Will America Partition Syria?

U.S. strategy seems to be shifting toward creating a buffer state between Iran and Israel.

BEIRUT—Given the rhetoric of most U.S. policymakers, one might conclude that the conflict in Syria is about establishing freedom and democracy in the Levantine state. But no genuine aspiration for democracy ever came from a line-up of allies that includes countries like Saudi Arabia, Israel, Qatar, and Turkey. Seen from the Middle East, American intervention here appears to be aimed at putting the last genuinely independent Arab state under Washington’s sphere of influence—and cutting off a key Iranian ally in the region.

Today, after six years of regime-change operations that failed to unseat Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and install a compliant regime in Damascus, the west’s strategy seems to be shifting toward partitioning Syria. Specifically, the new U.S. policy would seek to sever the unimpeded geographic line between Iran and Israel by creating a buffer entity that runs through Iraq and Syria.

But here’s the twist: in Syria’s northeast/east and in Iraq’s northwest/west, where the Islamic State once occupied a vast swathe of territory, ISIS has helped to enable this U.S. goal by delineating the borders of this future buffer zone.

The only question is which U.S. “asset” will rule that buffer zone once it is liberated from ISIS. Would it be Sunni Arabs of the sectarian variety? A declassified 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency report seemed to suggest this option when it confirmed U.S. and Western support for the establishment of a “Salafist Principality” on the Syrian-Iraqi border.


Or will it be a Kurdish-ruled zone? U.S.-Kurdish machinations have, after all, borne a similar Shia-thwarting buffer on Iran’s western border with Iraq, with the creation of the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) headed by the famously opportunistic and corrupt Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP) leader Masoud Barzani.

Either way, what transpired is this: ISIS occupied the areas flanking Syria and Iraq’s northern border. The U.S.-led coalition has had a presence in these territories for several years, without impairing ISIS control. At the right time, under U.S. cover, Kurds are moving in to “recapture” them.

Kurds constitute a minority in all these governorates, which is how the presence of ISIS became a valuable U.S./Kurdish strategic asset. ISIS’s invasion of these areas is delineating the borders of the new entity and depopulating it—creating an opportunity for Washington to champion the Kurds as the primary “liberating” force within those borders, after which Kurds can claim this territorial bounty.

“This is conquest masquerading as liberation,” says Assyrian writer Max Joseph, who explains how KDP Peshmerga forces disarmed Assyrian Christians and Yezidis two weeks before ISIS invaded in August 2014, then retreated from their promise to protect those populations just as ISIS entered Sinjar and the Nineveh Plains.

In the immediate aftermath of the ISIS invasion, Reuters quoted a KRG official saying: “Everyone is worried, but this is a big chance for us. ISIL gave us in two weeks what Maliki couldn’t give us in eight years.”

“By disarming and disabling communities who live in territories the Kurdish leadership have designs on controlling, then letting a ready-made aggressive foreign force invade and uproot native communities, forcing them to flee, KRG forces backed by Western airstrikes will be seen as ‘retaking’ land never even theirs,” explains Joseph.

Two years later, in July 2016, the KRG’s Peshmerga ministry gave credence to those claims by announcing that “Peshmerga forces will not withdraw from areas they have recaptured from the Islamic State.”

This is nothing less than an attempt to establish “Kurdistan,” a nation for the historically stateless Kurds, which has long-envisioned swallowing up parts of Syria, Iraq, Turkey, and Iran.

Some context helps explain the current situation. The KDP-ruled Kurdish entity in Iraq currently governs vast areas stretching from Iran’s western border to the Turkish border, stopping short east of Mosul and Kirkuk (an oil-rich city it openly covets). But the KDP has aspirations that run through Mosul to the western province of Nineveh—the historic home of a Christian Assyrian population—which would create a contiguous line across the north of Iraq to the Syrian border.

Last week, the “Kurdistan” flag was hoisted above all government buildings in Kirkuk—a move deemed unconstitutional and opposed by local non-Kurdish leaders and the Iraqi government alike.

A Syrian-Kurdish Entity?

In Syria, one can see a picture developing that mirrors Iraq’s experiences with the Kurds, Americans, and ISIS. Under U.S. patronage, areas occupied by the terror group are allowed to be “recaptured” by Kurdish forces, with a smattering of subordinate Arab Sunni forces to lend broader legitimacy.

