Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan renewed threats to target Kurdish fighters Monday as he sent more troops to the border with Syria ahead of an imminent US withdrawal.

Turkey was in Syria “to return the freedom of our Arab brothers and sisters, to return the freedom of our Kurdish brothers and sisters”, he said during a speech in Ankara.

“Just as we did not leave our Syrian Arabs to Daesh (IS), we will not leave Syrian Kurds to the cruelty of the PKK,” he said during a speech in Ankara.

A Turkish military convoy arrived overnight on Monday at the border with Syria, with local media reporting that some vehicles had entered Syria.

In a telephone conversation Sunday between Trump and Erdogan, which both sides described as “productive”, they agreed to avoid a power vacuum in Syria after the US withdrawal.

The US leader tweeted that Erdogan had told him Ankara would “eradicate” the last IS elements.

Turkey has said any offensive targeting the Syrian Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) militia and the Islamic State (IS) group will be launched in the coming months.

Ankara views the YPG as a “terrorist offshoot” of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which has waged an insurgency against the Turkish state since 1984.

Unlike several other allies of the United States, Turkey has praised US President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw 2,000 his ground forces from Syria.

Trump stunned the US political establishment and allies last week with his decision, days after Erdogan had warned that Ankara would soon launch an offensive in northern Syria.

Critics of Trump’s decision fear that thousands of Islamic State (IS) group extremist members are still thought to be in Syria, despite Trump’s claim of having defeated IS.

– Convoy enters Syria –

A Turkish military convoy with howitzers, artillery batteries and several units of the armed forces, was deployed to the border district of Elbeyli in Kilis province, state news agency Anadolu reported on Monday.

Parts of the convoy had entered Syria, the private IHA news agency reported, which said the reinforcements would take place “gradually”.

The deployment began over the weekend with around 100 vehicles, Hurriyet daily said, and crossed into the Al-Bab region, headed towards Jarabulus and YPG-held Manbij.

Jarabulus and Al-Bab were areas captured from IS during Ankara’s first military operation in August 2016 which lasted until March 2017.

Military reinforcements had also been sent to the Akcakale border town and Ceylanpinar district, both in the southeastern Sanliurfa province.

Turkey conducted a second offensive with Syrian rebels against the YPG in its northwestern enclave of Afrin in January this year.

Turkish officials have previously said Ankara has no territorial ambitions in Syria.

– Warming Turkey-US relations –

In a tweet on Sunday, Trump said he discussed a “slow & highly coordinated pullout” of troops from Syria with Erdogan, even as some allies expressed they dismay.

French President Emmanuel Macron said he “deeply regretted” the US decision.

Trump’s move has also sparked turmoil within the administration. First Defence Secretary Jim Mattis resigned, then Brett McGurk, the special envoy to the anti-IS coalition, stepped down.

American support for the YPG, under the banner of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) alliance, has long been a source of tension between NATO allies the US and Turkey.

But relations between the Turkish and American leaders appear to have improved substantially since a crisis in the summer over the detention of a US pastor, since released.

Last week, the US approved the sale of $3.5 billion in missiles to Turkey, after American outrage over Ankara’s major arms purchase from Russia.

But there are still strains over the US refusal to extradite Fethullah Gulen, the Pennsylvania-based Muslim preacher who Turkey says ordered the 2016 failed coup.

Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/article-6527307/More-Turkish-troops-Syria-border-ahead-US-pullout.html

The post More Turkish troops to Syria border ahead of US pullout first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

As the Syrian government is now in full control of most parts of the war-torn country, the role of Iran, as a main ally of President Bashar al-Assad, appears to be undergoing significant change.

On Aug. 1, the Russian president’s special envoy to Syria, Alexander Lavrentiev, said Iranian forces, together with their allied Shiite groups, had pulled back from southwestern Syria to a distance of 85 kilometers (53 miles) from the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. “The Iranians withdrew and the Shiite formations are not there,” said Lavrentiev, underlining that the heavy weapons in the hands of those forces have also been withdrawn beyond the same distance.

