The Syrian government’s perspective on the presence of US military forces on its territory is unequivocal: it views it as an act of occupation and state piracy. This sentiment was underscored once more following a missile attack on a US base at the Conoco gas field in Deir ez-Zur province. On a Saturday, a Syrian military source revealed that five missiles targeted the base, with three striking within the base’s territory and two landing nearby. This incident is part of a larger pattern of attacks against US and coalition forces in the region, especially since the escalation of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in October 2023. This article aims to provide a detailed analysis of the situation, exploring historical contexts, recent developments, geopolitical implications, and the broader regional conflict.
Historical Context of US Military Involvement in Syria
The US military presence in Syria has been a contentious issue since its inception. Initially justified under the pretext of combating Daesh (ISIS), the US military intervention began in earnest in 2014. The primary goal was to dismantle the terrorist organization that had established a self-declared caliphate across parts of Syria and Iraq. However, even after the significant defeat of ISIS, US forces have maintained their presence, particularly in regions rich in oil and gas resources.
Former President Donald Trump openly stated the strategic intent behind this continued presence, emphasizing that American troops were in Syria to “take the oil.” This blunt admission underscored a broader strategy of resource control, which has persisted under President Joe Biden’s administration.
Recent Developments and Escalations
Attacks on US Bases
The frequency and intensity of attacks on US military installations in Syria have increased notably in recent months. On October 27, 2023, reports emerged of missile strikes on US bases located at the Al-Omar oil field and the Conoco gas field. Six missiles were reported to have hit the Al-Omar base, raising significant concerns among US forces. This incident followed the Pentagon’s announcement of “self-defense strikes” against facilities in eastern Syria, which were alleged to be used by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and affiliated groups.
Simultaneously, two drones targeted US forces near Erbil Airport in northern Iraq. This attack was claimed by the Islamic Resistance in Iraq, marking it as part of a broader pattern of assaults attributed to Iranian-backed militias. The US Department of Defense confirmed the attack, noting minor damage to infrastructure but no casualties.
Strategic and Geopolitical Implications
The US military presence in Syria is strategically significant for several reasons. The bases in northeastern Syria not only secure crucial oil and gas resources but also serve as strategic points for US influence in the region. The US maintains approximately a dozen bases manned by at least 900 troops, with additional forces in Iraq in an advisory capacity. These forces were initially deployed under the guise of fighting terrorism but have faced criticism for their prolonged stay and strategic resource control.
Syrian and Iranian Responses
Syria, backed by its allies, has consistently condemned the US military’s actions as illegal and detrimental to its sovereignty. The Syrian government estimates that up to 90% of its oil and gas resources are under US occupation, leading to economic losses exceeding $100 billion. Damascus has raised these concerns at various international forums, including the United Nations, highlighting the destructive impact of the US presence on its economy and sovereignty.
Iran, a key ally of Syria, has also been vocal in its opposition. President Joe Biden recently warned Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei of potential US retaliation if attacks on US troops continued. Despite these warnings, Iranian-backed militias have persisted in their operations, reflecting the deep-seated regional animosities and strategic interests at play.
Broader Regional Conflict
The escalating violence in Syria cannot be viewed in isolation from broader regional dynamics, particularly the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Since Hamas’ attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, there has been a surge in regional tensions. The US backing of Israel has inflamed public opinion across the Muslim world, further complicating the situation. The official death toll from Israel’s operations in Gaza is approaching 40,000, exacerbating the crisis.
The interplay between the US presence in Syria, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and Iranian influence is creating a volatile mix. US officials have accused Iran of supporting militias responsible for the attacks on US forces. However, Tehran denies direct involvement, asserting that these militias are part of a broader self-defense response against US and Israeli aggression.
In-depth Analysis of US Military Operations in Syria
The Strategic Importance of Deir ez-Zur and Al-Hasakah
Deir ez-Zur and Al-Hasakah provinces are not only rich in natural resources but also strategically positioned. Control over these regions allows the US to exert significant influence over Syria’s economic resources and maintain a strategic foothold in the Middle East. The Al-Omar oil field and Conoco gas field are particularly valuable, providing substantial revenue and energy resources.
Military Infrastructure and Capabilities
The US has established a robust military infrastructure in Syria, with advanced bases equipped with cutting-edge technology and weaponry. These bases serve multiple purposes, including intelligence gathering, logistical support, and direct military operations. The presence of US Special Forces and advanced aerial capabilities further enhances their operational effectiveness.
Economic Impact on Syria
The economic impact of the US presence in Syria is profound. The Syrian government estimates that the occupation of its oil and gas fields has resulted in losses exceeding $100 billion. This economic strain has been exacerbated by ongoing sanctions and the destruction of infrastructure during the conflict. The control of energy resources by US forces has significantly hindered Syria’s economic recovery and reconstruction efforts.
Geopolitical Implications
US-Iran Rivalry
The US military presence in Syria is a critical component of its broader strategy to counter Iranian influence in the region. The rivalry between the US and Iran has played out in various theaters, including Iraq, Yemen, and Lebanon. In Syria, this rivalry is particularly intense, with both sides supporting opposing factions and engaging in direct and indirect confrontations.
Russian Involvement
Russia’s involvement in Syria adds another layer of complexity to the geopolitical landscape. As a staunch ally of the Syrian government, Russia has provided military support and played a crucial role in stabilizing the Assad regime. The presence of Russian forces in Syria has led to a delicate balance of power, with both US and Russian forces operating in close proximity, raising the risk of direct confrontation.
Israeli Interests
Israel’s security concerns also play a significant role in the dynamics of the region. The Israeli government views Iranian influence in Syria as a direct threat and has conducted numerous airstrikes against Iranian and Hezbollah targets in the country. The US support for Israel and its operations in Syria are closely aligned, further complicating the regional security situation.
Turkish Ambitions
Turkey’s interests in Syria are driven by its desire to counter Kurdish influence near its borders and assert its influence in the region. The Turkish government has launched several military operations in northern Syria, targeting Kurdish groups that it considers terrorist organizations. The presence of US forces in the same regions has led to tensions between the NATO allies, with differing objectives and strategies complicating their relationship.
In conclusion, the US military presence in Syria is a multifaceted issue with deep historical roots and significant geopolitical implications. The recent escalation of attacks on US bases highlights the ongoing volatility and the complex web of interests at play. The broader regional conflict, particularly the Palestinian-Israeli crisis, adds another layer of complexity, influencing and being influenced by the situation in Syria.
As the situation continues to evolve, it is essential to monitor these developments closely, understanding the strategic, economic, and geopolitical factors driving the actions of various stakeholders. The US presence in Syria, while justified under the pretext of combating terrorism, remains a contentious issue, seen by many as an act of occupation and resource exploitation. The future of Syria and the broader region will depend on the ability of these actors to navigate these challenges and find a path toward stability and peace.
APPENDIX 1 – Below is a detailed comparative table that analyzes the positions of China, Russia, India, North Korea, and NATO versus the USA’s occupation for oil business in Syria. This analysis incorporates historical context, current stance, strategic interests, and future projections.
| Country/Organization | Position on US Occupation in Syria | Historical Context | Current Stance | Strategic Interests | Future Projections |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| China | Opposes US occupation | Historically supports Syrian sovereignty and non-interference policies. | Publicly condemns US presence as illegal. Supports diplomatic resolutions. | Strategic interest in maintaining regional stability and fostering economic ties with Syria. Access to reconstruction contracts and natural resources. | Likely to continue diplomatic efforts against US occupation while strengthening economic ties with Syria. Increased involvement in UN forums. |
| Russia | Strongly opposes US occupation | Long-standing ally of Syria, providing military and political support. | Actively condemns US presence. Conducts joint military operations with Syrian forces. | Ensures regional influence, military presence, and access to Mediterranean naval base. Protects economic investments and arms contracts. | Continuation of military and political support for Assad regime. Potential for direct confrontations with US forces. |
| India | Generally opposes US occupation | Favors Syrian sovereignty and peaceful resolution of conflicts. | Advocates for Syrian sovereignty. Limited direct involvement. | Interests in regional stability and potential reconstruction opportunities. Diplomatic relations with both US and Syria. | Likely to maintain a neutral stance, advocating for peaceful resolutions and engaging in reconstruction projects. |
| North Korea | Opposes US occupation | Historically aligned with anti-US rhetoric and supports Syrian government. | Strong condemnation of US actions. Limited practical involvement. | Supports allies against US influence. Symbolic political support rather than strategic gains. | Continuation of strong rhetorical opposition to US presence. Limited direct influence on the ground. |
| NATO | Mixed positions (depends on member states) | Diverse perspectives among member states; some align with US, others more critical. | NATO itself has no unified stance; individual members vary. Some support US, others advocate withdrawal. | Collective defense, counter-terrorism, maintaining alliance cohesion. Differing national interests. | Continued mixed responses, with some members pushing for alignment with US strategy and others advocating for withdrawal and focus on diplomacy. |
| USA | Justifies occupation | Initially aimed to combat ISIS; continued presence justified by strategic and economic interests. | Maintains control over key oil and gas fields. Conducts operations against perceived threats. | Securing energy resources, maintaining regional influence, countering Iranian presence. | Likely to continue presence citing strategic and security concerns. Possible adjustments based on domestic and international pressures. |
Analysis:
China:
- Historical Context: China’s policy has consistently emphasized non-interference and respect for sovereignty, aligning with its broader international relations principles.
- Current Stance: China condemns the US occupation in Syria, calling it illegal and a violation of Syrian sovereignty. China supports a diplomatic resolution and is involved in various UN initiatives to stabilize Syria.
- Strategic Interests: China seeks stability in the region to protect its Belt and Road Initiative investments and secure access to Syrian reconstruction contracts and resources.
- Future Projections: China is likely to continue diplomatic opposition to the US presence while strengthening economic ties and participating in reconstruction efforts.
Russia:
- Historical Context: Russia has been a long-time ally of Syria, providing military, economic, and political support to the Assad regime.
- Current Stance: Russia actively condemns the US presence, often engaging in joint military operations with Syrian forces and utilizing its position in the UN to counter US actions.
- Strategic Interests: Russia aims to maintain its influence in the Middle East, protect its military bases, and secure its economic interests, including arms sales and energy projects.
- Future Projections: Russia will likely continue its strong support for Assad, potentially leading to direct confrontations with US forces while pursuing diplomatic avenues to reduce US influence.
India:
- Historical Context: India has maintained a policy of non-interference, supporting Syrian sovereignty and advocating for peaceful resolutions.
- Current Stance: India opposes the US occupation but maintains a balanced approach due to its strategic partnerships with both the US and regional players.
- Strategic Interests: India is interested in regional stability and potential economic opportunities in Syria’s reconstruction. Maintaining good relations with both the US and Syria is also a priority.
- Future Projections: India is expected to continue advocating for diplomatic solutions, engaging in reconstruction efforts, and balancing its strategic interests in the region.
North Korea:
- Historical Context: North Korea has historically aligned with anti-US sentiments and supports Syria in its opposition to US influence.
- Current Stance: North Korea strongly condemns the US occupation, though its involvement is mostly symbolic.
- Strategic Interests: North Korea’s stance is largely driven by its broader anti-US rhetoric and support for allies against US influence.
- Future Projections: North Korea will likely maintain its rhetorical opposition to the US presence in Syria, with limited direct involvement.
NATO:
- Historical Context: NATO’s member states have diverse perspectives on the US presence in Syria, reflecting their national interests and foreign policy priorities.
- Current Stance: NATO has no unified stance on the issue; member states have mixed positions, with some supporting the US and others advocating for withdrawal.
- Strategic Interests: NATO’s interests include collective defense, counter-terrorism, and maintaining alliance cohesion. National interests among members vary widely.
- Future Projections: NATO will continue to display mixed responses, with internal debates and varying levels of support for the US strategy in Syria.
USA:
- Historical Context: The US initially justified its military presence in Syria to combat ISIS and has since continued its presence citing strategic and economic interests.
- Current Stance: The US maintains control over key oil and gas fields and conducts military operations against perceived threats, particularly Iranian-backed groups.
- Strategic Interests: The US aims to secure energy resources, maintain regional influence, and counter Iranian presence.
- Future Projections: The US is likely to continue its presence in Syria, citing ongoing strategic and security concerns, though domestic and international pressures may influence future adjustments.
The geopolitical landscape surrounding the US occupation in Syria is complex, with varied positions and interests among major global and regional players. China’s diplomatic opposition, Russia’s active military involvement, India’s balanced approach, North Korea’s symbolic support, and NATO’s mixed responses highlight the intricate web of strategic interests at play. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for anticipating future developments and the potential for both conflict and resolution in the region.
APPENDIX 2 – detailed comparison table on the business relationships between the USA, Russia, China, North Korea, Japan, India, and Europe with Syria, including exports, imports, and the nature of these business engagements.
Detailed Comparison Table of Business Relations with Syria
| Country/Organization | Exports to Syria | Imports from Syria | Nature of Business | Key Products Exported | Key Products Imported |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| USA | $6.78M (2022) | $7.25M (2022) | Limited due to sanctions; primary focus on humanitarian aid and limited agricultural trade. | Sowing Seeds, Vitamins, Scented Mixtures | Building Stone, Spice Seeds, Pure Olive Oil |
| Russia | N/A | N/A | Military aid, energy sector investment, infrastructure development. | Military equipment, energy technology, construction materials. | Agricultural products, textiles. |
| China | $424M (2022) | Minimal | Infrastructure projects, energy sector investments, consumer goods. | Polyacetals, Electronics, Machinery | Agricultural products, textiles. |
| North Korea | Minimal | Minimal | Limited due to international sanctions; focus on political alliance rather than economic. | Military equipment (historical), limited consumer goods. | N/A |
| Japan | N/A | N/A | Humanitarian aid, limited trade due to sanctions. | Medical supplies, technology | N/A |
| India | N/A | N/A | Agricultural products, textiles. Engages in humanitarian aid. | Pharmaceuticals, textiles, rice | N/A |
| Europe (EU) | $0.771B (Total Syrian exports 2022) | N/A | Humanitarian aid, limited trade due to EU sanctions. | Machinery, pharmaceuticals, medical supplies | Agricultural products, textiles. |
Detailed Breakdown
USA
- Exports to Syria: $6.78M in 2022, with major products being sowing seeds, vitamins, and scented mixtures.
- Imports from Syria: $7.25M in 2022, mainly building stone, spice seeds, and pure olive oil.
- Nature of Business: Primarily focused on humanitarian aid and limited agricultural trade due to extensive sanctions imposed by the US government.
- Key Points: Trade has drastically decreased over the years, highlighting the impact of geopolitical tensions and sanctions.
Russia
- Exports to Syria: Not specified, but substantial in military and energy sectors.
- Imports from Syria: Not specified, but includes agricultural products and textiles.
- Nature of Business: Russia is heavily involved in military aid, infrastructure development, and the energy sector in Syria. Russian companies are involved in rebuilding Syrian infrastructure, particularly in the energy sector.
- Key Points: Russia’s strategic interest lies in maintaining its influence in the Middle East and securing military and economic footholds.
China
- Exports to Syria: $424M in 2022, with primary exports including polyacetals, electronics, and machinery.
- Imports from Syria: Minimal, reflecting the focus on exporting goods and services to Syria rather than importing.
- Nature of Business: China is investing in infrastructure projects and the energy sector in Syria, seeing the country as part of its Belt and Road Initiative.
- Key Points: China aims to stabilize the region to protect its investments and expand its economic influence.
North Korea
- Exports to Syria: Minimal due to sanctions, historically involved in military equipment trade.
- Imports from Syria: Minimal.
- Nature of Business: Primarily political support rather than significant economic engagement, constrained by international sanctions.
- Key Points: North Korea’s involvement is more symbolic, aligning politically with Syria against US influence.
Japan
- Exports to Syria: Not detailed, mainly humanitarian aid.
- Imports from Syria: Not detailed.
- Nature of Business: Focuses on humanitarian assistance and providing medical supplies, with limited trade activities due to sanctions.
- Key Points: Japan’s role is largely humanitarian, aiming to support Syria’s recovery through non-military means.
India
- Exports to Syria: Not detailed.
- Imports from Syria: Not detailed.
- Nature of Business: Engages in agricultural products and textiles trade, and provides humanitarian aid.
- Key Points: India maintains a neutral stance, balancing relations and focusing on economic and humanitarian contributions.
Europe (EU)
- Exports to Syria: Syria exported a total of $771M in 2022, with Europe being a significant trading partner.
- Imports from Syria: Not specified, but includes agricultural products and textiles.
- Nature of Business: Primarily focused on humanitarian aid and limited trade, constrained by EU sanctions.
- Key Points: The EU’s involvement is driven by humanitarian concerns, with a cautious approach to trade due to the complex political situation.
The business relationships between Syria and these countries/organizations vary significantly based on historical contexts, current geopolitical climates, and strategic interests. While the USA and EU are primarily involved in humanitarian efforts due to sanctions, Russia and China have substantial economic and strategic investments in Syria. North Korea’s involvement is mainly political, and India’s engagement focuses on agricultural and humanitarian aid. This detailed comparison provides a comprehensive overview of the complex international dynamics at play in Syria.
