The United States Decision to Withdraw Forces from Syria: Significance for Israel

By Eldad Shavit, Udi Dekel

INSS Insight No. 1120, December 24, 2018

For the United States, which still has interests in the Middle East, a hasty withdrawal of forces from Syria weakens its influence on processes in the region and limits its room to maneuver in the face of existing challenges. The US administration leaves its allies with question marks regarding US ability to back their policies, and at the same time, heightens Iran’s motivation to strengthen its grip and influence in the area. Israel remains alone in its campaign against Iranian entrenchment in Syria, and at most will receive political backing from the United States in the context of this struggle.

The decision by President Donald Trump to remove United States forces from Syria took the US political and security elites and American allies in the region by surprise. In recent months and following the appointment of a special US envoy to Syria, senior figures, including National Security Adviser John Bolton, had declared, contrary to Trump’s initial approach, that American forces would remain in Syria until the Iranians left and a political settlement was reached. The resignation of Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis illustrates the wide gap between the President’s decision and the position of professional associates.

The immediate reasons for President Trump’s decision at this point are still not clear, or whether they are related to internal causes and/or to the “deal” that he is trying to advance with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, which will link the sale of Patriot air defense systems as a substitute for the S-400 that Ankara wants to purchase from Russia and the further sale of F-35 planes to Turkey. It also appears that the withdrawal is intended to prevent friction between the US and Turkish forces in northeastern Syria. In any event, the decision does not appear to be a component of a broader agreement in Syria that involves Russia as well.

President Trump explained his decision by saying there was no further need for American forces in Syria since the mission to defeat the Islamic State was accomplished successfully, and the US did not have to be the regional “policeman.” Indeed, the military efforts of the coalition headed by the United States have recorded many victories in their attacks on the Islamic State, but active fighting forces remain in Syria and Iraq (according to recent reports there are about 3,000 fighters in the area). In spite of the declarations from Washington that it does not wish to repeat the mistakes of the Obama administration when he decided to withdraw from Iraq, there is still no orderly strategy for the day after the elimination of the territorial grip of the Islamic State, to ensure that the threat does not return and to prevent the development of conditions that allow construction of an infrastructure for the return of Salafi jihadist elements in Syria and elsewhere. Whatever the case, the instability that continues to characterize the focal points of Islamic State growth – particularly Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Libya – and the enormous difficulty of obtaining the economic and human resources needed to meet the needs of the local population, hamper the translation of military successes into a comprehensive plan of action.

Whatever the immediate cause, this decision, together with other moves and statements by President Trump since he took office, shows that even if he has set himself a number of objectives in the Middle East, and above all, a change in Iranian policy, Trump is not prepared (partly due to his wish to please his voters) to continue carrying the burden and the risks of US forces in the Middle East. In the background are reports that the army has been instructed to start limiting the number of troops in Afghanistan. This follows complaints that the United States has not received any gratitude from its allies in the region. In effect, apart from the efforts to renew and reinforce the sanctions on Iran, this move leaves the US with no coherent policy regarding the objectives that it would like to achieve.

Moreover, it is becoming increasingly clear to US allies in the region that it is difficult to rely on the administration as a central component of their strategy for dealing with the threats before them. The withdrawal of forces (about 2000 soldiers, the majority of them Special Forces) is perceived as another “betrayal” by the United States of its allies, and this time the price will be paid by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which comprise mostly Kurdish forces that were established and armed by the United States and led the ground fighting efforts against the Islamic State in Syria. Washington’s decision aggravates its loss of credibility among regional elements, and also undermines the status of senior administration figures who are spokespeople for US policy.

The American move plays into the hands of Iran, which aims to limit any US presence in the Middle East, and particularly in Syria, as much as possible. The US presence in eastern Syria, along the border with Iraq, has restricted Iranian freedom to transfer troops and weapons by land from Iran through Iraq to Syria and Lebanon. The position of Iran (and of Russia) is that its forces are there at the request of the Syrian regime, and are therefore legitimate, while the United States imposed itself on Syria. President Trump’s decision reinforces the Iranian view that at this stage it has no reason to change its assessment of the risks or to change its objectives and the way to achieve them.

