In recent days, allegations about the withdrawal of American troops from Syria and Iraq have been among the important topics on the agenda.
This step, which was frequently discussed but not implemented during the tenure of former President Donald Trump, is directly related to Israel's attacks on Gaza since October 7th.
Trump's desire to withdraw American troops from the Middle East with the motto "Ending endless wars" was not fulfilled.
Especially the U.S. Department of Defense (Pentagon) was the institution that opposed this step the most. There has been no change in Trump's thoughts as he struggles to return to the White House.
On the other hand, the current President Joe Biden and his team do not want to repeat the images of "withdrawal from Afghanistan" before the elections in November. So, the issue of withdrawal from Iraq and Syria is also related to the domestic public opinion in the United States.
The reason for the re-emergence of the withdrawal from Syria is the allegations published on the website El-Monitor. According to the site, the White House National Security Council held a meeting on withdrawal from Syria and Iraq with officials from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Department of State. The site based its news on unnamed sources.
Following this news, Charles R. Lister, who closely follows the region, wrote an article titled "America is planning to withdraw from Syria and create a disaster" in the American Foreign Policy magazine.
According to sources from the defense and foreign ministries speaking to Lister, who argues that the withdrawal of the United States from Syria will disrupt efforts against ISIS, the Biden administration is not as willing as before to continue a mission it now considers unnecessary in Syria.
"Although final decisions have not yet been made, discussions within the administration continue on when and how the forces will withdraw," Charles R. Lister said in a statement.
Despite the escalation of these claims and discussions, Washington announced that it does not have any intention to withdraw from Syria.
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland, speaking to CNN Turk, also expressed that her country does not consider withdrawing its forces from Syria in the face of the ongoing threat from ISIS.
Nuland emphasized the importance of strengthening cooperation with Türkiye, despite disagreements in managing the war. She stated, "I would like to clearly state that the United States will not withdraw from Syria. ISIS is still active in many places. We have been partners with Türkiye in the fight against terrorism for decades."
Despite the denials by U.S. officials, Reuters news agency transmitted a news report based on the American Wall Street Journal newspaper.
According to the news, based on current and former American officials, the U.S. military is preparing to withdraw its forces from Syria by the end of April and will have withdrawn most of them by mid-March.
A U.S. official speaking to Reuters confirmed the withdrawal target for April and said that it includes the withdrawal from the Tenef base near the border between Syria, Iraq, and Jordan.
The Tenef base on the Jordan-Syria border has been targeted by Iran-backed groups operating in Iraq, resulting in the deaths of three American soldiers.
This attack has fueled discussions about Washington's "withdrawal from the region" both within the United States and in Iraq and Syria.
American sources state that Israel's attacks on Gaza since October 7th have led to revisions in U.S. regional policies. There is no clarity on where these changes will occur.
However, especially after the attacks on the Tenef base, it is known that the Iraqi government demanded the withdrawal of U.S.-led coalition forces from the country.
Iraqi Prime Minister Muhammed Shiya al-Sudani has given numerous statements that the mission of the U.S.-led coalition forces in the country is over and they need to withdraw. According to a statement from the Iraqi Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Baghdad and Washington have agreed to establish a commission to start negotiations on the future of the U.S.-led military coalition in Iraq.
The commission will set a timetable for the gradual withdrawal of troops and the termination of the coalition.
While the government in Sudan demands the withdrawal of coalition forces through official and diplomatic efforts, it also conducts an electronic referendum to create public pressure.
Some sources revealed the contents of the message sent by U.S. officials to the Iraqi government regarding arrangements for the withdrawal of International Coalition forces to the London-based Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper.
The message included "the obligations of the Iraqi side," as well as "the method and timetable of withdrawal," emphasizing that this withdrawal would not be cost-free and would not stop deterrent attacks against armed groups loyal to Iran.
The exchange of messages between Baghdad and Washington reveals that Iran-backed forces are perceived as a fundamental support. Therefore, the United States fears that any withdrawal will hand over the entire region to militias supported by Tehran.
This concern is not new. The comments like "The 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein opened the field to Tehran" are not new. This debate has been going on for many years.
What makes the debate new is that now Syria has been added to Iraq. Dozens of groups supporting the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria are operating there. Both the capital Damascus, Aleppo, and other important cities have a significant Shiite population, and some of these groups control parts of Deir ez-Zor near the Iraq-Syria border.
There are concerns about Washington's efforts against ISIS. It is claimed that the terrorist organization could regain strength and regain control of areas.
It is claimed that Washington's political and military elites want to reconcile the PKK/YPG terrorist organization with the Assad regime for this reason. The truth is that there is already a relationship between the terrorist organization and the regime... The organization, which occupies the oil regions, has the regime as its biggest customer.
On the other hand, the question of what will happen to the terrorist organization PKK/YPG in the event of a withdrawal is the biggest argument of those who argue that "Washington should not withdraw."
The U.S. administration, which cooperated with the terrorist organization under the pretext of fighting ISIS, does not want to worry its "local partners" regarding withdrawal allegations.
If the allegations are true, it is possible to see the statement of Pentagon spokesman Major General Patrick Ryder that the news claiming that the terrorist organization PKK/YPG was directed to cooperate with the Assad regime is not true as a continuation of the policy of not causing concern.
However, recent events in Afghanistan, witnessed by the world, have been recorded as the latest example of Washington's habit of leaving its "local partners" in the lurch.
