What is behind US strategy of keeping troops in post-Assad Syria?

Washington, DC – The administration of United States President Joe Biden has said it is taking a wait-and-see approach to the fledgling government in Syria, with diplomats in recent weeks holding initial meetings with the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) head, and the country’s de facto leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa, as well as the newly appointed Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shibani.

But since rebels toppled longtime leader Bashar al-Assad in early December, the US has maintained it will keep its deployment of troops in northeast Syria, where US personnel continue to support the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) as part of a decade-long anti-ISIL (ISIS) mission.

In fact, the Pentagon in December updated the number of personnel it said were present in the country, saying the number was actually 2, 000, not the 900 it had for years reported.

The update was referred to as a not-so-subtle message to various Syrian actors, according to Joshua Landis, director of the University of Oklahoma’s Center for Middle Eastern Studies, as the country’s future unfolds.

It also highlights how, at least in the Biden administration’s final days, the US will attempt to use its boots to form a new Syria, at least in part, in order to do so before President-elect Donald Trump takes office on January 20.

“It was a signal to Turkiye, I think, and to the Arab forces that they shouldn’t be attacking the Kurdish region”, Landis said, in reference to the territory the SDF controls, which has a large Syrian Kurdish population.

“It was meant to draw a line that this is something to be negotiated, and it’s not something to work out on the battlefield”.

On January 2, the United Kingdom-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights also reported that the US military appeared to be bolstering its bases in the region, including, according to the monitor’s sources, building a new base in Ain al-Arab. However, a Pentagon spokesperson on Friday denied that there were plans to establish “some type of base or presence” there.

So, what is behind the plans to continue the US presence in Syria following al-Assad’s toppling?

Stated strategic priorities

The Biden administration’s public messaging has stressed one defining priority in maintaining a troop presence in Syria: The anti-ISIL (ISIS) operation, which was first launched in 2014 under US President Barack Obama.

According to Pentagon spokesman Pat Ryder, who spoke to reporters on December 19, “the Defeat ISIS mission has no future plans.” According to Ryder, the more troops were added in response to “emerging mission requirements related to the Defeat ISIS mission.”

Mohammed Salih, a senior fellow at the Philadelphia-based Foreign Policy Research Institute, said there are indeed several other unspoken strategic interests behind the US troop deployment. However, the continued threat of an ISIL resurgence should not be discounted.

The Pentagon reported in July that 153 attacks by ISIL’s fighters in Iraq and Syria, a rate twice that of 2023, compared to the territorial defeat of ISIL in 2017.

A continued US presence could deter clashes with Turkish-backed organizations, which could worsen the security situation, given that the SDF is currently in charge of prisons housing thousands of ISIL prisoners.

“]Fighting ISIL] is still a very much relevant objective”, Salih told Al Jazeera. The transition has been a peaceful transition, according to the leader, but the lack of a central authority also presents significant opportunities for chaos for ISIS to exploit. They are quite adept at adapting to the circumstances they encounter and moving forward slowly, as they did in Iraq in 2010 and 2011″.

For its part, Turkiye, which supported the HTS-led rebel offensive as well as the Syrian National Army (SNA), has floated a more comprehensive takeover of the anti-ISIL mission.

Turkiye considers The People’s Defense Units (YPG), which makes up the bulk of the SDF’s fighters, a “terrorist organisation”. The Syrian wing of the Kurdistan Workers ‘ Party (PKK), meanwhile, is considered a “terrorist” group by both Ankara and Washington.

However, Turkiye’s opposition to the SDF has long put it at odds with its fellow NATO ally, the US, over the latter’s support for the group.

“Bargaining chips”

The SDF currently controls a large swath of northeast Syria, accounting for nearly a third of the country’s overall territory. The land it controls contains about 70 percent of Syria’s oil and gas fields.

Control of those oil fields will be essential for Syria’s future economic development in addition to the relief from the severe US and international sanctions placed on areas under al-Assad’s rule. In their initial interactions with the media and foreign envoys, Al-Sharaa and al-Shibani put the main emphasis on that development.

“Syria needs major foreign investment in its oil industry in order to put it back online, to renovate and refurbish it”, Landis, the Center of Middle East Studies director, told Al Jazeera. Because the US has no authority to sign long-term agreements with foreign governments, the Syrian government is the only one who can do that. Neither do the Kurds, because they’re not a recognised government. Those wells belong to the Syrian government”.

The US troop presence in Syria has, in part, aimed to ensure those fossil fuel fields stayed out of the hands of both ISIL, which briefly controlled them, and the al-Assad government.

Trump, who was then US President, directly addressed that goal by claiming that the US had “left troops behind only for the oil” during a press conference at the White House alongside Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Later, a Pentagon official claimed that the “securization of the oil fields is a subordinate task” in Syria.

Their release will be a significant leverage point in the negotiations moving forward, according to Landis, despite the US’s motivation to secure the fields in recent years.

“Sanctions and oil are big bargaining chips”, Landis said.

In those discussions will be discussed whether the SDF will be a part of the new administration. In an early sign of cooperation, al-Sharaa met with SDF delegates last week.

Possible pressure from Israel

Washington might also seek to influence the approach the new Syrian government adopts in conflict with US allies like Iran and regional allies, particularly Israel, which has seized Syrian territory from the Golan Heights since the start of December.

According to Salih, from the Foreign Policy Research Institute, “all of this presents an opportunity to reshape or restructure the regional order in a way that would be more in line with US priorities.”

The opposition’s takeover, which largely eliminated Iran’s influence in Syria and cut off Tehran’s supply lines to Hezbollah’s Lebanon, also opened the door to Turkiye’s growing influence, which has since taken a tough line against Israel in the wake of the Gaza war.

In turn, Israel may heap increased pressure on its “ironclad” ally Washington to extract assurances from Turkiye, according to Landis.

“Israel, obviously America’s closest ally in the region, is very anxious that it’s just trading an Iranian proxy for a Turkish proxy”, Landis said. Therefore, Israel’s goals are to keep Syria as weak, divided, and poor as possible, and it may be attempting to put some pressure on the US to stay there with its troops.

But that pressure may run counter to US interests, he noted, particularly with regional Arab allies increasingly embracing al-Sharaa. There will be an expiration date for the newly formed Syrian government army, which may be tolerated in the near future.

“They can only drag that on for so long before you alienate everybody”, Landis said. America doesn’t want to really sabotage the effort to unite Syria, according to the statement.

The future and Trump

Then there is the uncertainty surrounding the pending Trump administration and what Syria will experience from a president known for his volatile foreign policy.

Trump has sparingly weighed in on the situation. Early in December, he stated on his TruthSocial platform that Syria “is not our fight” in his characteristically nebulous style.

Although his earlier attempts to withdraw US troops from Syria failed due to fierce opposition from within his own administration, the statement seems to align with Trump’s “America First” pledges to end military involvement abroad.

Given his appointees this time around, Trump appears to be on a similar collision course, according to Salih.

“The US needs to maintain a military deployment inside Syria,” he said, adding that figures like the National Security adviser pick, Congressman Mike Waltz, and Marco Rubio, the secretary of state nominee, stood out and very strongly.

“All of that very possibly could conflict with Trump’s individual desires and desires.”

Trump further murmurs the waters by praising Ankara in December for its support of the rebels’ ouster, while describing Turkiye’s toppling as an “unfriendly takeover” by Turkiye.

No clear position has been made, but some observers have suggested that Trump may be more forthcoming with handling anti-ISIL operations than his predecessor.

“I wouldn’t expect Syria policy to have been settled as of yet”, Salih said.

Source: Aljazeera