Indeed, notwithstanding the impassioned rhetoric against it from the US administration and the re-imposition of sanctions, Iran has so far not changed its regional conduct, particularly its desire to continue consolidating its presence in Syria and help Hezbollah to increase its military power. In this context, the reports that the United States is not linking its policy against Hezbollah to its policy regarding the Lebanese government are encouraging to Iran. As Tehran sees it, regional developments actually reflect a positive trend, and particularly what it can interpret as a lack of American determination, a weakened Saudi Arabia following the murder of the journalist Khashoggi, Russia’s efforts to limit Israel’s freedom to maneuver in Syria, and the aversion in Israel to any escalation of hostilities with Hamas in the Gaza Strip and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Significance

The departure of the American forces will accelerate the process whereby the Assad regime reasserts its control of areas in eastern and northern Syria that are under Kurdish control and benefit from US support. The move also strengthens Assad’s image as the winner of the civil war – with the support of the Russian-Iranian coalition. It appears that the first objective of these partners will be to define efforts to take control of areas along the Iraq-Syria border, including the Tanf area and traffic routes from east to west, plus the Kurdish region in northeast Syria, including the oil fields. It is highly probable that the SDF will decide in this situation to cooperate with the Assad regime, but they will also cease fighting against Islamic State pockets, since they feel betrayed by the United States, and also because they fear that Turkey will carry out its threats to broaden the campaign against them to northeast Syria, and exploit the new situation in order to grab land along the Turkey-Syria border.

It seems that with its decision to withdraw its troops, the United States has abandoned the “Syrian file” almost entirely to Russia and lost an important bargaining chip in the efforts to influence any political settlement in Syria, if and when it is achieved. At least according to some of the parties involved, such settlement should include reference to the issue of the Iranian presence in Syria. Moreover, it is doubtful whether the only remaining United States leverage – its possible contribution to Syrian reconstruction as an essential component of promoting a settlement that includes a change of government and the removal of Iranian forces – is indeed viable, if only because there is little chance that President Trump will agree to invest significant economic resources in Syria, which ranks low on the overall American agenda.

While Russia favors the withdrawal of the US forces, it has asked for US involvement in the process of crafting a political settlement in Syria, in order to achieve international support and participation in Syrian reconstruction. Russia will try to use Trump’s departure from the theater to increase in its own ability to influence and maneuver in Syria, and thereby demonstrate that its policy reflects determination, responsibility, persistence, and stability. The message is that the US move establishes the status of Moscow as a central element in the Middle East. In this context, as Russia probably sees it, the issue of the Iranian presence in Syria will acquire even more importance as a bargaining chip in its efforts to persuade the US to work with it on other issues, beyond the Middle East.

Even if the United States still has interests in the region, its conduct in Syria and its response to the Khashoggi murder weaken its influence and its room to maneuver with respect to existing challenges. This in turn leaves its allies with questions about the ability of the US administration to back up their policies while increasing the motivation of elements that have already been working for some time to exploit the administration’s hesitation in order to strengthen their own hold and influence. Israel expected the United States to take more determined steps to remove Iran and its proxies from Syria, and to continue the US military presence in eastern Syria in order to block the Iranian “overland bridge” from the east to Syria.

For Israel, the main significance is the possibility that the withdrawal will encourage Iran to reinforce its territorial grip on areas that until now were under US influence. Even before, the shaky relations between Washington and Moscow meant Israel could not rely on the US as a broker against Russian pressures, including the restrictions it has imposed on Israeli freedom to operate in Syrian airspace. In effect, Israel is left alone in the battle against Iranian entrenchment in Syria, and the most it can hope for in its handling of the struggle is United States political support.

