The United States recently signed an agreement with the Kurds in northern Syria to buy Syrian oil from them; The issue was met with a backlash from Iran, with Foreign Ministry spokesman Seyed Abbas Mousavi calling the signing of the oil deal an act against international law and a violation of the principle of national sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria. Also in recent months, the US military has withdrawn coalition forces from a number of military bases and concentrated them in several larger bases due to increasing pressure on the United States to withdraw from Iraqi territory and escalation of attacks on US bases by the Resistance forces.

In parallel, US movements in Iraqi Kurdistan have increased, and the United States appears to be changing its policy of long-term presence in Iraq by investing more in the Kurdish areas of northern Iraq. The question now is what is the US view of the Kurds in Syria and Iraq at the moment, and what goals does Washington pursue to get closer to them?

In fact, it should not be overlooked that over the past decade or two, Americans have always used the Kurds in the region as a tool for their presence in Iraq and Syria. Therefore, during this period, they have tried to establish their presence in the Kurdish region and strengthened their position in Syria under the pretext of defending the Kurds.

Eventually, however, it became clear that these US efforts do not aim at supporting the Kurds, but seizing and looting Syria’s oil and gas resources. Because the Syrian gas and oil resources are located in the Kurdish region, the United States is trying to maintain its presence in Syria in the future under the guise of supporting the Kurds. In other words, Washington wants to have a share in Syria’s future by consolidating its position in Syria.

Experience has shown that when the Americans achieve their goals, they usually destroy the tools they have used in this direction, and in this particular case, if the United States achieves its goal, it will no longer pay attention to the demands of the Kurds. We saw the same situation in the Kurdistan region, where the Americans turned their backs on the Kurds in the referendum or did not support them during the ISIS attack on Erbil, and the only country that supported Erbil was the Islamic Republic of Iran.

So if the United States is making friends with a group or a country in the whole region, it is only to achieve its goals and use them only as a temporary tool. At the moment, the US goal of being in the Kurdish regions of Syria is to extract oil and gas, but the question is whether this agreement can be implemented and if it is implemented, how long it can last because the situation in the region is very sensitive and it cannot be assumed that if the Kurds controlled a region, they could use the resources there as they wished; Because in the end, the issue of security in these countries comes first, and if there is no security in the Kurdish regions of Syria, American companies will not be able to be there to extract oil and gas.

In general, the security situation in the region is unstable, and neither the Kurds nor any other group or country can guarantee American companies that they can safely extract oil and gas. Of course, such an agreement has not only economic value for the United States, but also political and geopolitical goals. The oil deal raises the Syrian Kurds’ cards for future talks with the Syrian government, and with the Kurds likely gaining power in the Syrian power structure, the United States could pursue its political goals in the country.

Regarding the Kurdish position on US actions, it should be noted that in such cases, unfortunately, the Kurds are forced to cooperate with the United States. In the end, however, the Kurds will not be able to fulfil their demands and will not benefit from cooperating with Washington.

It is unfortunate, then, that the Syrian Kurds have vested hope in the promises of the United States instead of consolidating their position in the political future of the country. And in a situation where it is not clear what the future of the US presence in Syria will be. Naturally, since there is also an Arab population in the area, the continuation of this trend will cause them to oppose the US presence. As a result, the Kurds may benefit from such cooperation in the short term, but in the long run, it will be detrimental to them.

It should also be noted that although governments based in Syria, Iraq, and even some regional governments, such as Iran, oppose the US presence in the region and in Kurdish areas; however, the people of these countries must express their dissatisfaction and resistance to this presence in order for this situation to end.

If the people of the region are not satisfied with the presence of the United States, naturally this country will not be able to be present in the region easily and in the long run.