Regime forces entered the city of Ain Issa yesterday in Raqqa province. AFP Photo / HO / SANA
The race to conquer the east has resumed in Syria. The announcement of the US withdrawal, the Turkish offensive that started on Oct. 9 against the Democratic Union Party (PYD), the Syrian branch of the PKK, and Sunday’s agreement between the regime and the Kurds, brokered by Russia, have reshuffled the cards. Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdogan are the new leaders of northeastern Syria. But if the two men seem to have agreed to share the region, the outlines of their agreement are still unclear. L’ Orient-Le Jour breaks down the three major geopolitical issues at stake in this new reality.
A possible confrontation between Damascus and Ankara?
This is the main questions that the new formulation of power in northeast Syria puts forward. On Sunday, the regime announced that it was deploying troops in the cities of Manbij and Kobane as well as further east in Hassake and Qamishli. The Turks are active in territory between these two zones, in the area from Tal Abyad to Ras el-Ain, a predominantly Arab part of the country. It appears that a divvying up of these territories may be underway, brokered by Russia, which is the patron of the Syrian regime and an ally of Ankara in Syria. But the borders are not yet clearly defined, which could be the reason behind the race between the two armies to conquer Manbij that started on Monday.
The regime's forces entered the city last night while the Turkish army and allied Syrian militias, which escorted them, proceeded towards the city all throughout the day.
Earlier in the day, the Turkish president said that the Turkish army would capture this strategic city, which is a crossroad towards eastern Syria. The regime and the Syrian rebels, as well as the Turks and the Kurds, are positioned only a few kilometers away from each other.
Yesterday, Erdogan downplayed the risk of a Turkish-Syrian clash, pointing out that his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, had opted for a "positive approach". The Kremlin’s spokesman, Dmitryi Peskov, said that Moscow and Ankara were in constant and ongoing contact. In other words: everything will be done to avoid a clash between the Syrian regime and Turkey.
"The Turks and the Syrians will avoid a direct confrontation and will be using proxies. All of this will be settled through agreements and arrangements under the auspices of the Russians," said Joseph Bahout, a researcher and expert at the Carnegie Middle East Center.
"The regime, as such, doesn’t have the luxury of making those decisions when it comes to strategic issues. It’s now up to the Russians to play out this whole scenario," confirmed Nawar Oliver, a researcher and analyst at the Omran Center, a think-tank based in Istanbul.
The Turks would be satisfied with a situation where the regime, and especially the Russians, play the role of a buffer against the Kurds. "Erdogan wanted to go further than the 30 or 25 kilometers that were originally planned, but I doubt that it can be done given that Russia will probably put down limits," Bahout explained.
"There could be a reworked version of the Adana agreement (signed in 1998 between Ankara and Damascus which gives the Turks a right of inspection in Syria regarding the fight against the PKK)," Oliver added.
Is this the end of the Rojava dream?
After reaching an agreement with the regime, which has always been uncompromising on the issue of sovereignty, the Kurds will likely have to forget about the dream of Rojava, the autonomous territory they carved out in northern Syria. On Sunday, the Kurds said that the deal with Damascus, in terms of holding political talks, has been delayed. But information was circulating about the outlines of a potential agreement, which would include the dissolution of the Syrian Democratic Forces (a coalition dominated by the PYD) against a certain degree of autonomy for the Kurds within the Syrian regime.
"We're talking about a merger of the SDF units within the 5th Syrian Division, of a deep decentralization that would be penned in pre-constitutional documents, arrangements on the sharing of oil resources and incomes,” Bahout confirmed.
But the Kurds, who have long been oppressed by the Assad regime, have no guarantee that the regime, which has a monopoly on power, will accede to their demands. "Kurds have limited options. Most of their options have short-term goals. They are currently in a very bad situation," Oliver said.
Kurds who are anti-regime or who worked closes with Westerners could also find themselves in a difficult position with the return of the regime. "The personalities who are mostly at-risk and in compromising situations will have to leave the area. But the people who worked with the Americans could be integrated if they pledge allegiance to the regime," Bahout added.
Have the Americans completely abandoned the game?
A US official told AFP Sunday that around 1,000 US troops, deployed in northern Syria to help Kurdish forces in their fight against the Islamic State (IS), have been ordered to leave the country. The withdrawal includes "all" the military forces deployed in Syria, "except those at al-Tanaf", which is a base in southern Syria that is controlled by around 150 US troops. The Americans have apparently already left their positions in Raqqa and Deir ez-Zor.
The regime's forces were deployed Sunday on the outskirts of Tabqa and Ain Issa. In the evening, the Syrian army reportedly patrolled Raqqa, the former self-proclaimed capital of the Islamic State, which took the Kurds, supported by the international coalition, months to conquer. "The regime will most likely take over Raqqa" said Bahout.
From the American side, the withdrawal is a debacle. In addition to the issue of the Islamic State’s jihadists (see also article "The other potential winner of the Turkish operation in Syria"), the Westerners––because of their withdrawal––are losing one of the major tools they could use to put pressure on the Syrian government. They are leaving a vacuum that will be filled not just by the Russians, but also by the Iranians. This is despite promises by the Trump administration to diminish Iranian influence in the region and stop them from securing a Shiite passageway connecting Tehran to the Mediterranean via Iraq and Syria.
Under what conditions will the Americans stay at al-Tanaf? Will they have the means to continue playing a role in this region? "The base of al-Tanaf was meant to deter Iran and prevent it from establishing a land bridge to Lebanon. If American forces are actually leaving the country, then that mission is over," says Steven A. Cook, an expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, an American think tank.
(This article was originally published in French in L'Orient-Le Jour on the 15th of October)
