www.kcdme.com
Kurdistan Center
for Democracy in the Middle East
Khoyboun Flag
About us
Perpetual cycle of abandonment: Washington abandons SDF in Syria
The United States is shifting away from longtime allies, from Kurdish forces in Syria to US-backed opposition figures in Venezuela and Iran, highlighting a recurring pattern of strategic abandonment.
21.01.2026
By Mohammad Khazem
Source: Al Mayadeen English
Source:https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/perpetual-cycle-of-abandonment--washington-abandons-sdf-in-s
"The original purpose of the SDF as the primary anti-ISIS force on the ground has largely expired."
With these words, US Special Envoy for Syria, Tom Barrack, announced the end of the SDF's term alongside the United States in Syria.
This reflects that the United States is effectively abandoning its longtime Kurdish partner in Syria, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), according to Tom Barrack, US Special Envoy to Syria. In a statement shared on social media, Barrack outlined how the US is facilitating a historic transition of power to the new Syrian government under President Ahmad al-Sharaa, sidelining the SDF's demands and goals.
Barrack emphasized that the SDF, which had been the US’ primary ground partner in Syria, is now transferring control of key areas like the al-Hol ISIS detention camp and strategic sites like al-Shaddadi to Damascus. “The integration deal signed on January 18 provides a clear pathway for SDF fighters to join the national army and for Syria to reclaim authority over infrastructure and security responsibilities,” Barrack said.
The envoy stressed that US forces will not maintain a long-term military presence in the region. “Our focus is on defeating ISIS remnants, supporting reconciliation, and advancing national unity, without endorsing separatism,” Barrack added. The United States is now prioritizing diplomacy over boots on the ground, Barrack noted, leaving the Kurds to negotiate directly with the Syrian government.
Highlighting a shift in rationale "for the US-SDF partnership," the US envoy maintained that "the original purpose of the SDF as the primary anti-ISIS force on the ground has largely expired," undermining the role of the group after years of cooperation.
Furthermore, Barrack framed this shift as a "historic opportunity" for Syria’s Kurdish population: full citizenship rights, recognition of Kurdish language and culture, and participation in governance, rights allegedly long denied under Bashar al-Assad’s regime. However, he acknowledged the risks, including fragile ceasefires, occasional clashes, and the challenge of integrating former SDF fighters into national forces.
Oil and control: How the SDF aided the US
The United States began working with the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in late 2015, initially supplying weapons and coordinating air support against ISIS. The partnership grew from operational necessity, as the SDF, led mainly by the Kurdish YPG, was already organized and capable of holding territory. Other Syrian militant groups were fragmented or linked to extremist factions, making them unreliable partners.
Central to Washington's choice, however, is that the SDF's area of control included Deir Ezzor, al-Hasakah, and Rumeilan, where the majority of Syria's oil lies. The SDF helped the United States secure these oil-rich territories, keeping them under US influence and away from rivals, including the Syrian government at the time.
This influence gave Washington a strategic advantage in diplomatic and economic negotiations, considering that keeping the fields under the control of a regional ally transforms the resource into a powerful political tool.
From 2017 onward, the United States began officially supplying arms, training, and logistical support to the SDF. US special operations forces were embedded with the SDF, enabling coordinated campaigns such as the Raqqa offensive in 2017. The partnership also included intelligence sharing, airstrike coordination, and operational planning, which amplified the SDF’s effectiveness against ISIS. These efforts helped the SDF capture major ISIS strongholds and reduce the group’s territorial control.
Financially, the US has consistently supported the SDF through Pentagon budgets and the Counter-ISIS Train and Equip Fund. Recent allocations include approximately $156 million in FY 2024, $147.9 million in FY 2025, and $130 million in FY 2026, totalling a whopping 433.9 million USD.
How SDF control of Syria’s oil fields advanced US strategic interests
The SDF’s control over much of eastern Syria’s oil fields has helped the United States on several levels—strategic, economic, and military:
Economic leverage and pressure: It denied the Syrian government access to a major source of revenue, limiting Damascus’ ability to fund reconstruction or pay salaries. This economic pressure aligned with broader US sanctions and containment policies.
