America’s involvement in Syria is more than it bargained for
Its stated cause for being in Syria is the war against ISIL. And yet, despite no intention of becoming tied up in the country’s long civil war or confronting Assad’s allies, the US faces a real risk of escalation
BEIRUT // The United States did not sign up for a war with the Syrian government or its allies. When Washington intervened in Syria in 2014, the mission was simple: to confront, degrade and destroy ISIL while avoiding the politics of a complicated civil war.
Even when it bombed a Syrian air base in April, it was a one-off, strike aimed at punishing Damascus for a sarin gas attack, not the opening shot of a conflict.
But over the past month there has been a dramatic escalation threatening to complicate Washington’s mission in Syria.
The US has engaged pro-government forces and aircraft in Syria four times, bombing pro-regime convoys, and shooting down a Syrian jet and Iranian-made drones.
Without a clearly defined policy, the US has stumbled into the tangled web of the war and now faces a wider conflict with pro-government forces in eastern Syria.
Escalation is being pushed along by Iran- backed pro- government forces who are eager to harass US troops, and also by officials in Donald Trump’s administration who have moved for the US to help block an “Iranian corridor” across Iraq and Syria.
The Trump administration “inherited from its predecessor a non-existent strategy, basically a set of tactics aimed at eliminating ISIS with not much thought being given to what’s next”, said Frederic Hof, director of the Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Centre for the Middle East.
“That’s kind of the backdrop that puts the Trump administration in a tough position where escalation is quite likely, as the Assad regime and its Iranian supporters try to establish themselves in areas vacated by or liberated from ISIL,” said Mr Hof.
He was former president Barack Obama’s special adviser for the Syrian transition.
Much of the latest tension revolves around Tanf, a town on the Syrian-Iraqi border. The US set up a base there a year ago, sending troops to aid rebel forces.
While far from the main centre of US activity in north- eastern Syria and the frontline at Raqqa, the forces at Tanf remain part of the mission against ISIL.
But Tanf is also prime real estate for the Assad regime and its allies, lying along what could be a land corridor linking Iran with the Mediterranean, passing through Iraqi and Syrian territory under the control of Tehran’s closest friends and proxies.
While US forces are still there to fight ISIL, there are signs that some want to use the area to block Iran’s corridor, and make good on the US government’s pledge to confront Tehran.
Pro- government forces have come close to Tanf and the US has accused them of acting in a hostile manner to the base by moving troops and drones near by, sparking US retaliation. Meanwhile, pro- government troops have moved more aggressively against the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces, despite previously avoiding conflict with the Kurdish-led alliance. On Sunday last week, Washington said Syrian jets dropped bombs near the forces, prompting the US to shoot down a Syrian fighter jet. Russia responded by threatening to treat US air- craft operating west of the Euphrates river as targets.
“It looks like the regime wanted to tie the hands of the coalition or kind of frustrate its efforts. And it’s apparently succeeded,” said Sam Heller of the Century Foundation, a think tank in New York.
“I haven’t heard about any intention to surrender and abandon Tanf, but it looks now like it is no longer useful as a staging ground for some hypothetical advance on Deir Ezzor.”
While conflict so far has been with pro-government forces in Syria, there is also a risk that an escalation may have ramifications in Iraq, where Iran-backed Shiite militias operate in close proximity to US troops. Mr Trump has gone from talk- ing about possible partnerships with Syria and Russia against ISIL, to appearing disinterested in the civil war, to bombing Syrian government targets.
While pro- government fighters in Syria have been lost to US strikes, Washington has not responded with undue force.
It has sought to de-escalate the conflict by reiterating that it is not looking for a fight with the regime, allied militias or Russia.
Despite this, the provocation is unlikely to stop. Moscow’s threats against US aircraft may have been bluster but there is little reason for other pro-regime forces to stop provoking the US.