December 24, 2018 | 26 Comments »

Leave a Reply

26 Comments / 26 Comments

  2. adamdalgliesh Said:

    THE CRUX OF OUR INTERNAL DYSTOPIAN CONFLICTS

    Jewish Leftists are not necessarily anti-Israel or anti-Zionist. They believe that they are saving Israel from itself, from its current “right-wing” leadership, especially from those who assert Jewish nationalism, and especially the settlement movement. The main struggle, as they see it, is not with the Arabs, who can be defeated militarily and/or co-opted, but with religious Zionism which is based on the growing settlement movement. That’s why they call for preventing Jews from building homes and communities in the heartland of the Jewish people, Judea and Samaria, or at least to contain their expansion.

    This is what Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres sought to achieve in the Oslo Accords. Their legacy, however, is not only a “peace process” that failed, the Oslo Accords, but a policy which enabled and encouraged enemies dedicated to Israel’s destruction. Remembering Rabin’s assassination should not obscure the harmful consequences of his mistaken decisions and the reasons he failed. Ironically, the Oslo Accords which were meant to demonstrate Israel’s strength in its willingness to make concessions for peace is the symbol of Israeli weakness. It is based on the belief that not only Israel cannot win, but that it should not win. That is the path of confusion, despair and defeat.

  4. @ Edgar G.: A very sensible response, Edgar. We won’t know whether Trump’s gambit will work or fail to bring order to Syria until the dust settles. And that may take some time. I support Trump’s decision more out a general support for Trmp’s national security priorities , not because I am certain that it is the best thing for Israel, or much the less the Kurds. As an American citizen, I do believe that the U.S. cannot sustain its current worldwide military committments to other countries indefinitely. All of America’s allies, including Israel, need do more to promote their own security independence and self-defense capabilities, rather than relying on their “rich uncle” Sam.

  5. The is an important article by historian Moshe Dann which provides background on
    the INSS, the organization that published this analysis of Trump’s decision. Because they don’t have a background of strong support for Israel’s vital security interests, it is unclear to me why they are opposing Trump,s move. Possibly, their advocacy of Israeli withdrawal from the ‘occupied territories” is predicated on the assumption that the U.S. can be relied on to bail Israel out if a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from Judea -Samaria causes Israel to suffer severe military consequences. Trump’s move may, to them, call this assumption into question

    Yitzhak Rabin’s legacy: The Oslo Accords
    Serving in the IDF is considered an honor and members of the CIS fought in combat units; some are considered heroes – which is why most Israelis don’t understand the danger they pose.

    ‘THEIR LEGACY, however, is not only a “peace process” that failed, the Oslo Accords.
    ‘THEIR LEGACY, however, is not only a “peace process” that failed, the Oslo Accords, but a policy which enabled and encouraged enemies dedicated to Israel’s destruction.’. (photo credit: REUTERS)
    Why do former and retired senior IDF officers and security heads, such as Commanders for Israel’s Security (CIS), who know what the PLO, Fatah, Hamas and other terrorist organizations have done and are capable of doing nevertheless advocate Israel’s withdrawal from Judea and Samaria (the “West Bank”), destroying Jewish communities, and establishing a sovereign Palestinian state – the “two-state solution (TSS)?”

    Although considered “security experts,” they seem to have learned nothing during the last 30 years of appeasement and surrender. Because of the high esteem in which Israelis regard the IDF, however, it is often protected from criticism. Serving in the IDF is considered an honor and members of the CIS fought in combat units; some are considered heroes – which is why most Israelis don’t understand the danger they pose.

    They are not stupid; they have access to the best security information available. They know that Palestinian groups are working with ISIS, and Iranian-backed Hezbollah and Hamas to destroy Israel and carry out hit-and-run terrorist attacks. They understand that Arabs and Palestinians have no intention of accepting Israel. They know the dangers that a Palestinian state presents to Israel, Jordan and Egypt. Why do they support it?

