Meanwhile in Syria

From May 12:

The fate of a remote U.S. military base in southern Syria captures the contradictions at the heart of President Trump’s Iran policy.

The tiny outpost at Tanf, surrounded by vast desert, was established during the battle against the Islamic State. But its purpose changed last year when Iranian-backed forces began bearing down on the isolated garrison.

U.S. officials feared that a small, exposed force of special operators there could be overrun as Iran, fighting in support of the Syrian government, sought to lock down a land route to Damascus and the Mediterranean Sea.

[...]

But for some senior aides, the tense encounters around Tanf were an opportunity: a chance to bolster an operation that had become an accidental bulwark against Iran, and launch a larger campaign against Tehran’s military reach in the region.

The fraught White House deliberations, which began last May and still continue today, illustrate the confusion that has characterized Trump’s response to Iran’s political and military influence across the Middle East, now at a high-water mark from Syria to Yemen and beyond.

[...]

So far, Trump’s strategy has centered on his opposition to the 2015 agreement to halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions, which he has described as “the worst deal ever.” The president’s decision on Tuesday to withdraw from the pact will force the White House and the Pentagon to shift focus to blunting Iran’s influence on battlefields across the Middle East.

[...]

The focus on Iran at Tanf began as something of an accident.

  WaPo

Pretty much sums up a lot of our Middle East policy.

Initially, the plan was to move the forces at Tanf and their American advisers north along the border with Iraq, where they would link up with other U.S.-backed units fighting the Islamic State and help recapture a strategic border crossing at Bukamal.

But before they could move out, Iranian-backed troops aligned with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government advanced toward the Iraqi border, obstructing the planned U.S. move northeast.

Rather than fight their way through enemy lines, the U.S.-backed troops and their American advisers stayed put.

[...]

The hazy mission at the Tanf base quietly shifted from battling the Islamic State, which gradually lost its tiny foothold in the area, to countering the growing Iranian presence.

More evidence that Congress has abdicated its war powers in favor of using a specific authorization post 9/11 to combat al Qaeda - and then any terrorists - which is now being used (illegally, IMO) to cover every military action.

Not only were the U.S. troops at Tanf helpful in protecting a nearby refu­gee camp, but many officials said they also could be used to interrupt shipments of weapons, personnel or funding from Iran to the Assad government in what military officials had long characterized as Tehran’s “land bridge” across the Middle East.

Completing the supply line would augment Iran’s air route, helping Tehran build up its military infrastructure in Syria and posing a sharp threat to U.S. ally Israel.

[...]

Last May, U.S. warplanes fired on a column of troops loyal to Assad, including Iranian-backed militiamen, who were headed toward the outpost. A few weeks later, U.S. aircraft struck the forces again after they fortified their position near Tanf. Then in June, the U.S. military shot down two Iranian drones around Tanf.

[...]

Inside the White House, officials who wanted to do more to counter Iranian influence began pushing to expand the security bubble around the Tanf base. The most ambitious plans called for creating a safe zone where the U.S. military could train a force to challenge Iran and the Assad regime in southern Syria.

[...]

But the bolder military plans ran into resistance from the Pentagon and, more significantly, Trump’s conflicting desires.

[...]

Again and again, Trump has boasted about his toughness on Iran.

[...]

But Trump just as often has appeared unwilling to risk an open conflict with Iran, gravitating to his opposition to the nuclear deal during discussions about the larger Iran strategy, current and former officials said.

In recent weeks — and sometimes even in the same news conference — he has talked about staying at Tanf to block Iran and expressed support for leaving Syria entirely.

“We will have a strong blockage to the Mediterranean, which to me is very important — because if we don’t, you have Iran going right to the Mediterranean. Not going to have that,” he said in a briefing in which he had also declared: “We’re going to be coming home relatively soon.”

Those clashing messages have left U.S. allies in the Middle East “chagrined,” said a former senior U.S. diplomat in the region. “They’re worried that we’ll leave . . . and about the message that sends to Iran.”

