US-Turkish Agreement on the Kurds and ISIS

Washington seems to be aggravating the terrorism card in Syria in order to achieve a host of political and strategic objectives in Syria. Following on from its previous position with respect to the US military base in Syria, and the presence of officially stated 900 military personnel to combat Al-Qaeda and Islamic State (ISIS) or Daesh, the US aims to keep the threat of ISIS acute as a sword over the necks of the rebels Hayat Tahrir al Sham (HTS) in order to guarantee that any new regime in Syria guided by HTS will not deviate from the political outcomes or interests which Washington seeks in the region.

Washington’s provocation of the ISIS issue was clear from the flurry of managed meetings at senior diplomatic levels between the US administration and its counterparts in Jordan, Turkey and Iraq. Prior to US Secretary of State Blinken’s departure to the Middle East, he gaslighted the ISIS threat in Syria and the idea that Syria would be used as a base for terrorism when he said;

“ISIS will try to use this period to re-establish its capabilities, to create safe havens,” (AP News 10/12/24)

Jordan was also put on notice with regards to the possibility of instability both from ISIS as well as an internal fallout from Israel’s actions in Palestine, when President Biden spoke to Jordan’s King Abdullah by phone about the US commitment to the “defeat-ISIS mission” in Syria. According to the transcript;

“The President emphasized the support of the United States for the stability of Jordan and Jordan’s central role in maintaining stability and de-escalating tensions throughout the Middle East region” (Al -Arabiya 10/12/24).

As for ISIS, this is a movement created by the Americans as part of its foreign policy armoury to justify its military bases, presence and expansion in areas of American interests such as Iraq, Syria, Africa and Afghanistan/Pakistan, as a follow on from the previous entrapment under the post 9/11 ‘Global War on Terror’, which subsequently was demoted and restricted under the Obama administration to a war on ISIS, in order to re-orient America’s attention and military forces towards the challenge of China.

Washington, through the Turk’s gave the green light to Hayat Tahrir al Sham (HTS) to move towards Damascus, after the Turks had prepared the ground for the takeover when Bashar al Asad refused to engage with American demands to build a new government with the opposition, after which the conditions as well as ground realities also changed for Asad’s regime with the degrading of Hezbollah by Israel, leading to Iran’s weakness and Russia’s inability to concentrate on militarily protecting Asad in the Syria whilst fighting in Ukraine at the same time.

With regards to HTS leader, Ahmed al Sharaa (formerly Mohammed al Jolani), he was groomed by Turkey away from the more radical groups such as Jabah at ul Nusra (JAN) and association with Al Qaeda etc, but was also familiar to Washington when CIA also supported groups working with JAN under the Obama administration, the association of which was revealed by Wikileaks in US cables published by the Washington Post.

The background of HTS provided further justification for the American base at Al Mantaj which borders Iraq and Jordan housing officially stated 900 US troops to remain in Syria in order to maintain the idea of the threat from ISIS and the need for its securitisation, and now to used to protect American assets in HTS.

Yet, despite the categorisation of HTS as a terrorist organisation, and unlike her policy with the Taliban in Afghanistan, Blinken confirmed on 14/12/24, that he had been in direct contact with HTS, stating that “We’ve been in contact with HTS and with other parties,” (France 24 14/12/24). He said that in the dialogue with HTS the United States also “shared the principles” on Syria that he has publicly laid out, one of which was the need to prevent ISIS from re-emerging in Syria.

This means that the issue of ISIS was clearly discussed with HTS and “other groups” and similar to the withdrawal agreement with the Taliban, put a condition upon a new Syrian regime with regards to terrorism emerging from its territory which the Americans can exploit at anytime as a pretext for intervention, since it is the hand behind ISIS and other terrorist organisations.

The American push to put ISIS at the centre of the Syrian agenda was clearly apparent from the statements of US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, on his visit to the region and by US CENTCOM chief, responsible for the Middle East, General Erik Kurilla. After a meeting with Jordanian military commanders on the 10/12/2024, “Gen. Kurilla reiterated the US commitment to supporting Jordan should any threats arise from Syria during the current period of transition,” (Al Arabiya 10/12/24).

After visiting US troops in Syria, Kurilla visited Baghdad where he met with Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia’ al Sudani, Chief of Staff Gen. Abdul Amir Rashid Yarallah, and Iraqi Joint Operations Deputy Commander Gen. Qais al-Muhammadawai. After the meeting Kurilla stated,

“We remain dedicated to the enduring defeat of ISIS and committed to the security of our partners that neighbour Syria – including Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Israel” (USCENTCOM 10/12/2024)

Kurilla’s visit was doubled up with US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken’s visit to region in order to put the US pieces in place for Washington’s continued control over Syria and the region and like Kurilla focused on the ISIS trap. Before leaving for the region Blinken stated, “History shows how quickly moments of promise can descend into conflict and violence. ISIS will try to use this period to re-establish its capabilities, to create safe havens. As our precision strikes over the weekend demonstrate, we are determined not to let that happen.” (Reuters 11/12/24).

