The United States regards its presence in Syria as a strategic tool and will maintain it unless Iran withdraws its forces from the country, which is a highly unlikely scenario, former UK Ambassador to Syria Peter Ford told Sputnik.

“The United States regards this territory as pawns in a chess game. It will not surrender any of these pawns except in return for, principally, withdrawal of Iranian forces from Syria,” Ford said.

Washington has been insisting that Iranian military had been present in Syria. Reacting to these accusations, Tehran, in turn, repeatedly denied it, explaining that Iranian army advisors have been the only country’s military presence in the country upon the Syrian government’s authorization. It has also been confirmed by Syria itself.

The Pentagon initially said that the US presence was aimed at defeating the Daesh* terrorist group. In September, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis noted that alleged Iranian presence in Syria was one of the obstacles on the path to Syrian settlement.

Meanwhile, the very same presence of the United States in Syria is the reason Tehran does not leave the country, bringing the situation into a deadlock, according to Ford.

“We can state with certainty that Iran will not leave Syria for as long as there’s one pair of American military boots on Syrian soil. And Iran will not leave in fact until Idlib is liberated,” he added.

Washington is simultaneously locked in a standoff with Ankara over support for Kurdish forces controlling Rojava and Al Tanf, who Turkey accuses of having links to Kurdish separatists in the country.

ALSO READ  Senior officer in IRGC killed in northwestern Syria

“We must, I’m afraid, look forward to the US continuing to occupy the Kurdish-controlled area Al Tanf… The outlook is for a long-term freeze of the American occupation of these parts of Syria. I find it hard to envisage scenario at least in the short or medium-term where they leave,” the retired diplomat concluded.



Source: Sputnik

Share this article:
  • 61

Notice: All comments represent the view of the commenter and not necessarily the views of AMN.

All comments that are not spam or wholly inappropriate are approved, we do not sort out opinions or points of view that are different from ours.

This is a Civilized Place for Public Discussion

Please treat this discussion with the same respect you would a public park. We, too, are a shared community resource — a place to share skills, knowledge and interests through ongoing conversation.

These are not hard and fast rules, merely guidelines to aid the human judgment of our community and keep this a clean and well-lighted place for civilized public discourse.

Improve the Discussion

Help us make this a great place for discussion by always working to improve the discussion in some way, however small. If you are not sure your post adds to the conversation, think over what you want to say and try again later.

The topics discussed here matter to us, and we want you to act as if they matter to you, too. Be respectful of the topics and the people discussing them, even if you disagree with some of what is being said.

Be Agreeable, Even When You Disagree

You may wish to respond to something by disagreeing with it. That’s fine. But remember to criticize ideas, not people. Please avoid:

  • Name-calling
  • Ad hominem attacks
  • Responding to a post’s tone instead of its actual content
  • Knee-jerk contradiction

Instead, provide reasoned counter-arguments that improve the conversation.

newest oldest most voted
Notify of

They won’t give it up voluntarily.. but will they be able to sustain their presence there is another question altogether. The US knows they have another Afghanistan situation on their hands – while, I might add, they’re still stuck in Afghanistan with the Taliban having what appears to be the last laugh.

Karel Vd Geest

There is nu kurdish presence in Al Tanf. Imo there is no good reason for US to hold on to it , unless IS drives SAA out of that region, linking to the Euphrates river. Then SDF can attack them there and connect to al Tanf, closing Syria to Iran. At least it will prevent both Turkey and Syria to attack the north. If it takes long enough, Northern Syria will stabilise and develop.