Kurdish-controlled territory now traverses much of Syria’s three northern governorates where Kurds remain a minority—Hasakah, Raqqa, and Aleppo—and has earned the wrath of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who has sent in troops and Arab proxies to break this “Kurdish corridor,” placing him in direct confrontation with the objectives of Washington, his NATO ally.

The Kurdish Nationalist Party (PYD) and its military wing. the People’s Protection Units (YPG), have unilaterally declared Hasakah a federal Kurdish state, a designation that is unrecognized by the Syrian government and other states. But Kurds barely make up 40 percent of the governorate’s population, which consists of Assyrians, Arabs, Armenians, Turkmen, and other ethnic groups as well. Likewise, in Aleppo, the most populous of Syria’s 14 governorates, where 40 percent of Syrian Kurds reside, Kurds make up only 15 percent of the population and are a majority only in Afrin and Ayn al-Arab (Kobane).

Meanwhile, Kurdish nationalists identify all of Hasakah and northern Raqqa/ Aleppo as “Rojova”—or Western Kurdistan—even though significant Kurdish populations live outside these areas and significant non-Kurdish populations live within them. Furthermore, many of these Kurds are not of Syrian origin, but fled Turkey last century after several failed uprisings against that state. The entire Kurdish population of Syria amounts to about 10 percent (although figures are slightly disputed both upward and downward). Hundreds of thousands of Kurds have since fled the conflict in Syria for safer shores. And there is not a single contiguous line of Kurdish majority-populated areas from the northeast to northwest of Syria.

Yet the U.S. is storming ahead with Project Buffer State, erecting military bases left, right, and center, in violation of Syria’s sovereignty and international law. Various news reports claim the Pentagon and its 1,000 or so troops in Syria have established up to six bases in the north of the country—in the Rmelan region near the Iraqi border, in Qamishli (Hasakah), Kobane (Aleppo), and now in Tabqa, several dozen kilometers west of the ISIS capital of Raqqa.

But the American plan to storm Raqqa has stalled due to Turkey’s refusal to be excluded, and its objection to Syrian Kurdish involvement. Washington wants its Syrian Defense Forces (SDF) allies to liberate the city, but this group consists mainly of YPG Kurds who are aligned with the Kurdistan Worker’s Party (PKK), a Turkish and U.S.-designated terrorist group. The U.S. pretends these Kurdish militias are the only fighting force that can defeat ISIS. Never mind that the Syrian army and its allied troops have been defeating ISIS and al-Qaeda-affiliated militants around the country for years.

The inconvenient fact is, besides the Kurds—not all of whom back the U.S. project on the Syrian-Iraqi border—no forces have fought ISIS and other terrorist groups more successfully than the Syrian army and its Iranian, Russian, and Hezbollah allies.

By contrast, ISIS actually expanded and strengthened after the U.S.-led coalition began its strikes against the terror group. Recall ISIS trekking in plain sight across the Syrian border from Iraq to capture Palmyra—or tankers filled with ISIS oil crossing over to Turkey with nary a U.S. strike. It wasn’t until the Russian air force entered the fray and shamed the U.S. coalition that ISIS began to suffer some defeats. Washington had only really contained ISIS within the borders it was shaping, not struck any serious blows to the group.

After all, it is Washington’s awkward alliance in the region—Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, Britain, France, Israel—that has supported the growth of ISIS and like-minded extremists. U.S. President Donald Trump even went so far as to accuse his predecessor Barack Obama of being “the founder of ISIS.”

Certainly, Obama watched as his Turkish NATO ally allowed ISIS freedom of movement across its borders and purchased its stolen oil in bulk. We also now know via email leaks that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was aware that U.S. anti-ISIS coalition allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar were funding ISIS.

Why would Washington tolerate allied support of the very terrorist group it claims to want to destroy? By portraying ISIS as the worst of all terror groups, al-Qaeda and its affiliates—by far the most efficient fighting force against the Syrian army and its allies—were able to fly under the radar to fight for regime change. Furthermore, a globally demonized ISIS has also provided justification for direct Western action that might otherwise have been impossible after “humanitarian interventions” lost their allure, post-Libya. Finally, this supposedly very dangerous ISIS was able to invade and occupy, for great lengths of time, territories on the Syrian-Iraqi border that would create the boundaries for a buffer state that could eventually be “liberated” and led by Western-controlled proxies.

