National Interest: The United States is at war in Syria
The National Interest posted an article in its website talks about the US military presence in northeastern Syria, saying that the recent Iranian attacks on this presence are a final reminder that the United States is still at war in Syria and that the soldiers there are in danger.
The vague goals of the United States there don’t indicate that it is closer to leaving Syria than it was when it put its soldiers on the ground for the first time.
The officially declared goal of America’s presence there, which is to combat ISIS, was to obscure American efforts to confront Russia and Iran in Syria.
The US military in Syria are facing real dangers from the Syrian forces and their allies, and that President Joe Biden’s administration has pledged to continue defending 900 US soldiers in Syria as long as they remain in the country.
And despite Biden’s move to end or reduce the “endless wars” of the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq, this policy didn’t extend to Syria, but Instead, Washington declares that it is ostensibly committed to fighting the Islamic State and putting pressure on Syrian President.
Nevertheless, Washington realizes that the Syrian president is no longer alone, and has converged with many countries in the region recently, and the agreement brokered by China, which brought about a breakthrough in relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran, is expected to lead to a further shift in geography and politics in the Middle East, and will further influence the regional elites who realize that they have options outside America to advance their political and security goals.
On the other hand, China and Russia are now helping to stabilize the Middle East, and even support American interests.
China portrays itself as a friend of all and an enemy of none, allowing it to position itself as an honest broker who can address the region’s problems in ways that Washington cannot.
Russia is also seen as a reliable partner—one that has stood by its Syrian ally through thick and thin—and an interlocutor that has proven sensitive to the needs of capitals as diverse as Damascus, Tel Aviv, Riyadh, and Tehran.
The United States on the other hand record is more turbulent, as it is the one that invaded Iraq 20 years ago, and unleashed chaos and violence throughout the region, and it is the one that unilaterally detonated the international nuclear agreement with Iran after it dragged out the administration of former US President Barack Obama.
Its regional allies with all their might to support the agreement, and it is it that later refused to defend Saudi Arabia and its Arab partners, which prompted Riyadh to later reconcile with Tehran, not to mention the fact that Washington has oscillated between withdrawing from the region and siding with it throughout 3 presidential administrations.
In conclusion, the Middle East is large enough for the United States, Russia and China, especially that Beijing has a great interest in regional stability so that it can continue to import energy resources in the region.
