Last week, in a massive foreign policy shift, President Trump announced plans to lift all sanctions against Syria, which has been decimated by a decade of civil war. The move has the potential to revitalize the Syrian economy, create a safer Middle East and strengthen U.S. relationships in the region.
But that will only happen if the U.S. takes a strategic, well-thought-out policy approach. That means learning from a record of failure in Syria and throughout the Middle East.
As a former U.S. diplomat who worked in the Middle East, I saw firsthand America’s struggles to comprehend — let alone devise — coherent strategies to pursue its interests in the region.
Following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the overriding goal for successive administrations became the prevention of another large-scale attack against the homeland. It seemed the only choice before policymakers was strictly a binary one: stability or chaos. So they overprioritized counterterrorism operations and deprioritized geostrategic opportunities. Officials also hoped that the region would transition away from authoritarianism, but were scared of the revolutionary forces that would be needed to make such a change.
These conflicting instincts led to policy incoherence during the Obama administration. For example, officials told Egypt’s then-President Hosni Mubarak to step down and militarily ousted Libya’s then-leader Muammar Qaddafi while shying away from directly intervening against Bashar al-Assad.
In Syria, the policymaking was particularly absurd and chaotic. Case in point: In an effort to combat the Islamic State, the Pentagon supported the Syrian Democratic Forces, even though the group was colluding with Assad and Iran, and was the sworn enemy of Turkey, a key NATO ally. In the meantime, the CIA was supporting the Free Syria Army, which was at war with the Syrian Democratic Forces.
As the conflict became a stalemate between Assad and his Iranian and Russian supporters on the one hand, and the opposition and its mainly Turkish and Qatari backers on the other, U.S. policymakers became stuck on the fact that the most powerful opposition group — Hayat Tahrir al-Sham — was once affiliated with al-Qaeda.
During my time in government, I recall senior Obama administration officials ignoring Hayat Tahrir al-Sham’s break from Al-Qaeda. Instead, they repeated the mantra that Idlib was “marbled” with Al-Qaeda to dissuade engagement with the rebels — let alone provide them with meaningful support. Ultimately, the first Trump administration ended a CIA program that provided support to vetted groups.
Losing sight of the big strategic picture and too afraid to be accused of being soft on terror, U.S. policymakers became content with authorizing humanitarian relief while focusing exclusively on supporting the SDF’s presence in the northeast.
Then, last December, everything changed. Assad fled aboard a plane to Russia, thus ending the bloody rule that his father began 53 years ago, as allied militias entered the Syrian capital with little resistance. People emerged from their homes in jubilation.
What has transpired since then has been nothing less than astonishing. Ahmed al-Sharaa, al-Qaeda’s former leader in Syria and head of the new regime, is now Syria’s interim president.
From Riyadh to Ankara to Munich to New York to Paris, Syria’s new leadership has sought to assure the world that their militant past was a means to an end — and not an endless Jihad against the West. Since taking office, al-Sharaa has convened a national dialogue conference and conducted outreach to Syria’s diverse religious and ethnic communities.
He has promised elections and to rebuild the country and its shattered economy, rather than exact vengeance against supporters of the Assad regime. With more than 12 million Syrians internally and externally displaced, hundreds of thousands of homes destroyed, and an electric grid that produces only two hours of daily needs, al-Sharaa’s focus is practical.
No matter the rhetoric, if Syrians don’t begin to experience improvements in their daily lives, the honeymoon will come to an end. The new government is already grappling with challenges from former regime elements, restive minority communities and near-daily attacks and land grabs by Israel. These issues coupled with the dire economic situation can topple the new order and fragment the country even further. Should this happen, groups such as the Islamic State can easily reemerge, while Iran and Hezbollah can reestablish the foothold they once held.
President Trump’s decision to remove sanctions has the potential to pave the way for much needed foreign direct investment to rebuild the country and move it back into the fold of the civilized world. For example, a sanctions-free Syria fits neatly into Saudi Arabia’s ambitious modernization plans. The country of 25 million, with proven gas and oil reserves, and access to the Mediterranean can become a key commercial and energy gateway to Europe, and a hub of entrepreneurial and educated talent.
But the devil will be in the details — and in how quickly the bureaucratic machine in Washington will implement Trump’s edict. Key will also be Trump’s ability to rein in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has seemingly made it his personal mission to undue Syria’s historic transition. Since Assad’s departure, the Israeli military has conducted hundreds of aerial and artillery strikes and occupied additional Syrian land well beyond the 1974 Disengagement Line in the Golan.
To realize his goal of moving the region away from conflict and cementing U.S. interests, Trump will have to do what no U.S. president has managed to do before him. Should he succeed, the U.S. has an opportunity to move beyond the binary choices of the past and embrace the possibilities of the future.
Wa’el Alzayat is a former U.S. Middle East expert who served at the Department of State for a decade. He is an associate fellow at the Middle East Institute and CEO of Emgage.
