Secretary of State Rex Tillerson Rex Wayne TillersonGary Cohn: 'I haven't made up my mind' on vote for president in November Kushner says 'Alice in Wonderland' describes Trump presidency: Woodward book Conspicuous by their absence from the Republican Convention MORE’s unveiling of the U.S. administration’s long-awaited Syria strategy last week has been met with a chorus of criticism. The litany of expressed concerns about maintaining a limited U.S. military and diplomatic presence in northern Syria run the full range of the political spectrum. Those on the left believe that it will prove to be a “slippery slope” towards another open-ended military engagement in the Middle East, while others on the right maintain that the current U.S. footprint is inadequate for achieving the stated U.S. objectives of preventing the resurgence of ISIS and curtailing Iran.

These criticisms and concerns are not entirely unfounded, and the U.S. decision to hold on to its gains in Syria is sure to ruffle some feathers. Anxiety about the declared approach received a further boost when Turkish troops launched a cross-border military operation this past week against a U.S.-backed Kurdish militia that had proved to be effective in defeating ISIS, but which also has connections to Kurdish separatists within Turkey. Factoring in Russia and Iran, Syria is a complex geopolitical puzzle of competing local, regional and international interests in the heart of an otherwise turbulent Middle East. Policy choices often entail significant costs that, at best, are only narrowly outweighed by benefits. Outright victories and easy answers are alien to the land.

ADVERTISEMENT

Declaring “mission accomplished” and withdrawing U.S. troops, as his immediate predecessors did, may have been the politically expedient move, but President Trump chose to heed the advice of his generals, who cautioned him that a hasty withdrawal from Syria could mean the return of ISIS on his watch. In doing so he may have avoided the costly mistakes of both the Obama and Bush administrations, which found themselves sucked back into the cauldron of Middle Eastern conflicts when a toxic mix of Islamic extremists and diehard adversaries filled the voids left by U.S. withdrawal.

And while countering ISIS is a leading motive behind the president’s decision — one that is being emphasized to avoid triggering the need for congressional authorization for the use of force — the announced Syria policy is primarily about countering an expansionist Iran, a much more capable long-term foe. As one senior White House official privately put it to me and other analysts, “Our Iran strategy is the cornerstone around which we are building our approach to other countries in the region,” including Syria. This post-ISIS Syria strategy, as it is dubbed in Washington, is premised on not conceding hard-won geopolitical space that the United States spent blood and treasure cleansing from Islamic extremists to Iranian-backed militias.

Yet, can a U.S. military contingent of about only 2,000 troops reverse the Iranian tide? Probably not, and Secretary Tillerson readily acknowledged as much during a chat with reporters, clarifying that U.S. forces will not militarily engage Iran unless provoked. This is by design. The administration is not bent on directly challenging Iran’s existing foothold or its so-called land bridge that runs through Iraq and Syria to the Mediterranean. Instead, working with a hardened force of about 30,000 local fighters, together with U.S. air and artillery support, the White House has set out to accomplish the limited, yet still strategically significant, goal of initially containing, rather than confronting, Iran’s expansionism — not the least by preventing its takeover of new territory.

Meanwhile, by holding on to most of Syria’s oil fields, its agricultural breadbasket and the strategically important Euphrates River dam — all assets currently under the control of U.S.-backed forces — the White House is aiming to accentuate Iran’s financial woes. Depriving Tehran access to resources that would expedite reconstruction forces the Islamic Republic to continue propping up a bankrupt Syrian regime. According to one recent report, Iran is spending about $16 billion a year on its Syrian adventure. Forcing Iran to concede or continue shouldering such a heavy financial burden, particularly at a time when its citizens are protesting bread-and-butter issue in the streets, is both a worthy and cunning approach. It is a strategy of attrition.

U.S. partners in the region are stepping up in support of a more forward-leaning U.S. posture in Syria. Arab Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have quietly communicated a willingness to fund reconstruction in areas under the control of local U.S. allies, easing concerns President Trump has about “nation building” abroad. Israel’s air force has stepped up its targeting of Hezbollah and other Iranian assets in that country.

The administration’s plan is not without risk, however. An Iranian regime under U.S. financial and diplomatic pressure can prove dangerous, and many in region are skeptical of Washington’s resolve should its forces come under attack. History is not encouraging in that regard, with a long track record of American retreat — from Beirut to Baghdad — in the face of a determined Iranian foe adept at the tactics of asymmetric warfare and terrorism.

Yet those in the region who wish to see the United States gradually chipping away at Iran’s growing dominion perhaps can find some encouragement in a recent letter CIA Director Mike Pompeo Michael (Mike) Richard PompeoUS reimposes UN sanctions on Iran amid increasing tensions Sunday shows preview: Justice Ginsburg dies, sparking partisan battle over vacancy before election Trump steps up Iran fight in final election stretch MORE sent to Qassem Suleimani, the leader of Iran’s Al Quds expeditionary force who commands Shia militiamen throughout the Middle East. In it, Pompeo warned that the United States will hold him and Iran accountable for any attacks on American interests.

“We wanted to make sure he and the leadership in Iran understood that in a way that is crystal clear,” the CIA chief said during a function at the Foundation for Defense of Democracy. Whether the Iranians will get the message remains to be seen, but what is being telegraphed to all in the region by way of President Trump’s Syria strategy is that, after much indecisiveness and hesitation, the United States is back and willing to put some skin in the game.

Firas Maksad is director of the Arabia Foundation, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, and is an adjunct professor at George Washington University.