“shows that Syria and the Kurds are coming to agreement.
Which we want.”
We want an agreement, but not necessarily one where they agree to turn everything over to the Iranians (who control the “Syrian” irregular forces in Afrin - actually Shi’ite mercenaries paid by Iran).
When the Russians withdrew their air defense and invited the Turks to invade, this were likely results they desired - drive a wedge into US alliances in Syria, and draw Kurdish forces away from the valuable oil fields they occupy East of Deir ez Zour.
No one ever expected the Kurds to battle Iran. They’ve been well treated by Iran. That’s as much a pipedream as a Kurdish nation.
Countering Iran’s influence in Syria is Russia and ...China. The moneyman who wants peace so he can make his bucks.
Iran’s road to Lebanon is of no use to China and subject to Israeli, SA and Jordanian attack.
Syria is quite likely “a bridge too far” for Iran.
Terms of surrender of Kurds are too high, from what I have been told. The control of the National Militia in Syria my be under Iranians, but I saw no apparent Iranians in photos of troops. Most were from Aleppo and MMC from Manbij.
If Turk air strikes could be neutralized by SAMS, Kurds would whip the FSA decisively. Without that, it is bad situation.
Our military wants no part in betraying such good allies as the Syrian Kurds clearly are. They also know that Turkey is a terrorist state, in spite of NATO membership. That membership is totally incompatible with Turkey under Erdogan.