Sustaining a local partner: Oil revenues generated in SDF-held areas helped fund the SDF’s own administration and security forces. This reduced Washington’s need to directly bankroll its partner while maintaining influence on the ground with a relatively small US troop presence.
Smuggling oil into Iraq for US forces: The Syrian government has repeatedly accused the SDF and US forces of smuggling Syrian oil into Iraq, including toward areas hosting US military bases. These reports describe oil being transported via convoys and informal border crossings, turning Syrian oil into a logistical and economic asset that benefited US operations in Iraq. While the US denies illegal activity, the accusations highlight how control of the oil fields was seen as directly linked to US regional military infrastructure.
Political bargaining power: Holding Syria’s energy resources outside government control, under the SDF's watchful eyes, gave Washington leverage in any future political negotiations, allowing it to influence outcomes without large-scale military escalation.
Overall, SDF control of Syria’s oil fields was not just about local security or counter-ISIS efforts; it also served broader US strategic interests, including economic pressure, reduced costs of partnership, and the redirection of oil toward US-linked facilities in Iraq.
However, with the toppling of the al-Assad regime and the rising alliance between the United States and the interim Syrian government under al-Sharaa, the SDF is now simply obsolete in Washington's eyes.
US commitment issues
Barrack's announcement is reminiscent of several historical instances where the United States simply abandoned its allies amid shifts in strategic goals, interests, and even presidents.
One of the starkest precedents illustrating Uncle Sam's commitment issues lies in the 2021 withdrawal from Afghanistan, when US forces swiftly pulled out of the country, leaving the Afghan government, local troops, and security forces, which had long cooperated with Washington, vulnerable in the face of the Taliban.
After former President Joe Biden announced in April 2021 that Washington would withdraw from Afghanistan by September 11 of the same year, the Taliban swiftly swept through provinces one by one in the early weeks of August. By August 15, the Taliban entered Kabul with very little resistance, two weeks before the last US military flight departed from the country on August 30, 12 days before the official deadline announced by Biden.
Strategic goals over anything else
In the wake of the last flight, Afghan allies of the United States were abandoned in the airports and left to fight the Taliban on their own, highlighting a cruel indifference: Washington prioritized meeting its withdrawal timelines over the safety of its allies. The chaos that unfolded at that time serves as a reminder of how quickly the United States can abandon its allies once its strategic needs shift.
The center of this withdrawal revolved around a redirection of resources toward other challenges faced by Washington. Former President Biden justified the US withdrawal by stating that the “world was changing," emphasizing that the country was “engaged in a serious competition with China.”
Then-Secretary of State Anthony Blinken stated during a September 12, 2021 congressional hearing, “If 20 years and hundreds of billions of dollars in support, equipment, and training did not suffice, why would another year, or five, or ten, make a difference?”, while arguing that adversaries such as China and Russia would have preferred the US to remain bogged down indefinitely in Afghanistan, thereby diverting American focus from great‑power competition and other strategic priorities.
Shifting presidents, shifting interests, shifty alliances
Take the case of Greenland, for example. It frames the reliability of the United States as an ally as questionable at best; as Washington shuffles presidents, even a cornerstone transatlantic alliance could be tested to its limits.
The United States has most recently created a rift between itself and Europe, a historical ally of the United States, which keeps growing amid Trump's sustained, aggressive push to take over Greenland, a semi-autonomous territory under Denmark.
In early 2025, Trump expressed his interest in Greenland for its location and vast wealth of resources ranging from rare earth elements like neodymium to oil and gas; two resources Trump has repeatedly lauded with the mantra "We will drill, baby, drill." As for its location, the US president has repeatedly emphasized that Greenland is essential to Washington's national security in the face of "threats" from China and Russia.
Early on, leaders from Greenland and Denmark affirmed that the region is "not for sale", with Danish PM Mette Frederiksen holding a "heated phone call" with Trump on January 16, 2025, in which she emphasized that the future of the island must be decided by its inhabitants.