    The CIS group is not alone. It is supported by left-wing organizations in Israel, such as the INSS, a think-tank composed of former IDF officers and security heads connected to Tel Aviv University and the Peres Center for Peace. They are part of the military/political establishment that promoted the Oslo Accords – which rehabilitated and legitimized Palestinian nationalism and gave Fatah and the PLO control of most of Judea and Samaria under the Palestinian Authority, and implemented the 2005 “Disengagement” – unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip which empowered Hamas and other Jihadist Islamist terrorist groups.

    Although it is inconceivable that any Israel government would adopt their agenda, and despite being overwhelmingly rejected by Jewish Israeli voters, groups like the CIS and INSS serve to keep the TSS alive. Worse, they promote the canard that Israel is “occupying (and persecuting) Palestinians” – accusations which are used by foes of Israel and Jews. Yet, they propose that Israel’s future and its claim of self-determination depends on giving Arab Palestinians a state.

    They know why every Israel effort to make peace with Palestinians has failed. They know the Palestinian chants, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” They know about the “Nakba” and the PLO and Hamas charters which call for Israel’s destruction. They are aware of the hate propaganda taught in Palestinian schools and in the media. Why, then, would they promote an agenda (the TSS) which is a danger to Israel?

    The answer is complicated. First, it is based on fear; fear of being ostracized and condemned by the international community, especially by the UN and European countries; fear that their left-wing ideology and the political parties which represent it are weak and no longer relevant; and, fear of the increasing power and influence of religious Zionism. Raised and educated in secular socialist and communist kibbutzim and left-wing institutions, their world-view is at risk.

    The second reason the Left supports the TSS is guilt, a sense of moral conscience. They know that Israel won its War of Independence in 1948/9 and acquired additional land, that Zionism places Jewish nationalism above Arab Palestinian nationalism, that Israel took what Arabs believe is their exclusive homeland.

    Hezbollah Tunnels Illustration

    In this world-view, paradoxically, the stronger Israel is (compared to Arabs), the more it is guilty for being superior; Zionism prevents any real national equality. This also explains why some Jewish Israelis oppose the Nation-State Law. Asserting Jewish/Israeli nationalism diminishes all other competitors. The more we wave our flag, the less wind is in theirs. Our success is their failure.

    Israelis are proud of what Zionism has accomplished, but for Arabs it only reinforces their sense of inferiority. Our “Start-up Nation” is, for them, a form of oppression. Our victories are their defeats. We are, therefore, responsible for their suffering. The Oslo Accords was an attempt to re-balance, to compensate Arabs for Israel’s victories in the Six Day War and the War of Independence as well.

    Although these were wars of survival and self-defense, Arabs and some Jews cannot forgive Israel for winning. And we are reminded of our guilt by the international community, especially by organizations such as UNRWA, UNHRC and UNESCO, by calls for “Justice for Palestinians,” and “end the occupation.” Leftists argue that evacuating Jews and withdrawing from Judea and Samaria, and establishing a Palestinian state would absolve Israel of its guilt. For many, the Palestinian victim narrative evokes empathy and compassion. They ignore, however, what Israel’s enemies call its “original sin:” that it exists.

    Jewish Leftists are not necessarily anti-Israel or anti-Zionist. They believe that they are saving Israel from itself, from its current “right-wing” leadership, especially from those who assert Jewish nationalism, and especially the settlement movement. The main struggle, as they see it, is not with the Arabs, who can be defeated militarily and/or co-opted, but with religious Zionism which is based on the growing settlement movement. That’s why they call for preventing Jews from building homes and communities in the heartland of the Jewish people, Judea and Samaria, or at least to contain their expansion.

