Does the United States really wants to withdraw from Syria?

The United States, has recently sending mixed messages regarding its force’s future presence in eastern Syria,

The debate regarding this complicated topic, and the fact of real Us intentions to withdrawing from the areas in Eastern Euphrates line, however, despite this, the increasing presence of US forces and the strengthening of the SDF’s armament appear on the field.

This possible withdrawal is frequently discussed in Congress and the Pentagon, and the US press, but there seems to be some kind of discrepancy between the over-analysis and the actual developments on the ground.

This situation raises many questions about the future of the region, the distribution of power and control, how will Damascus, Ankara, Tehran, Moscow and others be affected, and the fate of the so-called Autonomous Administration and the Kurdish SDF.

Talk about withdrawal is characterized by contradictions, as the numbers of US forces and the armament of the SDF are increasing, which indicates that announcing the withdrawal may be a way to cover up more illegal and involvement in the Syrian crisis.

In fact, the presence of US forces is a concern for Damascus, Tehran, Moscow, and even for Ankara, which maintains a deep alliance with the United States.

Tensions arise between them and in the end, they unite under the banner of hostility towards Syria.

The differences over the Kurdish Administration and the SDF remain defined within the framework of the alliance between them, and the strength of this alliance appears despite the differences.

Damascus faces great difficulties and challenges in dealing effectively with the illegal US presence in eastern Euphrates and al Tanf regions, as this presence is expected to affect the balance of power and capabilities.

In this context, the processes of withdrawal and their arrangement are considered a process based on local capacity, as they depend on local balances and appropriate conditions to push the process towards establishing a private entity.

These balances include the regions of northwestern Syria and the areas controlled by Türkiye and the militias loyal to it, in addition to the tensions in the southern region.

These operations demonstrate changes in the balance of power and political and military tensions, and require direct or indirect US support to achieve a sustainable presence.

New maps of control and belonging require continued American support.

So far, from the US side, the benefits of their presence are seen to outweigh the consequences, as US forces and interests don’t directly face major challenges or risks.

Attacks by the resistance may increase, but US estimates are still leaning towards troop survival.

Despite this, there remains a contradiction between the escalation of talk of withdrawal and the actual developments on the ground, which raises many questions about the feasibility of the announced plans and US policy directions.

In conclusion, it shows lessons learned from Afghanistan and how the withdrawal of US forces was handled.

Many US officials believe that by dealing with threats wisely and balanced, the mistakes that occurred in Afghanistan can be avoided and a more successful and effective US withdrawal can be achieved.

Although the Taliban don’t have significant destructive power against the United States, they have far-reaching strategic and tactical power that has made survival very difficult.

Despite the beginning of signs of a settlement between the United States and the Taliban, the withdrawal that occurred was surprising and devastating to the United States’ allies in Afghanistan.

There have been increasing entanglements between the Taliban, Russia, and China, increasing their reach and threats to the United States, there were other factors that influenced the final confrontation.

Although Damascus and the others cannot forcefully expel the United States, they can work to shift the balance on the ground, making the United States’ preference for remaining in Syria more difficult and costly.

Not all efforts may directly impact US forces, but it’s important to work to contain the policies and stakes in the region, whether local, American, or Turkish, and to stimulate gradual changes:

Creating an insecure environment and persistent threats, with a gradual change in the pattern of US threats and losses.

Building a communication structure across controlled regions and geographies, moving within the framework of society and the state.

A change in the social and political viability of the United States’ presence, and making it clear to those collaborating with the United States that there is no future for its presence in the country.

The task may not be easy, but combined with other factors, it could push Washington to reassess the situation and adjust policies and stakes, increasing the likelihood of withdrawal.

The consequences are often the main focus in decisions about US withdrawal from any region in the world.

The increase in attacks on US bases in eastern Syria and the Euphrates line indicates a change in the threat-opportunity range for anti-US actors, and although the attacks may be a result of US-Iranian tensions, they could also be related to different assessments of the US position in the area.

Undeniably, the lesson of the US withdrawal from Afghanistan shows the importance of examining its application in Syria, and creating the conditions for a possible withdrawal from eastern Syria.