Since then, Europe has been trying to strike a balance between appeasing Trump while preserving the alliance with the United States despite whatever measures they decide to take in response; however, Trump's repeated refusal to rule out using the military option to take over the island has kept the entire continent on its tiptoes.
Trump ups the ante, Europe fires back
By January 2026, tensions between the United States and Europe over Greenland had escalated to a near‑crisis level. On January 17-18, Trump announced plans to impose a 10 percent tariff on goods from eight European and NATO countries, including Denmark, Sweden, France, and Germany, starting February 1, 2026, with the rate scheduled to rise to 25 percent on June 1 if no agreement on Greenland was reached.
Senior members of the European Parliament’s international trade committee are set to suspend ratification of the Turnberry deal on January 21 after the centre-right European People’s Party (EPP) called for a pause, citing Donald Trump’s threats over Greenland.
Manfred Weber said the EPP supports the EU–US trade deal, but approval “is not possible at this stage,” while Socialists, centrists, and Greens had already urged a hold over the same issue.
Trump's 'new colonialism'
European leaders have condemned Trump’s “new colonialism” as tensions over Greenland escalate. French President Emmanuel Macron, speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, criticized Trump’s “useless aggressivity” and said he preferred “respect to bullies” and the “rule of law to brutality.”
Macron accused the US of trying to “weaken and subordinate Europe” through demands for “maximum concessions” and tariffs used as leverage against territorial sovereignty, while Trump vowed the US would take control of Greenland “one way or the other.”
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen called Trump’s threat of a 10% tariff on imports from several European countries “a mistake” and stressed that “when friends shake hands, it must mean something,” referring to last July’s EU–US trade deal.
Belgium’s Prime Minister Bart De Wever said Europe is “at a crossroads” and must defend its dignity, warning that crossing too many red lines would undermine democracy, while von der Leyen added that the EU’s response would be “unflinching, united and proportional” if necessary.
Sidelined: The cases of Pahlavi and Machado
Venezuelan opposition leader Maria-Corina Machado emerged as a popular figure and close ally of Trump during his campaign against Venezuela, which culminated in the abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.
Machado seemed to be en route to becoming Washington's first pick as a leader to succeed Maduro: she repeatedly applauded Trump's campaign against Venezuela, praised and expressed gratitude for the military operation that kidnapped Maduro, and even presented her Nobel Peace Prize to Trump during a White House meeting in mid-January.
However, hours after Maduro's capture, Trump sidelined Machado as an option to lead Venezuela, saying that she lacked the necessary "support" and "respect" in her own country, instead favoring the current interim president and Maduro's vice president, Delcy Rodriguez, whom he described as “someone we’ve worked with very well."
Another similar case is Reza Pahlavi, son of the exiled Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The monarchist held a secret meeting with US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff between January 11 and 12 to discuss the riots in Iran unfolding at the time, a senior US official told Axios on January 14.
However, Trump quickly questioned Pahlavi's political viability, suggesting that while he was "very nice", he did not have enough support inside Iran to assume leadership in the case of a government collapse.
Trump’s administration often praises opposition figures but shifts support based on strategy rather than loyalty. Machado was welcomed at the White House, then sidelined, while Pahlavi never received full backing, raising doubts about how reliable US support really is once priorities change.
This makes one thing clear: the United States abandoning one of its key allies in the Middle East in favor of its own strategic goals and interests was inevitable. History shows that the US frequently abandons allies when political calculations change, leaving local partners exposed to risks and power vacuums.
The United States is shifting away from longtime allies, from Kurdish forces in Syria to US-
21.01.2026
By Mohammad Khazem
Source: Al Mayadeen English
Source:https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/perpetual-
"The original purpose of the SDF as the primary anti-
With these words, US Special Envoy for Syria, Tom Barrack, announced the end of the SDF's term alongside the United States in Syria.