    This is what Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres sought to achieve in the Oslo Accords. Their legacy, however, is not only a “peace process” that failed, the Oslo Accords, but a policy which enabled and encouraged enemies dedicated to Israel’s destruction. Remembering Rabin’s assassination should not obscure the harmful consequences of his mistaken decisions and the reasons he failed. Ironically, the Oslo Accords which were meant to demonstrate Israel’s strength in its willingness to make concessions for peace is the symbol of Israeli weakness. It is based on the belief that not only Israel cannot win, but that it should not win. That is the path of confusion, despair and defeat.

    The author is a PhD historian, writer and journalist living in Israel.

    Join Jerusalem Post Premium Plus now for just $5 and upgrade your experience with an ads-free website and exclusive content. Click here>>

  6. No reason to be there. No reason to be in Afghanistan! Let them kill each other! Until they threatened North America, them we blow them to simethereens! Why waste treasure and man power? If we go in, we go in with overwhelming force! Than we can be respected, and feared!

  7. @ greenrobot:

    You are just homing in on one particular item. And even then you cannot deny that regardless of what he said at XYZ time ago, (which as you point out-bolstering my point- was late) the utter consternation that he has caused in the Western World by his totally unexpected and immediate action is REAL….although it may not be as “immediate” as he said it would….Who knows what’s in the mind of the most powerful man in the world.

    He definitely IS keeping everyone “off balance” -and running in all directions- which was the point I was making. Look at what posters are pouring out -as if they can’t stop-…. All kinds of dire prognostications, only to then dissect them into other possible results, not so dire.

    I find all this as fascinating as they do, and like a glass window into the thought processes of some of our more active and interesting fellow members. I just take a more “sedate” viewpont, and don’t go off in 10 different directions at once.

  8. @ greenrobot:
    Yes he said that. Then later on his behalf Bolton said the USA would stay in Syria until Iran leaves. The policy was changed. Part of the Yo-Yo policies changes depending whom Trump spoke to last.

    This time it was Erdogan it appears unless someone can change Trumps mind back to staying until Iran leaves Syria, which seems unlikely according to his Tweets.

    Bolton: US troops staying in Syria until Iran leaves
    By: Joe Gould and Tara Copp ? September 24

    WASHINGTON — The U.S. will keep a military presence in Syria until Iran withdraws its forces, a top Trump administration official said Monday.

    “We’re not going to leave as long as Iranian troops are outside Iranian borders, and that includes Iranian proxies and militias,” White House national security adviser John Bolton said while in New York for the U.N. General Assembly.

    The pledge comes as 2,200 U.S. troops serve in Syria, nearly all of them devoted to the war against the Islamic State in the eastern third of the country. While Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have said Iran poses the bigger strategic threat, U.S. military leaders have emphasized that Iran is not their focus.
    https://www.defensenews.com/global/the-americas/2018/09/24/bolton-us-troops-staying-in-syria-until-iran-leaves/

  9. Edgar G. Said:

    @ adamdalgliesh:

    I’m glad you said that Adam. I believe It bolsters what I posted last year, and again a few months ago. I brought the Nixon comparison into it by reminding us that Nixon himself said that he was deliberately erratic at times to give the appearance of “impulsiveness”.. He said it kept opponents off balance, not knowing what he would do next. I mentioned that Trump follows a similar pattern…twittering here and there, and then boom. suddenly deciding to go in a different direction altogether, the one he had really settled on.

    The Art of the Deal -translated into the political arena.

    It is not impulsive if he announces in advance (April 3 for a December action)…https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-trump-pull-troops-syria/story?id=54208786

  10. @ adamdalgliesh:
    Iraqi troops without USA help are pretty useless. Also as you say they are largely influenced by Iran and some cases controlled by it! So saying Iraqi troops are going to stop Iran’s land corridor is probably wishful thinking.

    You give them a carton of cigarettes or another bribe and you just keep on driving. A little bakshish goes a long way!

