The Armed Syrian Kurds Will Be Destroyed If The US Doesn’t Step In To Save Them

It remains to be seen whether America will once again come to their rescue or finally abandon them.

The Wall Street Journal cited unnamed senior US officials to report earlier this week that Turkiye is preparing for another conventional military intervention in Syria against the armed Kurds there. This was followed by the State Department revealing that the ceasefire between Turkiye and the US-backed but Kurdish-led “Syrian Democratic Forces” (SDF) had been extended till the end of the week. For background, the US has bases in SDF-held northeastern Syria, which is agriculturally and energy-rich.

On that same day, the SDF’s Kurdish leader Mazloum Abdi proposed a US-supervised demilitarized zone (DMZ) in Ayn al-Arab/Kobani, which coincided with the terrorist-designated Hayat Tahrir al-Sham’s (HTS) military chief proclaiming that they reject federalism and won’t grant such to the Kurds. The first statement is meant to have the US once again save the Syrian Kurds’ autonomous project while the second clearly signals that it won’t be tolerated in the so-called “New Syria”.

HTS’ Turkish patron considers the armed Syrian Kurds to be terrorists and the US’ backing of them is most responsible for troubled Turkish-US ties over the past decade. HTS’ rejection of federalism coupled with credible reports about a Turkish military buildup along the Syrian border suggest that those two are preparing to destroy the SDF. The US can therefore either finally let this happen or risk a brinksmanship crisis with Turkiye out of desperation to stop it.

Regarding the first scenario, the whole point in backing the armed Syrian Kurds was to deprive the Assad Government of the resources required to rebuild the country while also slyly cultivating a security threat for keeping Turkiye’s multipolar foreign policy in check, both on a specious anti-ISIS pretext. The former imperative is now irrelevant while the latter remains pertinent, but the political and military costs that clinging to this policy could entail might be considered unacceptable for policymakers, especially Trump.

Sparking a serious intra-NATO crisis over Turkish-designated terrorists just a month before Biden leaves office and while Ukraine is on the backfoot would be disadvantageous for the US. The outgoing administration might thus decide to abandon their armed Syrian Kurdish allies entirely or signal that this is the beginning of the end for them but drawing out the process till after Trump enters office. This could take the form of agreeing to supervise the proposed DMZ while the Kurds disarm and demobilize.

Elite members of the SDF could also be allowed safe exit from Syria, whether to the neighboring Kurdish Regional Government in Iraq or possibly even to the US or some European countries on the basis that they fear retaliation once the Turkish-backed HTS establishes its writ over the region under their control. This sequence of events would be the best for the US’ overall interests, both strategic and reputational, though it remains to be seen whether policymakers agree.

As for the second scenario of risking a brinksmanship crisis with Turkiye out of desperation to stop the SDF’s impending destruction, the outgoing administration might not want its last weeks to be defined by a disastrous withdrawal from Syria that reminds everyone of their earlier one from Afghanistan. To that end, they might defiantly hold their ground by confronting Turkish troops at the expense of the US’ abovementioned strategic and reputational interests.

In that case, it would be Turkiye’s prerogative to escalate, not the US’. One course of action could be relying on HTS as their proxies to provoke the US into militarily retaliating against the same so-called “heroes” that America and its media have just cheered for “saving Syria”. That would creatively throw the US into a soft power dilemma that would discredit it no matter what response follows. All told, it would be best for the US to cut its losses in a “face-saving” way, but it doesn’t always behave rationally.