Indeed, the move came against the backdrop of frequent calls by Israeli officials for Iran’s complete withdrawal from Syria, claiming that Iran’s presence poses a direct threat against the security and interests of Israel. As such, Lavrentiev’s remarks could lead us to the question of whether the recent development is indicating Iran’s imminent exit from other parts of Syria as well, or whether it’s just a tactical move aimed at readjusting Iran’s Syrian strategy with regard to the rapidly changing equations on the military and political fronts.

Reviewing the wider scene of recent developments regarding the Syrian crisis, it could be said that Iran’s withdrawal from southern Syria has been caused by two sets of military and political factors. First of all, the news about Iran’s withdrawal from the south came just one day after the successful end of the Syrian army’s six-week military campaign to recapture the southwestern region bordering the Golan Heights. Almost three weeks earlier, on July 12, the army had managed to retake the main rebel stronghold in that area, Daraa, known as the “birthplace of the revolt” against Assad in 2011.

As such, it could be said that in the current situation, the southern areas are not a priority anymore for the Syrian army and its allies in military terms and the next phases of massive military operations in Syria are expected to include areas in the northern and eastern parts of the country that are still under the control of armed groups. In a recent interview, Lavrentiev directly pointed to this issue, saying three areas in Syria have yet to be targeted by Syrian army operations. He said, “Those areas include Idlib [in the northwest], al-Rakban camp in al-Tanf area [in the east], as well as the areas under Kurdish control close to the Iraq-Syria border.”

Pro-Iran forces started to evacuate the southern areas when the mission there was accomplished and their presence was no longer vital in determining the military equations on the ground. In a broader framework, it could be said that the pullback was even necessary in order for the Syrian government to consolidate its positions in the south. In other words, as the presence of Iran and its allied forces in the southern parts of Syria has always been used by the Israelis as a reason to conduct strikes against various positions inside Syria, the continuation of the Iranian presence there would mean that the Israeli strikes would continue as well, forcing Assad to deal with a persistent headache that would tie his hands in planning further military moves elsewhere in the country.

Meanwhile, on the political front, it seems that an important factor that has caused Iran to limit the scope of its active military presence in Syria is Russia’s changing diplomatic role regarding the Syrian crisis. On the one hand, while Russia appears determined to continue playing a balancing role between Iranian and Israeli interests in Syria, it seems that the Russians have shifted toward using a more coercive approach in this regard. On July 30, Russia’s ambassador to Tel Aviv, Anatoly Viktorov, adopted a controversial stance on the issue, saying that while “Russia cannot compel Iranian forces to quit Syria,” it could “equally do nothing to prevent Israeli military strikes against Iranian forces.” The remarks clearly meant that Moscow is unable to prevent an open confrontation between Iran and Israel in Syria unless Tehran and Tel Aviv come to a middle ground concerning their activities in the country. Limiting the scope of Iran’s activities in exchange for the halt of Israeli strikes seems to be that middle ground agreed to by both sides in order to prevent a devastating escalation.

On the other hand, after the July 16 summit between the presidents of Russia and the United States in Helsinki, in which possible cooperation between the two sides in Syria was discussed, among other issues, Moscow has increased its diplomatic pressures on Washington to limit its military role in the Arab country. On Aug. 3, Col. Gen. Sergei Rudskoyof the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces called on the United States to close down its military base in al-Tanf, saying the base has become a center for harboring Islamic State (IS) terrorists. As Washington has openly declared that its main goal in Syria currently is to counter Iran’s growing influence, limiting Iran’s presence in the country could be Russia’s selling point to compel the Americans to limit their own presence. As the US military presence in Syria is perceived by both Tehran and Moscow as a threat to their longer-term interests, it’s hard to believe the notion that Iran has been reluctant to provide Russia with an additional diplomatic asset to deal with this common challenge.