This reflects that the United States is effectively abandoning its longtime Kurdish partner in Syria, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), according to Tom Barrack, US Special Envoy to Syria. In a statement shared on social media, Barrack outlined how the US is facilitating a historic transition of power to the new Syrian government under President Ahmad al-
Barrack emphasized that the SDF, which had been the US’ primary ground partner in Syria, is now transferring control of key areas like the al-
The envoy stressed that US forces will not maintain a long-
Highlighting a shift in rationale "for the US-
Furthermore, Barrack framed this shift as a "historic opportunity" for Syria’s Kurdish population: full citizenship rights, recognition of Kurdish language and culture, and participation in governance, rights allegedly long denied under Bashar al-
Oil and control: How the SDF aided the US
The United States began working with the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in late 2015, initially supplying weapons and coordinating air support against ISIS. The partnership grew from operational necessity, as the SDF, led mainly by the Kurdish YPG, was already organized and capable of holding territory. Other Syrian militant groups were fragmented or linked to extremist factions, making them unreliable partners.
Central to Washington's choice, however, is that the SDF's area of control included Deir Ezzor, al-
This influence gave Washington a strategic advantage in diplomatic and economic negotiations, considering that keeping the fields under the control of a regional ally transforms the resource into a powerful political tool.
From 2017 onward, the United States began officially supplying arms, training, and logistical support to the SDF. US special operations forces were embedded with the SDF, enabling coordinated campaigns such as the Raqqa offensive in 2017. The partnership also included intelligence sharing, airstrike coordination, and operational planning, which amplified the SDF’s effectiveness against ISIS. These efforts helped the SDF capture major ISIS strongholds and reduce the group’s territorial control.
Financially, the US has consistently supported the SDF through Pentagon budgets and the Counter-
How SDF control of Syria’s oil fields advanced US strategic interests
The SDF’s control over much of eastern Syria’s oil fields has helped the United States on several levels—strategic, economic, and military:
Economic leverage and pressure: It denied the Syrian government access to a major source of revenue, limiting Damascus’ ability to fund reconstruction or pay salaries. This economic pressure aligned with broader US sanctions and containment policies.
Sustaining a local partner: Oil revenues generated in SDF-
Smuggling oil into Iraq for US forces: The Syrian government has repeatedly accused the SDF and US forces of smuggling Syrian oil into Iraq, including toward areas hosting US military bases. These reports describe oil being transported via convoys and informal border crossings, turning Syrian oil into a logistical and economic asset that benefited US operations in Iraq. While the US denies illegal activity, the accusations highlight how control of the oil fields was seen as directly linked to US regional military infrastructure.
Political bargaining power: Holding Syria’s energy resources outside government control, under the SDF's watchful eyes, gave Washington leverage in any future political negotiations, allowing it to influence outcomes without large-
Overall, SDF control of Syria’s oil fields was not just about local security or counter-
However, with the toppling of the al-
US commitment issues
Barrack's announcement is reminiscent of several historical instances where the United States simply abandoned its allies amid shifts in strategic goals, interests, and even presidents.
One of the starkest precedents illustrating Uncle Sam's commitment issues lies in the 2021 withdrawal from Afghanistan, when US forces swiftly pulled out of the country, leaving the Afghan government, local troops, and security forces, which had long cooperated with Washington, vulnerable in the face of the Taliban.
After former President Joe Biden announced in April 2021 that Washington would withdraw from Afghanistan by September 11 of the same year, the Taliban swiftly swept through provinces one by one in the early weeks of August. By August 15, the Taliban entered Kabul with very little resistance, two weeks before the last US military flight departed from the country on August 30, 12 days before the official deadline announced by Biden.
Strategic goals over anything else
In the wake of the last flight, Afghan allies of the United States were abandoned in the airports and left to fight the Taliban on their own, highlighting a cruel indifference: Washington prioritized meeting its withdrawal timelines over the safety of its allies. The chaos that unfolded at that time serves as a reminder of how quickly the United States can abandon its allies once its strategic needs shift.
The center of this withdrawal revolved around a redirection of resources toward other challenges faced by Washington. Former President Biden justified the US withdrawal by stating that the “world was changing," emphasizing that the country was “engaged in a serious competition with China.”