  12. Contrary Reports have the Turks moving on the Border of Syria not waiting for US withdrawal.

    Turkey sends more troops to Syrian Kurdish area as US pulls out — monitor
    Tanks and other heavy equipment seen moving into northeastern region day after Erdogan vows to push out both Kurdish fighters and Islamic State

    Around 35 tanks and other heavy weapons, carried aboard tank carriers, crossed the Jarablos border crossing in the early evening,” Rami Abdel Rahman, the head of the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, told AFP.

    “They headed for an area near the Sajour River, between Jarablos and Manbij, not far from the front lines where Kurdish fighters of the Manbij Military Council are stationed,” he added.

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/turkey-sends-more-troops-to-syrian-kurdish-area-as-us-pulls-out-monitor/

  13. @ yamit82: I’m dubious about this move because the Iraqi Army is now mainly controlled by Iran. As Shiites, they may fight with the Kurds, who are Sunnis, in spite of their differences with the Sunni Arabs. Trump and Pompeo may be making a mistake here.

  14. @ yamit82:
    Thanks for this very valuable information and link, Yamit. If Debka’s sources are accurate, Trump’s decision about Syria is less risky than it appeared to be at first. The mainstream media do confirm one point in Debka’s narrative–Erdogan was one of those who publicly protested Trump’s decision to pull out of Syria. This tends to support Debka’s claim that Trump intended to humiliate and undermine the prestige of Erdogan in his own way though this announcement.

    Now, if Erdogan cannot make good on his threats to the Kurds, he will lose face in Turkey and his own party may turn against him and replace him. And maybe if he sends a large force into Syria, he will not have enough loyal troops to protect him from a revolution by the Turkish people, who have become discontented with his autocratic rule. And it is even possible that despite his massive purges of the army, not all units are loyal to him, and if he orders them to invade Syria, they might just turn around their tanks towards Ankara instead. Anyway you look at it, Trump’s move presents Erdogan with a challenge and may distract him from harassing Israel.

  15. @ yamit82:
    Newer Data US Companies Break even points are much lower on oil production.

    So given that fact, along with pricing differentials widening for oil coming out of the Permian, getting that oil out of the ground cheaply has become more important than ever.

    GlobalData Energy came out with an interesting report last month that analyzed recent wells drilled by 26 operators in the area. It found that the break-even oil prices for wells with lateral lengths of 4,500 to 10,500 feet ranged from $21 to $48 per barrel.

    Of all the companies it studied, it found that EOG Resources, Exxon Mobil unit XTO Energy, Pioneer Natural Resources, Concho Resources and Chevron had the lowest oil break-even price – less than $26 per barrel at lateral lengths between 7,560 and 10,500 feet.</blockquote> So these companies are still doing quite well even at lower prices. The Russians are totally dependent on oil.https://www.forbes.com/sites/clairepoole/2018/07/29/5-permian-basin-oil-producers-with-the-lowest-break-even-price/#7a54a2145325

  16. @ adamdalgliesh:

    I’m glad you said that Adam. I believe It bolsters what I posted last year, and again a few months ago. I brought the Nixon comparison into it by reminding us that Nixon himself said that he was deliberately erratic at times to give the appearance of “impulsiveness”.. He said it kept opponents off balance, not knowing what he would do next. I mentioned that Trump follows a similar pattern…twittering here and there, and then boom. suddenly deciding to go in a different direction altogether, the one he had really settled on.

    The Art of the Deal -translated into the political arena.

  17. Pompeo asks Baghdad to deploy soldiers 70km inside Syria

    US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, when he called Iraqi PM Adil Abdul -Mahdi to inform him of Washington’s decision to withdraw troops from Syria, asked him to deploy Iraqi soldiers 70km inside NE Syria to fill the gap. Iraq has already deployed additional forces to its border with Syria against infiltration. Pompeo said the US would provide air cover. Iraq was also granted a 90-day extension on a waiver from sanctions that was granted Iraq for importing Iranian gas.