Today:

More than 100 U.S. Marines were sent as reinforcements to a remote coalition outpost in southern Syria on Friday after Russia threatened to attack militants in the area, the Pentagon said.

The troops were flown by helicopter to the base at Tanf — a small town near Syria’s borders with Iraq and Jordan. The base is used by U.S. special forces to train Syrian fighters who are confronting Islamic State militants.

Moscow has sent messages to the U.S. in recent days, warning that Russian military and Syrian government units were planning an attack on what they refer to as terrorists near Tanf, U.S. officials said.

[...]

U.S. military officials bluntly warned Russian and Syria not to go forward with an attack within a 35-mile-wide security zone that the U.S. maintains around Tanf, a key strategic outpost.

“The United States does not seek to fight the Russians, the government of Syria or any groups that may be providing support to Syria in the Syrian civil war,” said Lt. Col. Earl Brown, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command.

[...]

Central Command said the troops sent to Tanf would conduct a multiday exercise using live ammunition. “Our forces will demonstrate the capability to deploy rapidly, assault a target with integrated air and ground forces and conduct rapid exfiltration,” said Capt. William Urban, the chief Central Command spokesman.

[...]

Russian warplanes have been carrying out intense airstrikes in Syria’s northwest, pounding rebel-held areas in Idlib province and surrounding regions that have become the last sanctuary for the opposition.

Russian military officials first informed the U.S. on Sept. 1 through a special communication channel “that they intended to enter the At Tanf deconfliction zone to pursue terrorists,” Brown said.

[...]

Moscow has previously agreed not to enter the zone around Tanf, Brown said. “We expect the Russians to abide by this agreement.”

[...]

“The U.S. does not require any assistance in our efforts to destroy [Islamic State] in the At Tanf deconflicition zone, and we advised the Russians to remain clear,” Brown said.

Pentagon officials said that Russia’s threat to carry out precision strikes suggested it might be contemplating use of airstrikes, missiles, long-range artillery or bombardment from Russian naval vessels in the Mediterranean against Tanf.

Such an attack might prompt the U.S. to respond with punishing reprisals using similar weapons, especially if a Russian attack caused casualties to the U.S. or its allies, officials said.

[...]

On Friday, for example, the presidents of Iran, Russia and Turkey, all of whom have fighters in Syria, held a summit in Tehran to plot their next moves. But Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Iran’s Hassan Rouhani failed to agree on a cease-fire.

  LA Times

Nowhere does this LA Times article mention the aspect of an Iranian supply line.  I'd be willing to bet that has more to do with the battle for Tanf than any training outpost against terrorists or the Syrian civil war. They have to keep pretending all military action is about fighting terrorism to avoid any deeper scrutiny of the war powers issue.  Not that there's any Congress person on either side of the aisle that would object.

Also Friday, at the United Nations, the Syrian ambassador, Bashar Jaafari, declared his government was determined to move on rebel-held Idlib to wipe out what he called factions associated with “terrorist groups.”

I don't believe anyone is seriously fighting terrorists any more. I think these are simply proxy wars between the US and Iran/Russia (Trump's desire to help Russia notwithstanding), with the Middle East paying the price and being the oil-rich prize. Terrorist groups, as they are, or have been designated, are simply being used (and paid) by either side.

Russian jets began an intense barrage on Idlib province and surrounding regions earlier this week, hours after Trump warned on Twitter that Assad “must not recklessly attack Idlib Province.”

[...]

An attack in February by Russian mercenaries on another U.S. base in eastern Syria was repulsed by U.S. airstrikes and artillery barrages, resulting in dozens of Russian casualties. The Russian government denied any role in the attack.

Further evidence. If Russia and the US were both merely fighting terrorists in Syria, as they claim, they wouldn't be attacking each other's bases.









No, but it keeps the "defense industry" (and Congress people being funded by it) in business.