Target Iran-Palestine Supply Line

If the defeat of Daesh was Washington’s sole military objective inside Syria, what are the US troops doing there, blocking a vital artery connecting two Arab allied states in their own fight against terrorism?
The spokesman for the Combined Joint Task Force of Operation Inherent Resolve (CTFO-OIR), Col. Ryan Dillon said: “Our presence in al-Tanaf is temporary. Our primary reason is to train partner forces from that area for potential fights against Daesh elsewhere…and to maintain security in that border region. Our fight is not with the (Syrian) regime.”
However, the US had on several occasions in the past 6 weeks targeted the SAA and their allies, even if we ignore the attack on Deir Ezzor where 100 SAA soldiers were killed in the Daesh besieged city as well as the downing a Syrian warplane near Raqqa. 
In the al-Tanf area, US airstrikes had targeted SAA allies and their vehicles approaching them and also shot down two Syrian drones.  The US and its terrorist proxies fired on allied Syrian troops on several occasions, claimed “self-defense every time, yet it doesn’t appear that they had even once targeted Daesh in combat by airstrikes, artillery or ground forces.
A political and media advisor to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Bouthaina Shaaban questioned their rhetoric: “When asked what they’re doing in the south of Syria, they say they’re there for their ‘national security,’ but then they object to the movements of the Syrian army – inside Syria?”
Under international law, any foreign troop presence inside a sovereign state is illegal unless specifically invited by the recognized governing authority of that state or with a mandate from the UN Security Council.
Attempts by uninvited armies, such as the US in this case, try to circumvent the law by claiming that Syria is ‘unable or unwilling’ to fight Daesh and that the threat to international security it poses. Yet, this ‘theory’ isn’t law and since the Russians were invited and entered the Syrian military theater to fight Daesh, this theory collapses on itself.
 
Colonel Dillon acknowledged this point but then argued that the SAA and its allies had “only just showed up recently in the area and once they can show that they are capable of fighting and defeating Daesh, then we don’t have to be there and that is less work for us and would be welcome.”
It is unclear who appointed the US as arbiters of such a ruling as the fight against Daesh had accelerated dramatically in recent months, since the four “de-escalation zones” were established after the Astana negotiations between Russia, Turkey, and Iran. 
Reconciliation agreements among government forces and some militant groups in those zones meant that the SAA and its allied forces have been able to move their attention away from strategic areas in the west and concentrate on fighting Daesh in the east of the country.
IHS Markit, the leading UK security and defense information provider, asserted in April 2017 that in the year to date, Daesh fought the SAA and its allies more than any other opponent. Hence, when Daesh’s territorial losses were the most significant, Syrian forces fought Daesh more than twice as often as US-backed ones.
What then is the purpose or objective of the continued US presence in al-Tanf where there is no Daesh presence and where the Syrian army and its allies have been making huge progress in their advance towards them in Deir Ezzor?
There are three major highway crossings between Syria and Iraq:
The northern-most highway is currently controlled by US-backed Kurdish forces (SDF/YPG) who seek to carve out an independent Western Kurdistan statelet.
In the center is the Homs-Baghdad highway that cuts through Daesh-besieged Deir Ezzor, where as many as 120,000 civilians are protected by about 10,000 Syrian troops. However, Syrian forces are advancing rapidly from the west, north, and south to liberate the city from Daesh control.
The Damascus-Baghdad highway in the south had largely been recaptured from the terrorists by the SAA and its allies and this would have provided Syria with the first unobstructed supply line between Syria and Iraq. That is until the US-led forces entrenched themselves in al-Tanf near the border and blocked that path.
The Syrians cleared most of the highway this year, but have been prevented from reaching the border by a unilaterally-declared “de-confliction zone” established by US-led coalition forces.
Dillon claimed: “It was agreed upon with the Russians that this was a de-confliction zone” but the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov disagreed and said: “I don’t know anything about such zones. This must be some territory, which the coalition unilaterally declared and where it probably believes to have a sole right to take action. We cannot recognize such zones.”
