Last week, US President Donald Trump said that the US military no longer has a reason to stay in Syria, and Washington is starting to withdraw its troops from there. It's obvious now that the ISIS caliphate (banned in the Russian Federation) will never be established in the territory of Syria and Iraq. But what forced Washington to withdraw its troops? Who will gain the most from it? Columnist of Vestnik Kavkaza Mamikon Babayn believes that everyone wins.
It's expected that withdrawal of American troops will be carried out in two phases over the next two months, while employees of the US State Department hastily leave Syria. Keeping US troops in Syria costs an impressive amount of money - over $7 trillion. However, Syria's problems could have been avoided altogether if at one time Washington had not provided funds to pro-American opposition forces while trying to overthrow President Bashar Assad.
Further deployment of American forces in Suria is meaningless. Today, it's important for Washington to normalize its relations with countries of the Middle East region, which have become an important resource base for China. White House is trying to cut off Beijing’s energy security sources by trying to halt growing potential of China in the Middle East.
Before introduction of the latest US sanctions against Tehran, up to 25% of oil supplied to China came from Iran. The main goal of the United States in Iran is not to stop implementation of its nuclear program, but to replace current leadership with more flexible and loyal regime in relation to the West and American presence in the Middle East. Washington can support its allies in the region by selling its modern weapons to them. Washington is quite happy with return to pre-war military-strategic positions in the Middle East - Pentagon can limit itself to military presence at its Middle East bases in Qatar and Bahrain. American forces concentrated there can quickly participate in military operations throughout the region.
Obviously, grandiose plan of the United States to change the Middle Eastern borders failed, because Syrian leadership had enough strength to hold on against terrorists for several years, and at a critical moment Russia provided its support. Opposition forces, including military Kurdish groups, didn't become what the United States hoped they would.
After withdrawal of the United States from Syria, forces of Russia, Turkey and Iran will remain there, and they will have to help complete consolidation of Syrian society, form new constitution of Syria, as well as resolve local conflicts.
Withdrawal of the US troops may contribute to normalization of dialogue between Washington and Ankara. Turkey has become Russia's closest partner in the Middle East over the past two years. Ankara is interested in buying Russian strategic weapons, and, perhaps, their cooperation will results in purchase of not just S-400 systems. Two countries are implementing large-scale joint energy projects, such as the Akkuyu nuclear power plant and the Turkish Stream.
Situation in the region has led to the fact that Turkey turned from reliable ally for the United States into a full-fledged geopolitical rival, successfully participating in all Middle Eastern summits and forums, and the Astana format is a clear confirmation of this.
Turkey is the most important player and military ally in the Middle East for Americans, so the US State Department will soon approve sale of the latest American weapons to Ankara, thereby contributing to decline of anti-American sentiments in the country.
Despite financial losses, America withdraws its troops from huge territory of Syria to the east of the Euphrates, and this territory has three quarters of all oil and gas fields in Syria. Washington can redistribute financial flows, stop arming the Kurds, and simply sponsor "moderate opposition."
Withdrawal of American troops doesn't mean that airstrikes of the international coalition will stop, and there will still be American military advisers in Syria. History of the United States has many examples of times when Washington could afford to influence course of events in various states without actual presence there: like wars in Angola (1975-2002) and in Afghanistan (1979-1989). At that time, American military instructors trained soldiers in camps in Pakistan, explaining in detail how to combat Soviet troops.
