Biden is hosting Iraqi PM Mohammed Shia' Al Sudani in Washington next week. While the two leaders have a host of festering issues to iron out, Iraq seems to be the least of US concerns at the moment.
As the future of the US presence in the Middle East is being debated, foreign policy discussions would be incomplete without considering Russia's role in the region. Al Majalla explains.
What would the regional and global implications of a US military withdrawal from the region look like? Our March issue's cover story provides some answers.
The US now recognises the need to contain Iran — an approach that will require it to maintain a significant military presence in the region for the foreseeable future
In response to the killing of three US soldiers in Jordan last week, the US attacked more than 80 targets belonging to Iran-backed proxy groups and Tehran's Revolutionary Guard.
Without US military presence, the vice currently around the neck of IS in northeastern Syria would be loosened considerably, if not removed altogether.
While some say a US presence in Iraq is vital to stability and point to continuing gaps in Iraqi security force capabilities, others say the time for any foreign military presence has passed
When states are attacked, authority gravitates towards institutions capable of mobilising resources, enforcing discipline, and coordinating a military response
Cairo and Tehran have been at loggerheads since 1979, but the Iranian threat has always acted as a check on Israeli ambitions. If Iran is completely defeated, Israel will reign supreme.
Even if it stays on the sidelines of the US-Iran war, the country is fragile. Unlike larger economies that can absorb shocks in global markets, it has little room to cushion the impact.