The implications of the US decision to remain in Syria

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]The American decision to remain in Syria, particularly in the Al-Tanf border crossing between Syria and Iraq is imposing both political and humanitarian challenges for Washington. The American presence on the border crossing is preventing Iran from accessing a ground corridor from Teheran into Damascus; meanwhile, the Syrian government is using this presence to impose pressure on the families of refugees in the Rukban Camp located 10 miles from the American base.

Despite the announcement of US President Donald Trump Last December – that the American troops will pull out of Syria, the American troops remain so far in Syria. In July, Ambassador. James Jeffrey, US Special Representative for Syria Engagement and Special Envoy for the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS stated that the US president has always intended to maintain a small force in Al-Tanf, as well as another residual force in the Syrian northeast. Meanwhile, the Syrian Government accompanied by its allies Russia and Iran, continue to stress the illegality of the American presence in the country as it was not officially requested by the Syrian Government.

Whether the US President changed his mind or not, it remains a significant strategical decision. The Al-Tanf border crossing may provide a short and safe ground corridor for Iranian forces in Syria to transfer weapons, forces and others from Teheran, through Iraq and into Syria. The American decision to remain in Al-Tanf clearly highlights the American awareness of the threat which the border crossing imposes, and the importance of maintaining the American base and presence in order to prevent Iran from expanding its influence in Syria. For more, read our article concerning the Iranian Ground Corridor.

Aside from the threat of the Iranian ground corridor, a humanitarian crisis is currently ongoing in the Rukban refugee camp 10 miles from the American base in Al-Tanf. The Syrian refugees at the moment are locked in as they stand between the American forces and the Syrian government. Assad has placed the refugee camp under siege for the past five years, intending to make conditions unbearable for the civilians until they have no alternative but to return to the hand of the government. His forces have prevented the access of UN-led humanitarian aid from accessing the camp, while pointing a blaming finger at the Americans, stating that their presence is preventing the refugees from ‘reconciliating’ with the government, and that their condition is the fault of the US. In response, Ambassador Jeffrey stated recently that the US cannot alone feed the people in this region while the Syrian Government prevents UN-led humanitarian aid from entering, making it an American responsibility.
In the meantime, media affiliated with the Opposition in Syria claims that refugees of the Rukban camp have two choices: either to return to the hands of the government and be sent immediately to conscription or maybe a worse fate; or starve to death in the collapsing camp.
The American decision to maintain forces in Syria brings new challenges with the imminent threat of the Iranian ground corridor, as well as the current condition of the Rukban refugee camp. Meanwhile, the words of Ambassador Jeffrey do not clarify how long the US intends to remain in the Syrian south and whether the US will eventually be forced to abandon its base and the residents of the Rukban refugee camp, leaving the border crossing in the hands of the Iranians.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Ibrahim Abu Ahmad

Ibrahim Abu Ahmad

Sign up for our Newsletter

Sign up to stay current on Israel’s border conflict.
Skip to content