Finally, it seems that Iran itself is in a process of redefining its role in Syria, which has mostly been derived from the impression that the end of the war is close and now is a time to focus on safeguarding Iran’s interests through political and diplomatic measures. In this vein, Iran is shifting its strategy from playing an active military role toward more actively participating in the diplomatic frameworks regarding Syria. Hosting the upcoming summitof Astana partners, which is due to be held in Tehran in September, could be interpreted as a sign to this end. Iran’s active participation in the establishment of Syria’s Constitutional Committee, which is tasked with developing a new constitution for the country, is another sign of Iran’s changing approach.

All in all, it could be said that the recent withdrawal of Iranian and pro-Iran forces from southern Syria has more to do with Iran updating its Syria strategy and adapting it to be in line with the new political and military developments, rather than a decision to leave Syria due to Russian or Israeli pressures.

Hamidreza Azizi is an assistant professor of regional studies at Shahid Beheshti University and a member of the scientific board at the Iran and Eurasia Studies Institute (IRAS) in Tehran. On Twitter: @HamidRezaAz

---

Source: https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2018/08/iran-syria-golan-heights-russia-israel-shiite-groups-us.html

[Disclaimer]

The post Iran readjusts its Syria strategy amid Russia’s changing role first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The United States and its European allies launched airstrikes early Saturday on Syrian research, development and military facilities in response to an alleged chemical weapons attack near Damascus last weekend that killed at least 40 people.

The tripartite military action from the United States, France and Britain was designed to set back or destroy Syria’s chemical weapons program, the three countries said, and deter any further use in violation of international conventions. They stressed that the strikes were limited and not intended to signal a Western intervention in the Syrian civil war or an attempt at regime change.

“The purpose of our actions tonight is to establish a strong deterrent against the production, spread and use of chemical weapons,” US President Donald Trump said in a televised address. “We are prepared to sustain this response until the Syrian regime stops its use of prohibited chemical agents.”

In London, British Prime Minister Theresa May repeated that the military action was not about “intervening in a civil war” and “it is not about regime change.”

“It is about a limited and targeted strike that does not further escalate tensions in the region and that does everything possible to prevent civilian casualties,” she said.

Read more: Airstrikes in Syria: What you need to know

Limited military operation

Sam Heller, a senior analyst at the International Crisis Group, said the military action seemed intended as a limited, proportional and deterrent response against chemical weapons use.

“That is how these strikes were evidently planned in terms of the targets that were selected and also how they were communicated publicly, which seems to be uniformly in terms of chemical weapons deterrent, not more expansive political demands or some attempt at regime change,” he said.

Trump, who in recent weeks has signaled that the US may pull back its presence in northeast Syria after the defeat of the “Islamic State” (IS), said in his remarks that the United States was not seeking a permanent presence in Syria.

The military action came despite concern that it could have unintended consequences, including direct Western conflict with Russia, which backs the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and has troops at the Hmeimim air base and its naval facility at Tartus.

Read more: Russia demands UN Security Council condemn missile attack

Moscow said none of the more than 100 missiles targeted its bases and it did not activate its air defenses, despite threats earlier in the week that it would shoot down missiles and the platforms from where they were launched. Russia said Syrian air defenses shot down 71 out of 103 missiles, although that could not be confirmed independently, and the Pentagon said the strikes “successfully hit every target.”

Read more: What foreign powers want from the Syrian war

Enough to deter chemical weapons use? 

It is unclear if the tripartite military action will have the desired effect of halting chemical weapons attacks. The Assad regime has repeatedly used chemical weapons, including chlorine and nerve agents, during the seven-year war, despite a 2013 deal brokered by the United States and Russia to remove Syria’s chemical weapons. Trump ordered 59 cruise missile launches in April 2017 on a Syria air base in response to a nerve agent attack in the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun in northwestern Syria.

Read more: Opinion: Syrian airstrikes send a clear message

“The erosion of the norm (against chemical weapons use) has already taken place,” said Eran Etzion, a former Israeli deputy national security adviser. There is no reason to believe that the “overall erosion of the use of chemical weapons will change.”

Nicholas Heras, a Middle East Security Fellow at the Center for a New American Security, described Trump’s actions as a “dog and pony show.”