  18. @ adamdalgliesh:

    Both Friends and Foes need clarity from the leader of the free world and still the only superpower. Misreading intents and policy can lead to mistakes in judgments and calculations which can lead to dangerous consequences…

    With all the BS with NOKO they are still developing ICBM’s and Nukes… cosmetic changes but nothing close to the Trump demand for denuclearization of NOKO. He has taken his foot off the MAX Pressure and allowed China and Russia to maintain supply and trade with NOKO. Same with Iran …

    One bright spot is he has forced oil glut on market reducing prices and income to both Iran and Russia heavily dependent of revenues from oil exports. Same token it screws American Frakking producers who need some $55 min to make a profit.

  19. @ Bear Klein:

    By deciding not to wait for James Mattis’s departure on Feb. 1, Trump asserted his authority as commander in chief. In the same Tweet, he put the Turkish President down for his strident threats of military operations to “deal with” the Syrian Kurds and ISIS,” as soon as the Americans were gone. Trump: “I just had a long and productive call with President Erdogan of Turkey. We discussed ISIS, our mutual involvement in Syria & the slow & highly coordinated pullout of US troops from the area. After many years, they are coming home.”

    In other words, the US was slowing down the troop withdrawal from northern and eastern Syria to such time as it suited the administration – not Erdogan and his plans. Trump put Erdogan in his place and showed him up as a braggart, because the truth is that Ankara does not have enough troops or military assets to make good on his threats to cross into northern Syria, confront the Kurds in their capital of Qamishli, beat them down and seize control of all northern Syria.

    Some informed sources in Washington report that Erdogan pleaded with Trump to slow down the US troop pullout from Syria. He had fed the media in the past 24 hours with the boast that massive Turkish forces were already massed in Northern Syria ready to head east across the Euphrates to finish the Kurds. https://www.debka.com/trump-names-new-defense-secretary-outplays-erdogans-bluster-for-marching-on-syrian-kurds/

  21. @ Bear Klein: I have to agree with you there, Bear. Trump doesn’t confide his long-term objectives to anyone, and this certainly makes him an unpredictable and hence unreliable ally.

    However, look at his nearly identical behavior towards North and South Korea. For a year, Rrump seemed second to none in his hostility to North Korea and to Kim Jong-un personally. Remember when he ridiculed him as “rocket man” to his face? Then he suddenly agreed to meet Kim. Then the meeting was off, then it was on again. Finally, they met, apparently formed a cordial relationship, even gave each other hugs. Negotiations continue and their outcome is uncertain, but North Korea does seem to have at least slowed down its nuclear propgram, and tensions on the Korean peninsula have relaxed somewhat. South Korea was of course at first extremely worried about Trump’s policy shift. But now the President of South Korea has become a strong admirer and friend of Trump’s. The guy is crazy like a fox. Or crazy, but not stupid. He thinks it enhances American power if both friends and allies think we are “unreliable” and “unpredictable.” It’s his way of saying, “Nobody owns us.If I decide a certain policy no longer serves American interests than I will end it, and I won’t necessarily consult you about it. So if you want to be safe and advance your own interests, look to yourselves. Our support will extend only so far, and only so long, as it serves our interests as well as yours.” Encouraging our allies, including the U.S. and Israel , to be more self-reliant, has been part of his foreign policy objectives all along.

  22. @ adamdalgliesh:
    I was also thinking that Russia and Turks could end up at odds. Putin kept the Hezis & Syrians from taking on Turkey in NW Syria where Turks has large influence with Turkmans and Sunni Jihad’s in the Area backed up Turkish Military.

    However the Kurds now, are seeking an alliance with Assad & the Russians to keep the Turks out of Northern Syria due to the abandonment of Trump. They are hoping this will save them. Assad will not want his enemy Erodogan to take over part of Syria especially this is the oil rich area of Syria.

  23. Trump is clearly hoping that the American withdrawal will force Turkey to work against the Russian coalition in Syria. Erdogan’s supporters are Sunni Muslims who do not want the “Shiite Corridor” that Iran is trying push through Iraq and Syria into Lebanon. And Turkey has a long history of bad relations with Russia, Iran and Syria. Its tense relationships with Russia and Turkey go back hundreds of years. Its tense relations with Syria go back to the i930s, when the French colonial regime in Syria “awarded” the Arabic-speaking morthwest corner of Syria, called at the time the “Alexandretta” region, to Turkey. Syria has never recognized Turkeys annexation of this area, and does not like Turkish rule over the south coast of Anatolia, either, which is (or was) mainly Arabic-speaking. Both areas were within the area claimed by the Syrian nationalist movement in 1916, via the MacMahon-Hussein correspond once in that year (Hussein, although a Hejazi Arabian, represented the Syrians in these negotiations).

    We should remember that the Russian ambassidor to Turkey was murdered not long ago by a Turkish policeman who was enraged by Russia’s intervention in Syria.

    Turkey has long complained that Syria’s Assad regime oppresses the Turkoman minority in Syria, who are ethnically related to the Turks. And they blame Russia and Syria, at least in part, for the massive influx of Syrian Sunnis into Turkey.

    Clearly, Trump is hoping to set Russia and its allies against the Turks in Syria after the U.S. withdraws. That will make it difficult for Erdogan to continue to pursue his policy of rapprochement with both Russia and Iran. It fits in with Trump’s overall strategy of “divide and rule” as an alternative to the permanent stationing of American troops in hostile countries.

  24. @ adamdalgliesh:
    Israel rejects anyone other than Israel defending itself. The stupid idea some in the past have had that international or NATO troops guarding the Jordan Valley is a non-starter.

    Israel never asked the USA to go into Syria. However, Trumps yo-yo policies I am here one day bombing Syrian Chemical Site plus partnering with the SDF (Kurds, Christians & Sunnis) to fight ISIS and then discarding them the next without notice is not what any ally wants. Allies want predictability from their friends.

  25. The author makes many good points. But we should bear in mind (no pun intended) that the INSS is a ‘liberal” think tank that favors unilateral withdrawal of Israel from Judea and Samaria and the “evacuation” of many of the settlements there. This policy would require a permanent U.S. military presence near Israel to prevent Israel’s enemies from taking advantage of this unilateral Israeli withdrawal to invade and destroy the state. This may be the real reason why INSS opposes the US withdrawal from Syria.

    I think that Trump is justified in rejecting the idea that it should be a permanent security guard for Israel. Better for both countries if Israel takes action to defend itself.

  26. For Israel, the main significance is the possibility that the withdrawal will encourage Iran to reinforce its territorial grip on areas that until now were under US influence. Even before, the shaky relations between Washington and Moscow meant Israel could not rely on the US as a broker against Russian pressures, including the restrictions it has imposed on Israeli freedom to operate in Syrian airspace. In effect, Israel is left alone in the battle against Iranian entrenchment in Syria, and the most it can hope for in its handling of the struggle is United States political support.

    Israel has just announced general elections in early April. Will there be a war during election season in Syria or Gaza? Surely the “Deal of the Century” by Trump will not be rolled out during election season in Israel. The Prime Minister sure hopes so.

    Ben Caspit of the Al-Monitor claims that the Trump plan split Jerusalem into three parts Israeli part – West Jerusalem plus Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem. East Jerusalem Arab parts to the Pals and an International Holy Basin.

    A non starter if true for Israelis except the far left! Trump withdrawal from Syria makes him a non-reliable partner who is subject to drastic impulsive policy changes based on the last person he talks to. Yes he has way friendlier to Israel than any prior POTUS but still he is as advertised America First. He will need to be told politely that Israel First will need to be applicable for middle-east peace and security arrangements.