Washington’s History of Discarding Its Foot Soldiers

By Mohamad Hammoud

From the 1975 Betrayal to the 2026 Surrender, the Middle East Learns the High Price of American Patronage

In the winter of 2026, the frozen streets of Raqqa have become the backdrop for a final, bitter lesson in the geography of American loyalty. According to Reuters, the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces [SDF] have begun the agonizing process of dissolving their autonomous administration, handing over their institutions to the new Syrian government led by Ahmed Al-Sharaa. The integration deal, brokered under the shadow of a waning US presence, confirms a reality that local leaders have feared for a decade: the moment the Kurdish fighter ceased to be a shield for Western interests, he became an expendable asset.

This outcome was predictable to observers of the region’s blood-soaked chessboard. In a televised address following the 2019 US troop withdrawal, the late Secretary General of Hezbollah, His Eminence Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, predicted this exact trajectory with a bluntness that resonated far beyond his base. “They [the Americans] eventually will only think of their own interests and will leave you alone, and will sell you like slaves in the market,” Sayyed Nasrallah warned in a speech reported by the Mehr News Agency. He emphasized that anyone betting on America is destined to fail, emphasizing that Washington treats its partners as mere instruments for its own wars. For the Kurds, Sayyed Nasrallah’s warning was less a prophecy and more a summary of a century of Western hypocrisy.

The “Disposable Ally” Doctrine

The US-Kurd relationship has long revolved around what diplomats call “tactical convenience.” During the height of the war against the Wahhabi Daesh [Arabic acronym for “ISIS” / “ISIL”], the SDF was hailed by the Pentagon as the “most effective” ground force in the world. Yet, as the Associated Press noted during the 2021 Afghan withdrawal, the US has a recurring habit of leaving its local partners at the departure gate once the mission objective shifts. The 11,000 Kurdish lives lost in the fight against the Caliphate were ultimately treated as a sunk cost when the US administration began prioritizing its complex ties with Turkey, a NATO ally.

This pattern stretches back to 1975, when the US and “Israel” encouraged an Iraqi Kurdish uprising only to withdraw support after the Shah of Iran reached a border agreement with Baghdad. The 2026 integration deal is the latest iteration of this doctrine. By forcing the Kurds to merge their military structure into the Syrian Ministry of Defense, Washington effectively abandons the Kurdish project to preserve broader regional stability over Rojava’s democratic experiment.

A Pedigree of Betrayal: Saddam, Noriega and the Hmong

The Kurdish experience is the latest in a long history of US abandonment. Washington has a storied history of cultivating “agents” and then discarding them with clinical efficiency once their intelligence connections no longer serve a purpose.

During the 1980s, Saddam Hussein was treated as a crucial American intelligence asset to counter the Iranian Revolution. CNN documented that US support included dual-use technology and battlefield intelligence, continuing right until Saddam invaded Kuwait and became politically inconvenient. Similarly, Manuel Noriega spent years on the CIA payroll, providing a bridge for US intelligence in Central America. When his domestic crimes and defiance regarding the Panama Canal became a liability, the United States abandoned him and later invaded Panama. Even earlier, in Laos, the Hmong fought a secret war on behalf of the CIA. When the US pulled out in 1975, historical reporting shows they were left to face communist vengeance—a betrayal that resonates in the abandoned outposts of northern Syria today.

The Price of a Handshake

The tragedy of the Syrian Kurds in 2026 is that they were led to believe they were building a “new Middle East” under US protection. Instead, they found themselves caught in a cycle of shifting power dynamics familiar to past allies. The new Damascus administration, while different from Assad’s era, tolerates little Kurdish autonomy—a compromise Washington accepts to advance normalization with “Israel.”

As the last US advisors rotate out of northeastern Syria, the words of the late Hezbollah chief serve as a grim epitaph for Kurdish aspirations. To be America’s friend is historically perilous. Whether for oil, “Israel’s” security, or countering Iran and Russia, the US has proven that its strategic objectives will always outweigh the survival of its foot soldiers.