. The old pattern played out again, and he sank into a quagmire with no way forward and no way back.

The United States never learns the lessons of history, and Trump has now showed the world one more example.

Lai Ting-yiu




What Say You?

** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **

American elections are, at their core, a money game. Winning is not about policy platforms. It is about who spends more. The upcoming midterms are exactly that.

The Money Game Turns Bipartisan

The Wall Street Journal reported today that since September, Republicans have poured cash into 10 key districts to drive votes. They have already spent more than $200 million. That is a sharp increase from last month, and it puts them far ahead of the Democrats.

But donors never bet on just one side. US media revealed that corporate giants such as Meta have quietly been playing political hedging. They are donating to Republicans while also pumping money into Democrats.

Their calculation: if the latter controls both chambers, the donations can buy protection and reduce the risk of payback. With these covert money pipelines, Democrats may not lose the money contest after all.

For corporate giants, there is only absolute interest, never absolute loyalty. That is true worldwide, but especially for American companies. So it is no surprise that Meta boss Mark Zuckerberg plays political hedging.

US media reported that months ago he foresaw the growing risk of AI regulation. He also expected Democrats to likely control Congress. So he decided to throw $65 million behind AI-friendly politicians, including Democratic candidates.

He funneled money through four super PACs. He also set up a new organization called Building Tomorrow to support Democratic campaigns behind the scenes.

Of course, he also donated to Republican-affiliated organizations, with amounts in the tens of millions of dollars.

Zuckerberg plays both sides, funding Republicans and Democrats ahead of midterms.

Zuckerberg plays both sides, funding Republicans and Democrats ahead of midterms.

Silicon Valley Covers Both Sides

Meta is not the only giant hedging its bets. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman is also making frequent overtures to Democratic lawmakers, with plans to provide donations through back-channel moves.

Some companies are hiring former Biden-era officials or advisers to help craft their playbook for working with Democrats.

These corporate giants have real reasons to worry about life after the midterms. If Democrats control the House, they face two risks. First, with a majority in hand, the party will relentlessly pursue Trump over alleged violations and conflicts of interest.

If Trump does not cooperate and refuses to disclose information, Congress will likely demand records from companies caught up in the affair, and it will prosecute them if they defy.

Some giants that previously leaned toward Trump must move early to hedge risk. One way is to donate money to repair relations.

Second, when Democrats gain power, the party's lawmakers who demand strict AI regulation are bound to make trouble and take aim at tech companies. So Meta and others have locked onto a group of AI-friendly Democratic candidates and are pouring money into their campaigns.

If they back the winners, the risk of being made to pay later drops.

Musk and Huang Make One-Way Bets

Not every tech giant hedges. Plenty still make one-way bets on Trump and the Republican Party.

Among them is SpaceX boss Elon Musk. The super PAC he founded has made an initial investment of about $100 million to boost Republican votes in at least eight states. During the 2024 presidential race, he donated roughly $240 million to support Donald Trump.

The two later fell out for a time. But Musk knows Trump still holds the cards. So this time he is showing deference and spending heavily to back the Republican Party.

Jensen Huang, boss of chip giant Nvidia, also knows how to play the game this time. According to reports, he has self-funded a political action committee called NY PAC.

Following Musk, Jensen Huang funds Republicans for political insurance.

Following Musk, Jensen Huang funds Republicans for political insurance.

The PAC will send political donations to the Republican Party to help it fight a tough midterm battle. Do not assume Huang only understands high-end technology. It turns out he has a knack for high-end politics too.

Dark Money Gives Democrats a Late Edge

Mark Zuckerberg and others have donated to Democrats. But the ultra-rich are still mostly betting on Republicans.

The Financial Times donor rankings show the scale of that tilt. The 20 biggest givers have already poured $1.058 billion into the race, and most of the money has gone to Republicans.

Only a small minority is backing Democrats. The standout is George Soros, the veteran financier, who has given more than $100 million and tops the list by amount.

On paper, Republicans hold the edge in the money fight. But tech giants that hedge like Meta are expected to steer dark money toward Democrats.

Democrats also get a lift from public anger over Trump's reckless Iraq war. That gives them a stronger public opinion advantage than their rivals, keeping their midterm odds slightly higher.

Compared with the other corporate titans, Mark Zuckerberg may be the ultimate winner.

Lai Ting-yiu

Recommended Articles