× Dismiss

Never Miss an Update.

Syria Deeply is designed to provide you with a complete understanding of the Syrian conflict from all angles, including all the major players, issues and drivers of the civil war. Our editors and expert contributors are working around-the-clock to bring you comprehensive coverage and more clarity about the worst humanitarian crisis of our time.

Sign up for our newsletter to receive weekly updates, special reports, and featured insights on Syria’s civil war.

Why the Euphrates Crossing has Deep Implications for the U.S. in Syria

By enabling Assad’s forces to bridge the Euphrates river, Moscow is denying Washington leverage over the Syrian government and is raising the risk of direct confrontation between U.S. and Russian proxies in east Syria, writes the Washington Institute’s Andrew Tabler.

Written by Andrew Tabler Published on Read time Approx. 3 minutes
78e32a08 0721 4b51 8156 510c2c3722a7
A Syrian pro-government forces member walks past an upside-down tank in the Jamiyet al-Ruwad neighborhood, on the northern outskirts of Deir Ezzor, on September 14, during their ongoing battle against the so-called Islamic State (ISIS) group.AFP PHOTO/George OURFALIAN

The Russian Ministry of Defense announced on Monday that “Syrian government troops” crossed to the east bank of the Euphrates River using a Russian pontoon bridge and amphibious vehicles. Although the situation remains fluid, the crossing by what appeared to be elements of Syria’s Iranian-trained and Russian-supported “5th Corps” has deep implications for U.S. policy on the so-called Islamic State (ISIS), the Syrian war and Iran.

First, the move significantly discredits the argument that the Euphrates can serve as a viable deconfliction line while ISIS implodes, much like the Elbe River separated Russian and American forces in Europe at the conclusion of World War II. The U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) are arriving at Deir Ezzor from the northeast, while Russian-supported Syrian forces and Shia militias (including Hezbollah) are arriving from the west. According to Russian media, the contingent crossing the Euphrates is a collection of local and national regime forces called the 5th Corps, many of whose members have been trained and organized by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Russia.

The crossing increases the likelihood of confrontation between proxies or even between U.S. and Russian forces, as highlighted on September 16 when Russian aviation reportedly bombed SDF targets located within a couple miles of U.S. Special Operations Forces. This raises the question of how the United States intends to protect the SDF and other proxies fighting ISIS.

The move also complicates any potential SDF push down the east bank of the Euphrates toward local oil and gas fields, which could be used to fund reconstruction in former ISIS-controlled areas. Syrian regime spokeswoman Bouthaina Shaaban told Iran’s Press TV that Bashar al-Assad’s “strategic intent” was to halt the SDF’s advance, describing the joint Kurdish-Arab brigade as an illegitimate aggressor and equating it with ISIS. If Russian and pro-Assad forces hold the bridgehead on the east bank, they will likely block the primary north–south road on that side of the river, forcing the SDF to continue pushing down the ISIS-controlled Khabur River valley in order to reach the oil fields further south.

Assuming they are unable to capture the major energy and agricultural zones south of Deir Ezzor, the SDF – and Washington – would lose much of their leverage over the Assad regime, Iran and Russia in any political settlement to the Syria crisis. That scenario might also further Assad’s plan to retake “every inch” of the country by military means. In light of the regime’s depleted manpower, that approach would likely entail wider involvement by the IRGC and Shia militias from Iraq, Afghanistan and beyond. Given the large Sunni Arab majority population in the Euphrates valley, such an outcome would exacerbate sectarian and extremist violence in the area, resulting in a “New Syria” that refugees are unlikely to return to.

In addition, the crossing brings Iran one step closer to its stated goal of creating a land bridge between Iraq and Syria, giving the Islamic Republic another avenue through which to place troops and weapons on the borders of U.S. allies. Tehran has steadily worked toward that goal even as Israel reached a de-escalation agreement in southwestern Syria designed to keep Hezbollah and other Iranian-supported militias a few kilometers away from the Golan Heights frontier. Such developments have incensed Israel’s security establishment, increasing the likelihood that they will expand their military operations in and around Syria to loosen Iran’s deepening grip on the country.

To head off this growing list of problems, the United States is engaging in serious diplomacy and communication with Moscow to avoid further military complications. Yet Washington also needs to re-emphasize its support for the SDF at a time when the lines of control between them and pro-Assad forces are narrowing. This means establishing clear policy on what the United States will and will not do to defend its proxies in eastern Syria and elsewhere. In June, U.S. forces struck Shia militias threatening al-Tanf base in southern Syria, then downed an Assad regime aircraft attacking the SDF; these incidents serve as models for how to support proxies while avoiding escalation.

Washington’s primary objective is to defeat ISIS, but the administration has also stated its intent to contain Iran’s “malign activity” in the region. Russian diplomats claim there is no military solution to the conflict, but today’s Euphrates crossing shows that defense officials in Moscow and Tehran have something different in mind, raising the risk of direct U.S. confrontation with Assad, Iran and Russia. If one purpose of U.S. support for local actors such as the SDF is “shaping the environment” to contain Iran and its allies, then Washington needs to recognize that Tehran and Assad are directly challenging this goal with the help of Russian air power. U.S. officials therefore need to decide what diplomatic and military moves are necessary, including frank conversations with the Russians.

© 2017 The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Reprinted with permission.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Syria Deeply.

Become a Contributor.

Have a story idea? Interested in adding your voice to our growing community?

Learn more