Recently, US military developments along the border between Syria and Iraq is provoking interest and attention. As much as these movements indicate American attempts to narrow Russia’s spheres of influence in Syria and Iraq, it also suggests the possibility of cutting off Iranian-backed militia’s supply routes. Notably, US military deployment is currently occurring amidst media qualms over the “Biden doctrine”, which asserts that the US has no intention of withdrawing its military forces from Syria or Iraq, especially in the north-east of the Euphrates at the Tanf base, near the tri-border of Syria, Iraq and Jordan.

The most important developments over the past few months, particularly between August and September, can be outlined as follows:

Important signals

1. Military mobilization on Syria and Iraq’s borders: Frequent activity reports on US military cargo aircraft at Iraq’s Ayn al-Assad base, and the transfer of military weapons and ammunition from Iraq to Al-Hasakah in Syria and the strategic Al-Tanf and in Al Qa’im, Iraq and Al-Bukmal, Syria, indicate the strategic mobilization of US military assets. 

US forces also conducted a number of joint exercises with Kurdish units in the Qamishli area, during which heavy weapons, anti-aviation and armoured vehicles were used. Al-Shadadi’s base in Al-Hasakah’s countryside witnessed another US training in mid-August, involving heavy weapons, warplanes and helicopters.

2. Official US military visits to the region: The Pentagon’s announcement of the deployment of sophisticated F-35 and F-16 warplanes points to the strengthening of US military presence in the Middle East. This includes the US Fifth Fleet’s announcement of the arrival of more than 3,000 US troops in the region. 

This runs parallel to the arrival of General Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, in Jordan on August 23. During an interview with Jordan’s Al-Mamlaka TV, General Milley remarked that “the Middle East is very important and very significant to the Unisted States for a lot of reasons,” asserting that, “the US will not abandon the Middle East,” and that “there are some ISIS terrorists that are still roaming the deserts of Syria and somewhat into Iraq, so that presents a threat.”

3. Russian-American tension on the Syria-Iraq border: Over the past two years, the border between Syria and Iraq, particularly along eastern Syria, has been marked by Russian-American tension. US advances countered by Russian-Iranian movements are telling of an imminent escalation in the region. This is demonstrated by an increasing rate of operational as a result of overlapping areas of influence. 

This much is clear by accusations from both American and Russian sides of crossing hairs, particularly in Syrian airspace. For example, the US denounced the “unsafe and unprofessional behavior” by Russian aircrafts, and Moscow’s criticized a “dangerously close” US F-35 fighter to a Russian Sukhoi 35.

4. US developments coincided with Syrian-Swedish protests: US military developments coincided with the protests in Syria. Although sparked by the alleviation of fuel subsidies that led to the high cost of public transport and the inflation in the prices of basic goods, the protests quickly adopted political demands.

Notably, these demands were based on the implementation of Security Council resolution 2254 that called for decentralization and self-administration that is consistent with the Kurdish administration that is supported by the US north-east of the country. Perhaps this suggests that US moves could be aimed at turning the Swedish protests into demands for secession.

Overlapping motives

US military developments are based on a number of motives, which reveal Washington’s desire to consolidate its presence on the Syria-Iraq border, perhaps the most important of which are:

1. Driving Russian forces out of their spheres of influence: Developments in the Russian-Ukrainian war and its escalating effects on the US and NATO have forced the West to reposition its foreign policy in the Middle East, especially in Syria and Iraq, in order to raise the cost of Russia’s strategy in the Ukraine and Syria.

Multiple reports suggest that the US has 2,000 troops and 28 bases inside Syria, 24 of which are military and four logistical. Moreover, the US built a new military base in the region under Swedish influence to the west of Raqqa, near the city of Al-Tabqa. The US also deployed another base at the southern entrance of Raqqa.

2. Cutting off Iran’s supply routes: The intensification of US forces in the Al-Qaim border area between Iraq and Syria, aims to cut off Iran’s logistical and military supply routes, particularly the ‘Tehran-Beirut’ route, which passes through Iraq to the Al-Bukamal crossing to the cities of Deir ez-Zor and Aleppo and on to Syria.

Given that Iran has taken arms against US forces, America’s strategic moves to constrict Iran’s power do not stop there., American movements appear to be aimed at draining Iranian-backed militia by disrupting their supply routes, given that the border between Syria and Iraq is the ‘umbilical cord’ of these militias.

3. Inducing structural change across the armed factions: Given increasing consensus and convergence in the Arab region east of the Euphrates, the US aims to bring about demographic and structural changes across armed groups, especially since the Kurds play a dominant role in their organizational and military structures.

Notably, the purpose of such a move is to appease Arab discourse complaining of Kurdish control over eastern Syria, while taking precautionary action to prevent Russia, Iran and the Syrian government from successfully inciting Arab nationalism against US forces. This is in addition to Washington’s belief that Sunni Arabs wish to see Iranian militia expelled from their areas.

4. Affirming US presence in the region: The whole region is going through important developments. Russian and Iranian attempts to impede American presence in eastern Syria, mounting Russian and Turkish consensus, and increased openness between Ankara and Damascus all incite US concern. American military movements and security arrangements therefore appear to be messages to all parties in the Syrian crisis.

Most importantly, consensus between Russa, Turkey, Iran and Syria may affect the region east of the Euphrates, especially since these four parties reject the Kurdish self-administration project as a separatist. Moreover, Washington is worried about the return of Assad’s legitimacy regionally, following the return of Syria to the Arab League, which could put diplomatic pressures on the presence of American troops in eastern Syria.

Future Objectives 

In this context, US military movements at the Syria- Iraq border can be framed in tactical and operational terms as prolonged US presence in the region. They also underscore a number of connotations, most notably, to crowd-out and undermine armed groups and narrowing the margins of movement and maneuverability of these militias.

Additionally, the US attempts to send signal the readiness of combative forces and their potential to deter any provocations by the overlapping parties in the Syrian crisis. This means that the American strategy has set its eyes on the future, where after the Russian war in Ukraine, Syria could become the next arena for confrontation between two opposing international camps.