“The Trump administration literally slapped Bashar al-Assad on the wrist, and even worse, the Trump team seemed to justify al-Assad using non-chemical weapon means to win his war. As long as al-Assad does not use chemical weapons, he is good,” said Heras.

Joshua Landis, the director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma, said the United States had tried to look strong in a situation where it does not have much leverage, and seeks to leave Syria.

“Ultimately, what Trump is doing with these deterrence exercises is influencing a very narrow bandwidth within the Syrian civil war, which is the use of chemical weapons,” he said, pointing out chemical weapons attacks have killed an estimated 1,900 people in a war that has claimed half a million lives.

War running in Assad’s favor

The Western military response comes as the Syrian regime, backed by Russia and Iran, has largely turned the war in its favor, retaking large swaths of territory from rebels since Russia intervened in 2015.

This week, the Syrian regime retook full control from rebels of the Damascus suburb of eastern Ghouta, including Douma, where the alleged chemical weapons attack took place, after a two-month regime offensive.

“From the point of view of al-Assad, Iran and Russia, the real action of this war is happening on the ground and on the ground al-Assad is winning,” said Landis. “Syria and Russia have zero interest in escalating with America” at a time Washington is signalling it will pull back from Syria.

Read more: Opinion: A US pullback from Syria is a terrible idea

Both Russia and Iran decried what they called a violation of international law and Syria’s sovereignty, but it was unclear what, if any, response they would make. The reaction from Damascus and its backers following the 2017 US strike in Syria was muted despite repeated threats.

Asymmetric response

If there is a Russian, Syrian or Iranian response, it is likely to be indirect and asymmetrical, such as targeting or undermining the US presence in Syria or retaliating against its allies.

“There are certainly various asymmetric means through which Russia, Syria and Iran could respond inside Syria or outside,” said Heller.

The United States is vulnerable in northeastern Syria, where it has about 2,000 special forces deployed alongside the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a mixed Kurdish and Arab force fighting IS and seeking to stabilize the northeast of the country. It also has troops in Iraq, where Iran-backed militias hold considerable sway.

According to Heller, “there are ways the Syrian government and its allies can make it more difficult or less tenable for the US and its coalition to operate inside Syria,” including possibly Russia using its air defenses to limit US airpower.

“The lowest-hanging fruit for Bashar al-Assad and his allies is not to target the United States military directly in Syria, but to try to degrade the efforts of the Syrian Democratic Forces to govern in the wake of IS,” said Heras. “If al-Assad and his allies can weaken the SDF, they can crack the foundation of the US military’s planning for Syria.”

Threat of Israel-Iran conflict 

Another potential response could be aimed directly or indirectly at Israel, which has carried out dozens of airstrikes in Syria targeting Iran and its Lebanese Shiite proxy Hezbollah. On Monday, suspected Israeli warplanes targeted Syria’s T-4 air base, drawing a rebuke from Russia and vows of retaliation from Iran.

Following Saturday’s US-led strikes, a top Russian defense official, Colonel-General Sergei Rudskoi, said Moscow may reconsider supplying Syria with S-300 surface-to-air missile systems to upgrade its aging Soviet-era anti-missile systems. Such a move would restrict Israel’s freedom to maneuver across Syria’s skies.

“It is reasonable to expect that Russia will limit the ability of Israel to exercise a similar attack in the future,” Etzion said, referring to the T-4 strike. “For the Russians, they don’t want to be seen as supporting direct confrontation with Israel, but do believe the higher profile of alleged Israeli attacks in Syria are an increasing concern for them.”

Israel has long warned it won’t allow an Iranian and Hezbollah entrenchment in Syria that could target Israel, raising concern about direct conflict between the two enemies that could spiral into a regional war.

Each evening at 1830 UTC, DW’s editors send out a selection of the day’s hard news and quality feature journalism. You can sign up to receive it directly here.

DW RECOMMENDS

The post US-led strikes on Syria: A move with unpredictable consequences first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.