Stealing Syria

If the U.S. forges ahead with plans to lead its Kurdish allies into the Raqqa battle it will risk further alienating Turkey. Don’t expect ISIS to be defeated, however. Instead, expect ISIS to be driven southward toward Deirezzor and other eastern points along Iraq’s border, where the terror group’s presence can act yet again as a U.S. strategic asset—specifically, by moving the fight away from Washington’s Kurdish project in the north and hindering the ability of Iraqi militias to cross the border in aid of Syrian troops.

That’s not such a leap. Deirezzor is where U.S. fighter jets bombed the Syrian army for an hour straight last September, killing over 100 Syrian forces. The strikes enabled ISIS to capture several strategic points around Deirezzor airport, which the Syrian state was dependent on to protect populations in the ISIS-besieged area. The Pentagon swore it was an error, the Syrians and Russians swore it was not.

Meanwhile, in Syria’s south, U.S.-backed militants, aided by Jordanians, Saudis, and the usual Western suspects,  are rallying their forces to expand the ground battle inside Syria.

Why the sudden surge of activity? Mainly because the Syrian government and its allies have, since the liberation of East Aleppo in January, succeeded in pushing back terrorists in key areas, regaining strategic territory, and striking reconciliation and ceasefire deals in other parts of the state.

“Western states with the United States at their head interfere in favor of the terrorists whenever the Syrian Arab Army makes a significant advance,” Assad observed in a recent interview.

But the U.S. overestimates its capabilities. With few troops on the ground, radical militants as allies, and pushback from Syria, Iran, Turkey, Russia, and Iraq, Washington will face a steep climb ahead.

In fact, all U.S. gains could be abruptly reversed with this one Kurdish card. Nothing is more likely to draw Syrians, Iraqis, Turks, and Iranians together than the threat of a Kurdish national entity that will seek to carve itself out of these four states. And as the U.S. tries to establish “self-rule” by its allies in the northeast of Syria, it will once again be confronted with the same crippling infighting that comes from foisting an un-organic leadership onto populations.

Syria will become an American quagmire. Washington simply cannot manage its partition plans with so few troops on the ground, surrounded by the terror forces it so recently spawned, as able adversaries chip away at its project. Stealing Syria will not be an easy trick.

Sharmine Narwani is a commentator and analyst of Mideast geopolitics, based in Beirut.

Hide 22 comments

22 Responses to Will America Partition Syria?

  1. Lee says:

    If the US Government is involved, one thing is for certain…they’ll turn it into yet another damned mess.

  2. EliteCommInc. says:

    I am unclear what one should say about all of the potentially explosive cogs in this wheel. Save,

    “Good luck with that.”

  3. MEOW says:

    The U.S. especially under President Trump and Crown Prince Kushner will do whatever Israel tells them to do. The last election was Israel Heavy (Hillary) v Israel (Trump & Family) 100 percent. Where is the loyalty toward the U.S.?

  4. bob sykes says:

    The partition of Syria would result in an Iranian ministate on the Golan. There would be no buffer. In fact, the Iranian state would extend all the way from Iran, through southern Iraq to the Lebanese/Syrian coast.

  5. Brian says:

    April 07, 2017 Pentagon Trained Syria’s Al Qaeda “Rebels” in the Use of Chemical Weapons

    The Western media refutes their own lies


  6. Vitaly says:

    Will America Partition Syria? No way! Under trained and overweight Americans starting from generals and down to soldiers have no guts (Кишка тонка!) and motivation to do it. Neither brains no brawn are left. Include obsolete technology into mix and will have a not pretty picture.

  7. EliteCommInc. says:

    “If the US Government is involved, one thing is for certain…they’ll turn it into yet another damned mess.”

    Maybe I missed something. But it looks a mess before it began.

  8. Egypt Steve says:

    Hmmm, another plan for redrawing borders in the Middle East. What could go possibly wrong?

  9. Omar says:

    The article was vary frank about the role the US is playing, especially w.r.t. terrorist organizations. I agree with Lee above, a big mess is coming. This won’t end well for anybody.

