The regions currently administered by the Kurds in Syria
include the Kurdish-majority Qamishli and al-Hasakah in northeastern Syria, and
the Arab-majority towns of Manbij to the west of the Euphrates River in
northern Syria and Kobani to the east of the Euphrates River along the Turkish
border.
The oil- and natural gas-rich Deir al-Zor governorate in
eastern Syria has been contested between the Syrian government and the Kurdish-led
Syrian Democratic Forces, and it also contains a few pockets of the remnants of
the Islamic State militants alongside both eastern and western banks of the
Euphrates River.
The Turkish “east of Euphrates” military doctrine basically
means that the Turkish armed forces would not tolerate the presence of the
Syrian PYD/YPG Kurds – which the Turks regard as “terrorists” allied to the PKK
Kurdish separatist group in Turkey – in Manbij and Kobani, in line with the
longstanding Turkish policy of denying the Kurds any Syrian territory to the
west of the Euphrates River in northern Syria along Turkey’s southern border.
On Friday, the Syrian army said it entered Manbij for the
first time in years, after the Syrian Kurds urged Damascus to protect the town
from the threat of impending Turkish military offensive, though Turkish
President Erdogan has termed the handover a “psyops” by the Kurds.
According to a report
by RT: [1] “A high-ranking Turkish delegation arrived in Moscow on
Saturday, only a day after international media broke news on Kurdish militias
inviting Syrian forces to enter Manbij before the Turks do. Syria’s military
proclaimed they ‘raised the flag’ over Manbij, but there have been no
independent reports confirming the moving of troops into the city.”
The report notes: “The Saturday Moscow meeting was key to
preventing all actors of the Syrian war from locking horns over the Kurdish
enclave, Middle East experts believe.”
“Obviously, Turkey will insist that it is their forces that
should enter Manbij, Russia will of course insist the city should be handed
over to Assad’s forces,” Kirill Semenov, an Islamic studies expert with
Russia’s Institute for Innovative Development, told RT.
The report further adds: “Realpolitik, of course, plays a
role here as various locations across Syria might be used as a bargaining chip
by all parties to the conflict. Semenov suggested the Turks may agree on Syrian
forces taking some parts of Idlib province in exchange for Damascus’ consent
for a Turkish offensive toward Manbij or Kobani.”
It becomes abundantly clear after reading the RT report that
a land swap agreement between Ankara and Damascus under the auspices of Moscow
is in the offing to avoid standoff over Manbij.
The agreement would likely stipulate that Damascus would
give Ankara free hand to mount offensives in the Kurdish-occupied Manbij and
Kobani in northern Syria in return for Ankara withdrawing its militant proxies
from Maarat al-Numan, Khan Sheikhoun and Jisr al-Shughour, all of which are
strategically located in the south of Idlib governorate.
Just as Ankara cannot tolerate the presence of the Kurds in
northern Syria along Turkey’s southern border in line with its “east of
Euphrates” military doctrine, similarly even Ankara would acknowledge the fact
that Damascus cannot possibly conceive the long-term presence of Ankara’s
jihadist proxies in the aforementioned strategic locations in the south of
Idlib governorate threatening the Alawite heartland of coastal Latakia.
If such a land swap agreement is concluded between Ankara
and Damascus, it would be a win-win for all parties to the Syrian conflict,
excluding the Kurds, of course. But the response of Damascus and Moscow to the
concerns of the Kurds has been tepid of late.
Not only have the Kurds committed the perfidy of acting as
the proxies of Washington during the Syrian conflict which abandoned them after
Trump’s announcement of withdrawal of American troops from Syria, but we must
also recall another momentous event that took place in Deir al-Zor governorate
in February.
On February 7, the US B-52 bombers and Apache helicopters
struck a contingent of Syrian government troops and allied forces in Deir
al-Zor that reportedly
[2] killed and wounded scores of Russian military contractors working for the
Russian private security firm, the Wagner group.
The survivors described the bombing as an absolute massacre,
and Kremlin lost more Russian citizens in one day than it had lost throughout
its more than three-year-long military campaign in support of the Syrian
government since September 2015.
The reason why Washington struck Russian contractors working
in Syria was that the US-backed and Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF)
– which is mainly comprised of Kurdish YPG militias – had reportedly handed
over the control of some areas east of Euphrates River to Deir al-Zor Military
Council (DMC), which is the Arab-led component of SDF, and had relocated
several battalions of Kurdish YPG militias to Afrin and along Syria’s northern
border with Turkey in order to defend the Kurdish-held areas against the
onslaught of the Turkish armed forces and allied Syrian militant proxies during
Ankara’s “Operation Olive Branch” in Syria’s northwest that lasted from January
to March 2018.
Syrian forces with the backing of Russian contractors took
advantage of the opportunity and crossed the Euphrates River to capture an oil
refinery located to the east of Euphrates River in the Kurdish-held area of
Deir al-Zor.
The US Air Force responded with full force, knowing well the
ragtag Arab component of SDF – mainly comprised of local Arab tribesmen and
mercenaries to make the Kurdish-led SDF appear more representative and
inclusive – was simply not a match for the superior training and arms of Syrian
troops and Russian military contractors, consequently causing a carnage in
which scores of Russian citizens lost their lives. Clearly, Moscow and Damascus
hold the Kurds responsible for the atrocity along with Washington.
Regarding the dominant group of Syrian militants in the
Idlib governorate, according to a May 2017 report
[3] by CBC Canada, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which was formerly known as
al-Nusra Front until July 2016 and then as Jabhat Fateh al-Sham (JFS) until
January 2017, had been removed from the terror watch-list of the US after it
merged with fighters from Zenki Brigade and hardline jihadists from Ahrar
al-Sham and rebranded itself as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) in January 2017.
The US State Department is hesitant to label Hayat Tahrir
al-Sham (HTS) a terror group, despite the group’s links to al-Qaeda, as the US
government had directly funded and armed the Zenki Brigade, one of the
constituents of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), with sophisticated weaponry
including the US-made antitank missiles.
The purpose behind the rebranding of al-Nusra Front, first
as Jabhat Fateh al-Sham (JFS) and then as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and
purported severing of ties with al-Qaeda, was to legitimize itself and to make
it easier for its patrons to send money and arms.
Washington blacklisted al-Nusra Front in December 2012 and
persuaded its regional allies Saudi Arabia and Turkey to ban it, too. Although
al-Nusra Front’s name has been in the list of proscribed organizations of Saudi
Arabia and Turkey since 2014, it kept receiving money and arms from its
regional patrons.
Finally, regarding the deep ideological ties between the
Islamic State and al-Nusra Front, although the current al-Nusra Front has been
led by Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, he was appointed [4] as the emir of
al-Nusra Front by Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State, in
January 2012. In fact, al-Jolani’s Nusra Front is only a splinter group of the
Islamic State, which split from its parent organization in April 2013 over a
leadership dispute between the two organizations.
No comments:
Post a Comment