As the regime-change plans are collapsing in Syria, US Beltway hawks are advocating the partitioning of Syria into at least three zones of influence: a buffer zone for Israel and Jordan in the south, a pro-US Kurdish entity along the north and north-east, and control over the Syrian-Iraqi border.
However, clashes with Syrian forces along the road to al-Tanf have resulted in ‘unintended consequences’ for the US border plans. The Syrian allied troops circumvented the al-Tanf problem a few weeks ago by crossing the desert and establishing border contact with Iraqi forces further north, and in the process also cutting off access to the US and its allies in the south. 
At the same time, Iraqi security forces had reached the al-Waleed border crossing, on Iraq’s side of the border from al-Tanf, effectively boxing the US-led forces in with an escape to Jordan their only option.
Once the Syrians and Iraqis established border contact, another important set of facts was created on the ground and US-led forces are cut off from the south of Syria and from fighting Daesh in the northeast. 
This is a major setback for Washington’s plans to block direct Syrian-Iraqi border flows and score its own dazzling victory against Daesh. As Syrian forces advance towards Deir Ezzor, the participation of US proxy forces in the battle to liberate the northeast of Syria is now limited to the Kurd-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) from the north.
Meanwhile, Syrian forces have established safe passage from the north, south, west and potentially from the east, with the aid of allied Iraqi forces.
Re-establishing control over the northern route from Deir ez-Zor to Albu Kamal and al-Qaim is also a priority for Syria’s ally Iran. 
Dr. Masoud Asadollahi, a Damascus-based expert in Middle East affairs explains: “The road through Albu Kamal is Iran’s favored option – it is a shorter path to Baghdad, safer, and runs through green, habitable areas. The M1 highway (Damascus-Baghdad) is more dangerous for Iran because it runs through Iraq’s Anbar province and areas that are mostly desert.”
If the US objective in al-Tanf was to block the southern route, cutting off Iran’s land access to the borders of Palestine, they have been badly outmaneuvered. 
Syrian, Iraqi, and allied troops have now essentially trapped the U.S.-led forces in a fairly useless triangle down south, and created a new frontline between Palmyra, Deir Ezor and Albu Kamal for their “final battle” against Daesh.
Iran’s new envoy to Syria, Ambassador Javad Turk Abadi said:“The Americans always plan for one outcome and then get another one that is unintended.”
He and others in Damascus remain optimistic that the border routes long been denied to regional states will re-open shortly.
“Through the era of the Silk Road, the pathway between Syria, Iran, and Iraq was always active – until colonialism came to the region,” explains Turk Abadi.
In the same way that Western great powers have always sought to keep Russia and China apart, they tried to apply the same divide-and-rule doctrine for decades to drive a wedge between Syria and Iraq.
Shaaban said: “In the history of the last half century, it was always prevented for Syria and Iraq to get close, to coordinate. When (former Syrian president) Hafez al-Assad and (former Iraqi president) Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr almost reached a comprehensive agreement, Saddam Hussein arranged a coup and hung all the officers who wanted rapprochement with Syria.” 
She had just published a book on Hafez Assad’s dealings with former US Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger.
Saddam then launched an eight-year war against the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the latter lost road access through Iraq for more than two decades. In early 2003, U.S. troops invaded Iraq, deposed Saddam, and occupied the country for the next nine years. 
During that era, Iranian airplanes were often ordered down for inspections, instigated by U.S. occupation forces interested in thwarting Iran’s transfer of weapons and supplies to the Lebanese resistance group Hezbollah and other allies.
By the time U.S. troops exited Iraq in late 2011, the Syrian conflict was already under way, fully armed, financed, and supported by several NATO states and their Persian Gulf allies.
“When those borders are re-opened,” says Asadollahi, “this will be the first time Iran will have a land route to Syria and Palestine” – though others point out that the Iranians have always found ways to transport goods undetected.