The Risks of America’s Restraint in Syria| MENAFN.COM

Monday, 03 October 2022 08:30 GMT

The Risks of America’s Restraint in Syria


(MENAFN- Syndication Bureau) By Haid Haid

Last year saw a significant increase in the number of attacks against US forces in Syria and that trend has already continued in 2022. Earlier this month, eight missiles fell on a military base hosting American troops in northeast Syria, suggesting that there will be no let-up in the targeting of US soldiers.

While no organization has taken credit for the spike, an analysis of the circumstances surrounding the attacks, and the tepid American response, suggests two things. First, the absence of US casualties indicates that a goal of those launching the strikes is to send messages rather than inflict damages. And second, Washington’s conscious decision not to retaliate is emboldening these actors to use missiles as their primary means of communication.

The US is believed to have around 900 soldiers deployed in Syria. These troops are focusing on supporting the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces to maintain pressure on the remnants of ISIS and to prevent them from recapturing territory. In addition to their advisory role, American soldiers conduct regular patrol missions in northeast Syria and participate in security operations against the extremist group’s affiliates.

However, not all American troops are stationed inside the Kurdish-controlled region. Washington also has a relatively significant military presence in Al-Tanf, which is located on a strategic road connecting Tehran to Lebanon via Iraq and Syria. Hence, the base is widely seen as part of the larger US strategy to contain Iran’s military reach in the region. This, among other reasons related to the historical rivalry between the two countries, has prevented Tehran from considering Washington a tactical friend against ISIS in Syria.

That is evidenced by the increased frequency of attacks against key US military locations in Syria. American forces have been reportedly attacked once a month, on average, since June 2021 – an unprecedented rate in the history of US operations in Syria. Most of these attacks were carried out against US locations in Deir Ezzor, where operations against ISIS are centered. Despite its importance for Iran, the Al-Tanf base came second. That is because targeting US positions in the northeast is easier. Al-Tanf’s location in Syria’s Badia desert, which is flat and unpopulated, allows the US to easily spot and eliminate any ground attackers.

To overcome this operational obstacle, anti-American aggressors resorted to using unmanned aerial systems. Unlike the short-range surface-to-surface missiles that are used in other offensives, the use of drones requires more technical expertise and, hence, reveals valuable information about the identity of the attackers. The drones used in these attacks are more sophisticated than the modified commercial devices used by groups like ISIS. More importantly, these drones are like the ones used against US air bases in Iraq. The attacks in Syria also mirror the tactics used by Iranian-backed militias in Yemen and Iraq. These findings, among others, strongly indicate that Iran or Iranian-backed groups are behind these incursions.

While expelling US forces from Syria seems to be the common goal of these assaults, the triggers that initiate them appear to vary. For example, the latest spate of assaults, which were coordinated in both Syria and Iraq, is believed to have been motivated by the desire of Iranian-backed factions to commemorate the second anniversary of the death of Qassem Soleimani, who was killed by an American airstrike in January 2020.

Other attacks are suspected to be linked to the nuclear negotiations between the US and Iran, which are taking place in Vienna. Some believe that the assaults are being used strategically to influence negotiations, while others think that these incidents are arranged by hardliners to spoil the talks altogether.

Meanwhile, US and Israeli officials have said that Iran-backed groups in Syria, in addition to launching assaults in response to American airstrikes, are also attacking American forces in retaliation for Israeli airstrikes. A report by The New York Times in November identified an armed drone assault against Al-Tanf as the first Iranian retaliation against the US in response to an attack by Israel. Open data sources confirmed that the air base was targeted a few days after unidentified drones hit Iranian-backed factions twice in a matter of days in the eastern countryside of Deir Ezzor. Those airstrikes killed at least seven militia members, destroyed several weapons depots, and caused huge explosions in the area.

But these triggers are not new and cannot alone explain the motivation for the recent uptick in attacks against US forces. Hence, the answer might lie in America’s foreign policy under the Biden administration. The White House’s decisions to withdraw from Afghanistan and end the US combat mission in Iraq have emboldened Iranian-backed militias to test Washington’s boundaries in both Syria and Iraq.

More importantly, the US has refrained from aggressively retaliating against those involved in the attacks against its bases. Instead of identifying and punishing the groups responsible – through military or other means – America’s reaction has been largely limited to targeting those doing the shooting.

Washington’s soft approach is primarily due to its fear of jeopardizing the nuclear deal talks with Tehran, as well as its desire to prevent military escalations in the region.

It is not clear if the US’s lenient approach will allow the White House to avoid these traps. But failing to make the price of attacking US forces intolerable will almost certainly fail to mitigate the risks that American soldiers in Syria are facing.

Dr. Haid Haid is a Syrian columnist and a consulting associate fellow of Chatham House’s Middle East and North Africa program.

MENAFN13012022006092013299ID1103533621


Legal Disclaimer:
MENAFN provides the information “as is” without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the provider above.