Then-
Shifting presidents, shifting interests, shifty alliances
Take the case of Greenland, for example. It frames the reliability of the United States as an ally as questionable at best; as Washington shuffles presidents, even a cornerstone transatlantic alliance could be tested to its limits.
The United States has most recently created a rift between itself and Europe, a historical ally of the United States, which keeps growing amid Trump's sustained, aggressive push to take over Greenland, a semi-
In early 2025, Trump expressed his interest in Greenland for its location and vast wealth of resources ranging from rare earth elements like neodymium to oil and gas; two resources Trump has repeatedly lauded with the mantra "We will drill, baby, drill." As for its location, the US president has repeatedly emphasized that Greenland is essential to Washington's national security in the face of "threats" from China and Russia.
Early on, leaders from Greenland and Denmark affirmed that the region is "not for sale", with Danish PM Mette Frederiksen holding a "heated phone call" with Trump on January 16, 2025, in which she emphasized that the future of the island must be decided by its inhabitants.
Since then, Europe has been trying to strike a balance between appeasing Trump while preserving the alliance with the United States despite whatever measures they decide to take in response; however, Trump's repeated refusal to rule out using the military option to take over the island has kept the entire continent on its tiptoes.
Trump ups the ante, Europe fires back
By January 2026, tensions between the United States and Europe over Greenland had escalated to a near‑crisis level. On January 17-
Senior members of the European Parliament’s international trade committee are set to suspend ratification of the Turnberry deal on January 21 after the centre-
Manfred Weber said the EPP supports the EU–US trade deal, but approval “is not possible at this stage,” while Socialists, centrists, and Greens had already urged a hold over the same issue.
Trump's 'new colonialism'
European leaders have condemned Trump’s “new colonialism” as tensions over Greenland escalate. French President Emmanuel Macron, speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, criticized Trump’s “useless aggressivity” and said he preferred “respect to bullies” and the “rule of law to brutality.”
Macron accused the US of trying to “weaken and subordinate Europe” through demands for “maximum concessions” and tariffs used as leverage against territorial sovereignty, while Trump vowed the US would take control of Greenland “one way or the other.”
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen called Trump’s threat of a 10% tariff on imports from several European countries “a mistake” and stressed that “when friends shake hands, it must mean something,” referring to last July’s EU–US trade deal.
Belgium’s Prime Minister Bart De Wever said Europe is “at a crossroads” and must defend its dignity, warning that crossing too many red lines would undermine democracy, while von der Leyen added that the EU’s response would be “unflinching, united and proportional” if necessary.
Sidelined: The cases of Pahlavi and Machado
Venezuelan opposition leader Maria-
Machado seemed to be en route to becoming Washington's first pick as a leader to succeed Maduro: she repeatedly applauded Trump's campaign against Venezuela, praised and expressed gratitude for the military operation that kidnapped Maduro, and even presented her Nobel Peace Prize to Trump during a White House meeting in mid-
However, hours after Maduro's capture, Trump sidelined Machado as an option to lead Venezuela, saying that she lacked the necessary "support" and "respect" in her own country, instead favoring the current interim president and Maduro's vice president, Delcy Rodriguez, whom he described as “someone we’ve worked with very well."
Another similar case is Reza Pahlavi, son of the exiled Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The monarchist held a secret meeting with US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff between January 11 and 12 to discuss the riots in Iran unfolding at the time, a senior US official told Axios on January 14.
However, Trump quickly questioned Pahlavi's political viability, suggesting that while he was "very nice", he did not have enough support inside Iran to assume leadership in the case of a government collapse.
Trump’s administration often praises opposition figures but shifts support based on strategy rather than loyalty. Machado was welcomed at the White House, then sidelined, while Pahlavi never received full backing, raising doubts about how reliable US support really is once priorities change.
This makes one thing clear: the United States abandoning one of its key allies in the Middle East in favor of its own strategic goals and interests was inevitable. History shows that the US frequently abandons allies when political calculations change, leaving local partners exposed to risks and power vacuums.