The American magazine “The National Interest” published an article by its editor-in-chief, Adam Lamon, in which he called on the United States to adopt a new strategy towards Syria and to abandon its efforts to achieve goals that he described as vague and unattainable.
The writer claims that US President Joe Biden was never fond of the war in Syria, yet his withdrawal from it is not inevitable, and may even work to strengthen his presence there.
Despite his aversion to launching “foreign invasions”, Biden has long ridiculed his predecessor Donald Trump’s decision in 2019 to shake his hand from the Syrian crisis, describing the decision as “reckless” and “treacherous.”
According to the article, Biden was not comfortable with the United States’ exit from Syria, considering that it had “betrayed” its Kurdish allies and gave the Islamic State “a new life”.
There is no doubt that the Kurds and the Islamic State – in addition to the humanitarian catastrophe in Syria – remained concerns for Biden. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal in 2019, the US President emphasized that maintaining a small military force in Syria To protect the Kurds “seems quite logical.”
instant review
The author of the article believes that it is imperative for the Biden administration to “firmly” conduct an assessment of its strategy in Syria to ensure that it serves American interests in the Middle East region. “.
And otherwise – the writer adds – will make the Syrians and America’s allies in a critical situation once Biden – or any US president in the future – decides to end what has inevitably become another “eternal war” waged by the United States.
America’s serious intervention in Syria began in 2013, two years after President Bashar al-Assad began his crackdown on protesters, which led to the outbreak of a civil war in the country.
Although the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has been involved since 2012 in advising its allies in the Middle East on how to support the Syrian rebels, former President Barack Obama refrained from direct intervention for fear of expanding the scope of the military mission and arming “terrorists”. unintentionally.
At the time, Obama ordered the CIA to conduct a secret operation to train and arm Syrian rebels called “Timber Sycamore” to force Bashar al-Assad out of Damascus, although he opposed proposals to punish the “besieged dictator.”
Operation Timber Sycamore was tactically successful, and CIA-backed forces were able to control large swaths of Syrian territory, with the opposition seriously threatening the Alawite sect’s strongholds along the Mediterranean coast, and even Damascus. itself.
These developments drew the attention of both Assad’s enemies and his allies alike. Tehran sent the commander of the Revolutionary Guards at the time, Qassem Soleimani, to Moscow, carrying with him a strategy to save Bashar al-Assad, while the Russians responded in the form of a large-scale military intervention in Syria.
Not only did Russia save Damascus from defeat, but it also worked to strengthen its advanced military presence by concluding a number of permanent agreements with the Assad regime, which sparked repeated protests from Western countries against Russia’s “malign” influence in Syria, and what appeared to be a “tactical victory” ended into a “strategic failure”.
The National Interest article explained that Washington partnered with the Syrians who were fighting ISIS, as the US Department of Defense began supporting the Kurdish and Arab fighters who together then formed the Syrian Democratic Forces.
However, US support for the Syrian Democratic Forces “unintentionally” caused a confrontation with Turkey, which views the separatist People’s Protection Units as a severe threat to its territorial integrity and national security.
Turkish annoyance
According to Lamon, Obama has sought throughout his tenure in vain for regime change in Syria by endorsing a faltering political process backed by the United Nations that relies on government punishment and “tepid” incitement to armed resistance.
After he inherited from Obama a “confused” policy, Donald Trump chose to continue and change in Syria by making ISIS the focus of American policy in one aspect with the intention of extricating the United States from and resolving the conflict there, but – on the other hand – he almost tended to change the regime when he ordered the army The United States attacked a Syrian military base, and considered assassinating Bashar al-Assad to use chemical weapons again in the spring of 2017.
3 goals
The National Interest article went on to address Biden’s policy towards Syria, noting that the US president may seek to achieve 3 goals, namely alleviating human suffering, resolving the fate of the Kurds, and finally defeating ISIS.
If the Biden administration adheres to the policy of his predecessors based on regime change through sanctions and the isolation of Syria, it will not succeed in solving these really difficult problems, and the United States will not be able to get out of that country.
Biden can, however, create favorable conditions that allow a “responsible” exit from Syria and dwell on what he has learned from the American war in Afghanistan, especially the importance of avoiding “major military operations to reformulate other countries” and “defining tasks with clear objectives.” They are achievable, not goals that we will never attain.”
The author of the article pointed out that Biden was right when he stated that the post-9/11 era forced Americans to recognize that there are actual limits to what American power can reach, and he must now go further by recognizing that it is not practical for the Americans to turn Syria into the country they They want, and accordingly, American policy must stop pursuing vague and unattainable goals.
Exploiting regional dynamics
Therefore, the United States should craft a new, more focused strategy toward Syria, exploit the emerging regional dynamics in the Middle East, and achieve what can be achieved by reducing human suffering, eradicating the Islamic State, ensuring continued support for the Kurds, and countering Iran.
Perhaps advancing such a model will not be easy, but for Biden it begins with a single step, which is direct negotiations with the Assad regime in Damascus, as the author of the article put it.
defrosting
Just as Obama negotiated with Iran and Trump sought detente with North Korea, Biden must also thaw relations with Damascus. The Iranian military in Syria, and the Turkish aggression against the Kurds,” all of which are problems – as Adam Lamon claims in his article – that will not last long under a stable and secure regime led by Bashar al-Assad.
Israel, the Kurds, and Turkey will also be in a better condition with Assad at the helm than if he remains besieged, and in light of the growing influence of Iran and its proxies in Syria with the weakening of Assad’s authority, Israel would probably prefer to return to the status quo instead of civil war when Bashar – not the Guard The Iranian revolutionary – he is the one who manages the frictions with it in the Golan Heights and other areas of the country.
The managing editor of the National Interest continues his analysis, saying that what the United States should do next is to allow Bashar al-Assad to recover the areas it lost during the civil war, and to allow the aid needed to rebuild Syria to flow in exchange for “limited, albeit influential” political concessions.
In any case, there are signs emanating from Washington and some capitals in the Middle East that suggest that a policy shift is not linked to subordination to Biden, a shift that has already begun or is in the process of being planned.
The magazine’s editor-in-chief concludes by emphasizing that a new American policy that allows Syria to return to the regional fold does not require the United States to spend its money in rebuilding it, nor does it aim to “reward” Assad for his “brutal” behavior over the past decade, but rather aims to make Washington Pick winners and losers in the Middle East.
If the United States is forced to choose between a weak Syrian state that Iran is exploiting to wage war against Israel and America’s allies in the Gulf region, and a prosperous Syrian state that tends to achieve a balance between the interests of the regional parties and is ready for the return of Syrian refugees to it, this will undoubtedly be an easy choice for Washington. .
The National Interest magazine concludes its article with a frank statement saying that despite the many changes in the Middle East, the Assad family has proven that they are here to stay.