After Jordan, Blinken went to Turkey, which was the crucial meeting due to Turkey’s dominant role in Syria, the situation with the Kurds, and its influence over HTS and Sharaa. What became clear after Blinken’s meeting with Turkish Foreign Minister Hakkan Fidan and comments from Turkish President Erdogan was an accommodation between the US and Turkey, whereby the US would ease off its support for the Kurds and the Kurdish groups such as the Syrian Defence Forces and the YPG, whom Turkey considers a terrorist outfit having links with the PKK, with which Turkey is in conflict, in exchange for Turkey’s continued agency in influencing the factions and transition in Syria, as well support for Washington’s interventionism and military presence under the pretext of fighting ISIS.

Turkey, which sees the Kurdish groups such as the PKK and the PYG as an existential threat due to their desire for autonomy and separate state carved from Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria. Consequently, their presence on Turkey’s border is considered as constituting a threat to the territorial integrity of state.

Hence, after the fall of Bashar al Asad, the Turkish backed Syrian National Army pushed ahead against the US partnered and Kurdish dominated Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which the US had armed and financed under the umbrella of fighting ISIS, and which holds some of the major oilfields in Syria.

The advance and attack by the Turkish backed Syrian National Army (SNA) was brought to a halt by a recent deal brokered by Washington, with clear signs that Washington has reached an accommodation with Turkey not to support any Kurdish attempt to take advantage of the situation in Syria, in return for Turkey’s acquiescence with the American policy of securitising ISIS, including America directing the SDF towards this purpose.

Hence, by pulling the SDF away from the SNF, the intended outcome is to create more space for ISIS and consequently Syria’s further securitisation and need for US presence in the country. This was also argued by the UK Financial Times which released an article entitled “Syria’s Kurds fear US betrayal under Donald Trump”, in which it states, “The US has for decades used Kurdish groups as foot soldiers in Iraq and Syria only to halt support once their utility ends, an outcome that some fear could put them in danger and give Isis space to regroup” (13/12/24)

The notion of a US-Turkey understanding was alluded to when prior to his arrival in Ankara, Blinken said the the PKK is an “enduring threat” to Turkey and stating, “At the same time…we want to avoid sparking any kinds of additional conflicts inside of Syria at a time when we want to see this transition to an interim government and to a better way forward,” (Al Arabiya 13/12/24).

In response, and in line with what seems to have been agreed with Washington, Erdogan met Blinken at Ankara airport with the following statement;

“Turkey will never allow any weakness to arise in the fight against ISIS,” (Reuters 13/12/24)

Further discussions were then held between Blinken and Fidan in Ankara, with the following statements. Blinken said;

“Our countries worked very hard and gave a lot over many years to ensure the elimination of the territorial caliphate of ISIS, to ensure that threat doesn’t rear its head again, and it’s imperative that we keep at those efforts,” (Al Arabiya 13/12/24)

Hakkan Fidan in his follow up comments, confirmed Ankara’s support for Washington’s position with regards to ISIS, and highlighted the understanding between the two with regards to the Kurds and the PKK. Fidan commented;

”Never allow terrorism to take advantage of the transition period. And we have to coordinate our efforts and learn from the mistakes of the past,” (BBC 14/11/24)

“Priority in Syria is to ensure stability…as soon as possible, to prevent terrorism from gaining ground and to prevent [ISIS] and the PKK from dominating there…We discussed in detail what we can do about these, what our common concerns are, and what our common solutions should be,” (Al Arabiya 13/12/24)

Clear statements that both Turkey and Washington have come to an agreement concerning the US supported Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and the the Kurdish issue in Syria as well as ISIS.

Blinken then travelled to what was termed an unannounced visit to Iraq, which is affectively a US colony where the US maintains considerable military presence and where Washington created the phenomenon of ISIS as a creative tool to justify her continued political and military presence in Iraq and the region.

It was reported that Blinken met Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani for talks on the ‘future of neighbouring Syria’. Alluding to the clear nature of the talks and in line with the planning with Jordan and Turkey, after talks with the compliant American client al Sudani, Blinken stated that Syria should not become a “platform for terrorism”, commenting further on the successes gained through the model of US interventionism in Iraq, despite the fact that the ISIS crisis was a creation and tool by Washington. Blinken stated.

“I think this is a moment as well for Iraq to reinforce its own sovereignty as well as its stability, security and success going forward…The United States [and] Iraq together had tremendous success in taking away the territorial caliphate that Daesh had created years ago.” (Al Jazeera 13/12/24)

From the above, it seems evident that Blinken’s visit to the Middle East was to provide instructions to her clients in the region on American intervention in the future of “New Syria”, and how to further the American plan for governance and security in Syria, including Washington’s policy of using ISIS. Washington’s instructions were heeded quickly, evidenced by a precisely co-ordinated meeting with Blinken’s visit, of the Arab League, held in Jordan, which issued a “Final Statement of the Meeting of Arab Ministerial Contact Committee on Syria”, which amongst other issues stated in point 8;

“A commitment to enhancing efforts to combat terrorism and cooperating in fighting it, given that it poses a danger to Syria and the security of the region and the world, and its defeat is a shared priority”

These statements confirm that Washington has reached an understanding with Ankara with regards to the Kurds and ISIS. Both of which can be weaponised to achieve instability and interventionism in the region when required.