by Jonathan Spyer
As the eclipse of the Caliphate draws near, the race is opening up to inherit its former domains.
Originally published under the title "Race for the Ruins."
Islamic
State lacks the manpower to defend its diminishing territory in eastern
Syria, as suggested by this U.S. military propaganda leaflet.
|
An
observable ratcheting up of US and allied air and special forces
activity in eastern Syria is currently under way. This in turn appears
to derive from a new, hard-nosed understanding of the nature of the
strategic game in the large, strife-ridden area covering what was once
Syria and Iraq.
On
Thursday, May 18th, US aircraft launched strikes on a column of Assad
regime vehicles including tanks and earth-movers, 18 miles from the town
of al-Tanf, on the Syrian-Iraqi border. The strikes took place after
the vehicles entered an agreed deconfliction zone around the town. US
and British special forces are currently training "vetted partner
forces," i.e. Syrian Sunni Arab rebels, in the town.
This
was the second occasion in recent weeks that US aircraft have directly
engaged against Assad's forces. On the first occasion, the target was
the al-Shayrat airbase. That raid took place on April 6. It was a clear retaliation for the regime's use of sarin gas at Khan Sheikhoun on April 4.
The Shayrat raid was generally interpreted as a belated attempt to
enforce the American "red line" against further regime use of chemical
weapons. As such, it was not widely seen as indicating a more general
change of policy.
The
attack on the column near al-Tanf, by contrast, was not preceded by any
unusual regime activity, apart from the approach of the column itself,
and its too close vicinity to Western forces. On Monday,
the pro-opposition website Syria Direct quoted an un-named US military
spokesman as saying that "if pro-regime forces move further south or
east from their current positions, this will be considered a threat."
The website also reported that regime forces are preparing to move
toward the Badia area, a stretch of desert to the north east of al-Tanf.
The battle for the territorial holdings of the Islamic State in Syria is reaching its final phase.
|
What is the significance of this butting of heads?
The
battle against the territorial holdings of the Islamic State in Iraq
and Syria is reaching its final phase. The re-conquest of Mosul is
almost done. The assault on Raqqa city, the capital city of the
Caliphate is about to begin. It is set to be a hard and bloody fight.
But its eventual outcome is not in question. Islamic State as an entity
controlling ground will be destroyed. At which point the movement will
revert back to its former status as a clandestine terror network. As the
eclipse of the Caliphate draws near, the race is opening up to inherit
its former domains.
The
competitors in this contest are Iran and its various allies and
proxies, and forces associated with the West and the Sunni Arab states.
The
Iranians and their allies want to penetrate IS territory from west to
east – with the Iraqi Shia militias pushing westwards from Tel Afar and
Assad regime forces and pro-Assad militias (including Hizballah) probing
east.
The
regime forces nosing around in al Tanf are in the process of seeking to
seize border areas with both Jordan and Iraq. The US is determined to
prevent that. The town of Deir al-Zour and the surrounding oil rich
areas will form an important part of the prize.
US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) fighters on the northern outskirts of Deir Ezzor, Syria.
|
Pro-Western
forces, meanwhile are pushing north from Jordan and south from the
Kurdish-controlled area north of the IS enclave. The forces engaged on
this side are the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), dominated by the
Kurdish YPG, and the Maghawir a-Thawra (Commandos of the Revolution,
formerly the New Syrian Army) rebels, supported by the US, UK and
Jordan, from the south.
The
outcome of this contest is of strategic significance, despite the
remote and arid nature of much of the territory concerned. The Iranians
want to create a contiguous line of territory controlled by themselves
and their allies stretching from Iraq into Syria, and thence to the
Mediterranean Sea and the border with Israel.
Islamic
State has formed a buffer against the achievement of this goal. But
Islamic State, in the usual manner of Sunni Salafi organizations when
they control territory, declined to be satisfied with the stewardship of
a small domain. Instead, the Sunni jihadis elected to declare war on
the West, using the territory as a base to hold and execute captured
Western prisoners, to prepare attacks against Western civilian targets,
to administer a regional network of franchise groups, and to attempt
genocide against a non-Muslim population, the Yezidis. As a result, the
West, unsurprisingly, made it a goal to destroy the Islamic State.
Iran wants to control a contiguous line of territory stretching from Iraq to the Mediterranean Sea and Israel's borders.
|
The
question now is who will inherit. The Americans, it appears, have
understood that to stand a chance of re-establishing influence and
standing in the region, and beginning the process of turning back the
Iranian advance, it is necessary to have skin in the game, i.e., to
develop reliable proxies and have them control ground, in this pivotal
area.
Only
thus can a contiguous line of Iranian control from the Iraq-Iran border
to the Mediterranean and Israel be prevented. Only thus will the US be
able to prevent an eventual outcome in Syria and in Iraq entirely
favorable to the Iranians. Hence the development by the US Department of
Defense of the relationships with the YPG and elements among the
Jordan-supported Sunni Arab rebels in the south.
It
is worth also noting that the outcome in eastern Syria is not of
primary interest to the Russians. Russia wants to preserve the regime in
existence and to keep its naval investments in Latakia Province.
Neither of these interests is threatened by events further east.
Controlling the east is an Iranian and Assad regime goal only.
The outcome in eastern Syria is not of primary interest to the Russians.
|
The
outcome of this emergent contest will be of deep interest also to
Israeli strategic planners. While some recent analysis has suggested
that Israel favors or should favor allowing IS to continue in existence
as a quasi-state, it is obvious that this is no longer an option. Syria
as a state has largely ceased to exist. The question now, as it is
parceled out into zones of influence, is who will gain and who will
lose.
Alongside
the military jockeying on the ground, the diplomatic processes in
Astana and Geneva will sputter on. Their eventual outcome, though, will
depend on the balance of forces on the ground. Iran wants its contiguous
line not least in order to move weaponry and fighters both in
preparation for and no less importantly in the course of a future war
with Israel. Preventing this is an Israeli national security interest
par excellence.
This
emergent US strategy has not yet been officially confirmed. Indeed,
Defense Secretary James Mattis was quoted by Agence France Presse after
the al-Tanf strike as denying that the raid heralded any "increased
role" for the US in the Syrian war.
The
pattern on the ground suggests otherwise. The US administration has
defined the Iranians and the Sunni jihadis of IS as its main adversaries
in the region. Eastern Syria is an area where the defeat of the latter
by pro-Western forces will constitute also a setback also for the
former. This is a game which is now afoot. Much depends on its outcome.
Source: http://www.meforum.org/6717/eclipsing-caliphate-the-fight-for-eastern-syria
Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment