The American impasse is in Iraq not in Syria

Written by Nasser Kandil,

Many American reports including the speech that took place during the electoral campaign of the President Donald Trump reveal that ISIS was born to justify the American return to Iraq in addition to many other goals, and that the management of  the war on ISIS depended on the remaining of the Americans in Iraq for a long time. The few years of ISIS’s age compared with what was predicted by the former US President Barack Obama say that the alert of the resistance forces in Iraq and Iran especially the General Qassim Soleimani refused the American way of getting rid of ISIS which depended on restricting the battle with the Iraqi army and refusing any role of the Popular Crowd on  one hand and on the other hand, it depended on opening corridors  for the withdrawal of ISIS and refusing any tight besiege on it, under the pretext of facilitating the winning in the battles, but the fact was  to prevent ending these battles. The battle of Mosul was a witness of the size of the pressures to exclude the Popular Crowd from the battle of Tal Afar where America and Turkey converged on raising the red card. Iraq refused to obey and the Popular Crowd continued its challenge and closed the corridors in front of ISIS. Therefore, the American plan to prolong the war and the transition from one region to another has failed and the bet on keeping the Syrian army away from the Iraqi borders which become under the control of the Popular Crowd has failed too.

The complete American failure in Syria and in order to avoid the collision with the Syrian army and its allies when the battle of Idlib will finish, the Americans started talking about the withdrawal and its deadline, but they discovered what is more dangerous than the collapse of the front of the Arab, Israeli, Turkish, and Kurdish allies and the rashness of its parties between Moscow and Syria in order to get a bill of insurance. The linkage between the withdrawal and the end of the battle with ISIS paved the way for the battle of getting them out of Iraq as long as the battle is over or about to end. America was thinking that the difference of its legitimate presence covered by the Iraqi government from its non-legitimate presence according the Syrian government is enough to make a difference. The reports of the strategic studies centers in Washington agree that the American concern from the future of the presence in Iraq is the cause of stopping the withdrawal from Syria despite its awareness that the moment of the withdrawal from Syria is not so far and it is not selective or under control.

The campaigns of getting the Americans out of Iraq will not stop; the Popular Crowd raised the slogan to the parliament, and the Prime Minister left the matter to the parliament; the President of the Republic announced that he would not accept the remaining of US bases in Iraq. The US President showed his intentions to create a role for the presence in Iraq entitled observing Iran. In best cases, the Iraqis do not want to be a title used by the Americans in the confrontation with Iran, including the opponents of Iran from the Iraqis. The campaign of ousting the occupation troops embarrasses many people from being neutral and accuses them in their patriotism; it attracts the Iraqi street and reunites its sects.

The American presence in Syria became a secondary issue comparing with the American presence in Iraq, knowing that there is a US talk about the withdrawal from Afghanistan which is approved by the government, therefore, the resistance may resort to force if Washington insists on its staying. The balances of forces show that Washington does not bear the return to face the bleeding of its forces against the resistance which possesses the capacities now. Many Iraqi leaders say that this year will be the last year for the American presence in Iraq.

The strategic dynamic range of the resistance, its countries, and its forces are on a date at the end of this year with a true linkage of the capacities of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. So, Israel has to think very well.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,