  10. Mark Thomason says:

    The division of Syria is designed to serve Israel, but it is not so much the idea of a buffer as of a land grab.

    Israel does not want anything to impede its ability to attack Iran. A Muslim fundamentalist entity would not be an effective barrier to flights or transfers across its territory aimed at Israel. The idea of a buffer is not wanted in one direction, and is not credible in the other.

    This serves Israel by expanding its Golan seizure, and by expanding Jordan in ways that allow transfer of Palestinians, and by giving the relatively amenable Russians more complete control of the coastal zone from which Israeli gas finds and shipping routes and coastal areas could be threatened if in other hands.

    None of this serves the US, not expansion of Israel in ways that will antagonize, not destabilization of Jordan and the PA, and certainly not expanding Russian influence on the Mediterranean coast. It only serves right wing Israeli designs.

  11. EarlyBird says:

    Vitaly, if luck is on our side, we’ll leave Syria to you and your fellow Russians. You “win” the booby prize!

  12. Brian says:

    May 10, 2017 Kissinger At White House Signals a Bigger Scandal Than Comey

    Looking back through decades of U.S. foreign policy, we see a familiar pattern of bad plays in the theater of war. With the U.S. repeating similar insanity that seems geared more towards unending war, than the stated outcome. Is it a coincidence that Henry Kissinger was an instrumental influence in the Vietnam quagmire, and now rears his ugly head in the White House as the Syria situation gets worse by the day?


  13. A Little Weird says:

    And here I was just thinking how much I missed having grotesque and unnatural states like Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia around.

  14. BT says:

    Thoughts on the SAA moving towards Deir ez-Zor? And the Hashd moving west in Iraq? Is the the race for eastern Syria?

  15. PRDoucette says:

    The assumption in this article that Syria will be partitioned is in my view correct and has already been agreed between the US and Russian with the tacit agreement of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Oman and Turkey. Unfortunately, just as the British and the French choose to ignore the cultural, ethnic and religious differences in the region when they carved up the Ottoman Empire at the end of WW I, the US and Russia seemed to be willing to repeat this same mistake and peace in the Middle East will continue to remain elusive.

  16. Mary Myers says:

    Who or what gives the U.S. the right to partition Syria or any other country?

  17. wootendw says:

    “Yet the U.S. is storming ahead with Project Buffer State, erecting military bases left, right, and center, in violation of Syria’s sovereignty and international law.”

    In the unlikely event that this buffer state actually comes into existence, it would surely not be very long before it runs afoul of Turkey, especially if the would-be ‘state’ has any Turkish Kurds who would naturally ally with their brethren to the north. Turkey will get mad about something (or even nothing), declare war on the Kurdish state and invade. End of story.

  18. Ryan Booth says:

    But the KDP has aspirations that run through Mosul to the western province of Nineveh—the historic home of a Christian Assyrian population—which would create a contiguous line across the north of Iraq to the Syrian border.

    This is just so breathtakingly stupid that I am stunned that AmCon would publish it. The Nineveh plains are to the east of Mosul, not the west. The KRG already controls a contiguous territory across the north of Iraq to Syria, and it did so before the conflict with ISIS. The Kurds (including the KDP) have no aspirations for Mosul, which is why they have refused to take part in fighting inside the city, and are instead playing a support role to the Iraqi Army.

    More broadly, this article lumps the Syrian Kurds and the Iraqi Kurds together, as if they represent a single political entity. But anyone with any knowledge of the area knows that the Iraqi KRG is a strategic ally of Turkey, while the Syrian PYD is closely allied with Kurdish terrorists in Turkey, which is why Turkey is sending its forces into Syria in attacks on them.

  19. Fayez chergui says:

    US are axecuting the Ynon pla wich target is the great biblical israel. Every thing else is non sens.

  20. Love=Everything says:

    Well, US controlled ziorael wants war with Iran– always have– Cannot but see Iran backing away from and leaving Syria in the lurch at this critical juncture… Can only conclude war will come from it. How long it will be a relatively ‘controlled weapons use” war– guess not for long. Ziorael wants ME wrapped up ASAP. BUT– not gonna go their way, that’s my gut feel.

  21. David Skerry says:

    Will America partition Syria? Yes ,if our master orders!

  22. Shawn says:

    The US is setting up the Kurds to get massacred.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *