The American war against terror must stop supplying water to Iran and its Syrian allies. Continued deployment of American troops in Syria is not only a counterproductive strategy, but it is also flawed, futile and fatal to American forces. The latest tragedy happened in March. U.S. personnel were killed by drones on their base in 26.
This incident is just one of many setbacks that the Biden administration has suffered in its Syria policy. The president’s refusal to prioritise the different goals of the United States in the Middle East is directly responsible for the ongoing threat against U.S. troops in Syria, as well as the de facto aid given to America’s main adversaries in the region, Iran, Damascus and Hezbollah. Biden’s insistence on unreachable and unproductive results compounds the lack of prioritization.
Iran and Hezbollah came to the aid in 2012 of Bashar al Assad, their Shia ally. In 2012, the Arab Spring protests in Syria had turned into an armed rebellion that shattered the country and threatened the survival of Assad’s regime. ISIS entered into the fray in 2013, and began to control large swaths on Syrian territory. This compounded the precarious situation of the Assad government.
The U.S.’s intervention against ISIS, in 2014, has proven to be a blessing for Iran and its allied countries. The United States, along with other countries, took on much of the ISIS fight, relieving Iran and Damascus of the burden to retake significant parts of Syrian territory. In 2023, there will be 900 American soldiers, as well as an unknown number of American contractors, operating in the provinces Al-Hasakah, Raqqa, in northeastern Syria and Al-Tanf, in southeast Syria. They are part of the 85-member Global Coalition against ISIS, which aims to defeat the Islamic State.
The U.S. military operations in Syria against the remnants of ISIS allow Iran, Hezbollah and the Assad Regime to focus their limited resources, attention and manpower elsewhere. Iran can invest in the fight against Israel. Hezbollah can focus on the survival of Lebanon’s failed state and threaten Israel. It allows a weak and exhausted Assad regime, which is financially strapped, to regain control of the northwestern part of Syria.
Assad’s burden to govern and provide security is not in line with U.S. foreign policy. If the United States was sincere in its desire to confront and degrade Iran and its allies it would withdraw their forces. This would only increase the difficulties Iran and its friends face. Iran, Damascus and Hezbollah already struggle with sanctions, a failing economy, internal strife and a 12-year Syrian war. They cannot ignore ISIS, because as Shias, they are the primary targets of this organization.
Analysts and policymakers use five arguments to justify maintaining U.S. troops in Syria. These rationales are unrealistic and have undesirable outcomes. While American troops are subjected to repeated assaults by Iranian-backed militias.
ISIS is the most important factor in justifying American military presence. Two issues remain unresolved, despite the fact that the United States declared the territorial defeat the Islamic State by 2019. First, there is the potential for ISIS to reemerge. In order to address this issue, the U.S. Military continues degradation of the organization by capturing ISIS leadership. Second, the U.S. military is helping to manage detention of ISIS prisoners as well as their families.
It is futile to try and further degrade ISIS. ISIS is the result of Sunni Muslim grievances caused by poor governance in the Middle East and an ascendant Shia Muslim force. The American military is not relevant to the process of changing regional dynamics and erasing those memories. The last four years have shown that the U.S. involvement in further degrading ISIS has been a whack a mole operation. The U.S. will eliminate one ISIS leader and then replace him with another. The process may continue for many decades, because the internet is a powerful tool for radicalization and network building, even if the Islamic state does not physically exist.
The detention of ISIS fighters, and their families, is a never-ending process. In January 2023, approximately 55,000 ISIS families reside in al Roj and al Hawl camps. In 2022, approximately 3,00 camp residents were repatriated. The U.S. effort to clear the camps will take 18 years at this rate. This would extend the nine-year American campaign into a three-decade-long campaign.
The second argument is the American partnership with Syrian Kurdish Forces. Many Americans believe the United States owes Syria’s Kurds a debt of gratitude for their sacrifices and bravery in the fight against ISIS. Sen. Lindsey Graham, for example, accused President Trump of abandoning Kurds after Trump partially withdrawn U.S. troops in 2019. As an example, Senator Lindsey Graham accused President Trump of abandoning the Kurds when Trump partially withdrew U.S. troops in 2019.
This argument fails to acknowledge that the U.S. and Kurdish partnership is a source for friction with Turkey, a NATO ally. Turks think the YPG represents the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, which is viewed by the Turkish government as a terrorist group and existential threat.
It is a classic case of missing the forest for trees when it comes to the American partnership with YPG. The United States is maintaining relations with an ethnically-based militia, but at the cost of a worsening relationship with a regional ally. This partnership threatens U.S. policies and strategy, as well as larger geopolitical concerns. Turkish cooperation is crucial for opposing Russia in Ukraine, and preventing Iran’s nuclear capability. This also threatens U.S. airbase in Incirlik which is an important logistics base serving the Black Sea region, Central Asia and the Middle East.
Thirdly, there is the argument that the Middle East needs to be more democratic. The Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria celebrates the emergence of a democratic, egalitarian society. The U.S. presence is a buffer to the Turkish and Syrian encroachment, allowing the AANES a chance to survive and be a last glimmer from the now-defunct Arab Spring.
This argument has a problem: AANES lives on borrowed time. Like the Karzai-Ghani government of Afghanistan, the autonomous administration can only exist as long as there is an American military presence in Syria. The AANES can only have a future if the United States is committed to it indefinitely. The Turkish government will not permit an autonomous entity to continue after the U.S. leaves. Bashar al Assad is still determined to regain control of all of Syria. He has just reaffirmed that he wants a united Syria, by rejecting the AANES’s overture for dialogue which would have recognized AANES within a federalized Syria.
Fourth, the removal of American troops from Syria can be used in future negotiations for peace. The United States has been seeking a role to play in the resolution of the Syrian conflict since its inception. The U.S. is seeking a political change in Syria via U.N. Security Council resolution 2254, which would remove Bashar al Assad from power. The U.S.’s continued presence in Syria allows it to maintain leverage and to have a seat at a negotiating table.
At this stage in the conflict, maintaining U.S. forces in eastern Syria and northeastern Syria to gain leverage on a final resolution is illogical. Damascus gains more time by reducing the burden of managing and securing one quarter of Syrian territory. This allows it to regroup and consolidate. This makes it less likely that a political solution on American terms will be achieved.
The future of Syria is written on the wall. Bashar al Assad will be the leader of Syria unless something unexpected happens. The hope of a comprehensive and just resolution to the conflict seems illusory with his continued power. As seen in the past month, the Saudi and Egyptian Foreign Ministers’ visits to Damascus and the reinstatement to the Arab League of Syria demonstrate a willingness on the part of key Arab countries to work and welcome a Syria led by Assad back into their fold. As Arab support for Assad’s removal dwindles the idea that U.S. can leverage Assad to achieve a comprehensive and just solution becomes untenable.
The fifth and final argument that I will make is that the American presence in Syria complicates military efforts by Iran and its allies. According to this thinking, the establishment of the U.S. military base at Al-Tanf in southeastern Syria (located at the meeting point of the Syrian-Iraqi-Jordanian borders and near a major transit point between Syria and Iran via Iraq) in 2016 serves two objectives: fight ISIS and create a logistical challenge to Iran’s presence in Syria. The U.S. military base’s strategic location is designed to disrupt the transfer from Tehran to Damascus of Iranian military infrastructure that is meant to deepen Iran’s military presence in Syria.
Regular Israeli airstrikes on Syria since 2017 have shown the inefficacy of the Al-Tanf garrison. The Iranian military’s entrenchment in Syria persists despite U.S. presence. In the month of April alone, Israel struck Syria at least five times. Iran has no plans to maintain the garrison in Syria. Early May, the Iranian defense minister declared that Iran would provide advanced weaponry to Syria and set up factories to produce defense gear as a way to strengthen Iranian-Syrian military cooperation.
Subscribe Now
Receive weekly emails to your inbox
It is difficult to understand what the Biden administration hopes to achieve in Syria by maintaining a troop presence. Why are attacks against U.S. personnel and U.S. deaths in Syria tolerated because of a stupid, flawed and futile policy.
President Obama has only succeeded in prolonging a war that will never end while simultaneously helping enemies. American contractors and troops are involved in nine-year-old operations against ISIS with no end in site. U.S. involvement with an ethnic militia can exacerbate relations with NATO allies and complicate critical regional and global issues. U.S. troops are put in danger for an autonomous democratic nation that will never have the right to exist formally. The likelihood of a just and comprehensive solution to the Syrian conflict is increasing. The transfer of Iranian arms into Syria continues.
The Biden administration should prioritize American interests in the Middle East, and concentrate on achieving realistic objectives. In the Middle East, reducing Iran’s influence is a major national security goal. This can be accomplished in Syria by withdrawing American troops and making Iran and their allies responsible of eastern and northeastern Syria. It’s time for Iran to take on the problem of ISIS.
