Likelihood of US-Backed Militias Confronting Iran in Syria
In recent weeks, limited but significant developments have occurred on Syria’s operational front, prompting Syria crisis observers to revise their calculations regarding these developments. The following analysis clarifies the nature and direction of these developments.
In April, one of Syria’s rebel groups that enjoys American support and is trained by US special forces managed to repel ISIS attacks in a one-hour battle. This battle took place in the strategic al-Tanf region near the shared border of Syria, Jordan, and Iraq, and during the operation this group had air support from coalition forces. Moreover, particularly in recent weeks, ISIS has suffered considerable blows from Western-backed opposition forces in other areas. This includes, for example, the attacks carried out by Kurds to liberate “Raqqa,” which ISIS calls its capital. Meanwhile, ISIS is also retreating in other points, including Iraq.
Apparently, the presence of armed opposition to Syria prevents territories freed from ISIS control in the events of the past one or two weeks from being occupied by the Assad government. Some of these areas, after liberation, come under the control of Kurds and groups supported and armed by America, Gulf Arab countries, Jordan, and Turkey. Geographically, these predominantly Sunni groups are active mainly on the north-south axis.
In contrast to these developments, the Assad government and its allies are forming a coalition force that is more present on the east-west axis and consists of Shiites from Lebanon and Iran, and Syrian government forces.
Despite relative silence in parts of Syria controlled by Assad forces, this conflicting east-west and north-south grouping is inherently tension-generating. In other words, one cannot say there is a complete demarcation between forces allied with the Syrian regime and those opposed to it. If such demarcation existed, Syria would have been completely partitioned by now. In other words, there are areas under the control of the north-south axis, but elements from the east-west axis are also active within them as nuclei of resistance and crisis-making, and conversely, within sections controlled by the east-west axis, elements from the north-south axis are active.
The main issue concerns a possible political solution and to what extent the political demands of groups involved in Syria are considered. Let us not forget that some armed groups still seek the complete removal of Bashar Assad from power and the opening of political space for free participation. Foreign support has a direct relationship with the political orientation of armed groups. For example, Iran and America, or Saudi Arabia and Turkey, each are willing to support like-minded groups to achieve their desired solution. Iran does not believe in a political solution based on free elections because the results of free elections could lead to Bashar Assad’s fall and would inherently contradict Iran’s interests in Syria and Lebanon.
Iran supports the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq, and with these forces approaching the Syria border from about three weeks ago, it has deployed hundreds of military and paramilitary forces to Syria, stationed for example in the “Sabaa Byar” township near the strategic Damascus-Baghdad highway and the shared border of Iraq, Jordan, and Syria.
According to Reuters, last week the US Army announced that it had strengthened “combat capability” in southern Syria because in that region groups under Western coalition support engaged in fighting the “Islamic State” (ISIS) are threatened by Iran-backed groups. US Army spokesman Colonel Ryan Dillon, based in Baghdad, referred to the strategic al-Tanf region in his remarks. This indicates that as the Mosul battle approaches a stage that could be the final battle to drive ISIS out of Mosul (Iraq), the war against ISIS will naturally continue on Syrian territory. In that case, if military formation is to remain in its conflictual form, such a battle, although its shared goal is ISIS, could lead to a confrontation between two groups backed by Iran and America, and ultimately to a confrontation between America and Iran. This confrontation could occur before, after, or during the fight against ISIS, unless the parties reach some form of political agreement.
Colonel Dillon describes the operational theater situation with direct reference to Iran-backed forces as follows: “We have strengthened our presence and foothold in the region and are prepared for any threat that emerges from groups supporting Bashar Assad’s regime.”
Colonel Dillon believes that after May 18 months ago when a safe zone was agreed upon, a small group of Iran-backed forces still remain inside the safe zone, and it has been observed that a greater number of forces have concentrated outside but near it. According to Colonel Dillon, the presence of Iran-backed forces both inside and outside the safe zone is considered a threat.
According to an unnamed military official, the Army distributed approximately 90,000 copies of leaflets during this week in these areas and warned them. Reuters had previously reported on the distribution of these leaflets citing a website. This news agency, which had a copy of the leaflet, writing with reference to its content states: “Any movements toward the al-Tanf garrison are considered hostile intent and we will defend our forces… You are hostile within the established zone, leave this area as soon as possible.”
It is clear that competition to reach this southeastern region between Iran-backed militias and Assad opponents supported by America, who now have heavy military vehicles, Tow missiles, and combat vehicles, could end in a confrontation between America and Iran. Whereas under current conditions the real and immediate threat is ISIS, and there is no necessity for anti-ISIS forces to engage in military confrontation with each other.
In circumstances where Kurdish forces affiliated with the People’s Defense Units (YPG) with American support will soon begin their operations to liberate the city of Raqqa, if the Syrian Army and Iran-backed forces insist on controlling al-Tanf, this action would in effect come at the cost of a formal and open confrontation with America. Currently the distance between the two forces is approximately 50 to 60 kilometers. Between the region of al-Bukamal (in Syrian territory) and al-Qaim (in Iraqi territory), the Syria-Iraq border point, to the Jordan border, there is a completely dry and desert area that is probably more useful as a passage for refugees and ISIS militants heading toward Jordan, and at least under current circumstances it appears unlikely that access to it would have strategic value. Nevertheless, Iran’s insistence, or groups backed by Iran and the Syrian government’s insistence on confronting other opposition groups can only create an unwanted war in the region and increase the probability coefficient of ISIS’s survival.
Source: Radio Farda
