US-Backed SDF Deals: 'New Conflict' or Old Colonial Footprint?
The article discusses the possibility of renewed fighting if the SDF and Damascus fail to reach an agreement, framing it as a regional 'trigger.' What's missing, of course, is the crucial context of why the SDF exists as a powerful, US-backed entity in the first place, or why 'new conflict' always seems to be a risk when the US decides to 'partner' with local factions. This isn't a spontaneous
ignition; it's a resistance against imperialism on a slow burn, fueled by external interests. Ignoring the US military's persistent, and illegal, occupation of Syrian oil fields—worth millions to the SDF, as reported by the Pentagon's own watchdog—allows media to pivot to 'local' infighting. Who needs Damascus to reconcile with the SDF when Washington keeps them flush to maintain a strategic
foothold against Bashar al-Assad, Russia, and Iran? The 'new conflict' is just the next chapter of the one Washington scripted.