Syria demands a nuanced approach, balancing regional interests with American goals

Syria was once the cradle of a rare civilization, rich in heritage. But it is no exaggeration to say that it is now the world’s most stubborn quagmire, a highly contested title. The country lies in ruins and remains vulnerable to violent outbursts, thanks to a containment strategy by successive Washington administrations that created a frozen conflict.

As we approach the 12th anniversary of the end of the revolutionary uprising against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and the beginning of the civil war, it is worth looking back at how we got to this ugly reality and where we went wrong. Whoever wins the US presidential election in November will need to craft a new Syria policy as negative externalities to neighboring countries continue to pile up at an unsustainable pace.

The US stance on Syria is a classic example of the kind of vagueness ripped from the textbook “it’s not our problem” strategy that has left regional players very confused. But there are some key differences that most analysts believe between how Biden and Trump will approach the Syrian crisis.

Donald Trump is often unfairly criticized by foreign policy establishment figures as the overseer of risk and chaos in the international community, but the negotiator in chief could, in theory, take a very different tack in the frozen conflict.

He already has a strong aversion to costly foreign conflicts involving taxpayer money on many fronts. He will not allow the Syrian conflict to continue to suck up billions of dollars, nor will he drag the US into an endless, unwinnable conflict. But he also Biden administration’s withdrawal from AfghanistanHis focus will likely be on getting assurances from allies that ISIS will be contained, rather than on repeating the follies of the Obama era.

Syria is now a proxy war in which Assad relies on Russia to stay in power. Russia’s Mediterranean ambitions help Assad’s fortunes and provide Moscow with a strategic foothold in the Middle East. Add Iran to the mix and you have a new threat. Satellite State SyriaThe plot then becomes more complicated, revealing Tehran’s long-held hostility towards America.

Assad is the sole survivor of the Arab Spring and has earned a reputation as a dictator of unique staying power. His continued rule is a symbol of the limits of American power, empowering adversaries from Iran to Russia and perpetuating regional instability. His stability also serves as a reminder of the failed strategy of President Obama to stabilize the region through his notorious policies. Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA).

The JCPOA was intended to ease regional tensions, protect Israel, and facilitate a smooth U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. But the Middle East’s complex web of alliances and rivalries proved resistant to such a neat solution. The Obama administration’s dream of ending endless wars while trying to appease Iran, bridge the gap with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states, and stabilize Iraq revealed its strategic naivety in dealing with regional dynamics. But they fundamentally misunderstood the real interests of the authorities in Tehran, underestimated the strength of sectarian identities, and overlooked the growing ambitions of the Gulf states that were seeking to bridge the gap.

As a convenient way to avoid further military exposure in Syria and to contain ISIS, Presidents Obama and Joe Biden forged a fragile alliance with the People’s Protection Units (YPG), an offshoot of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). internationally recognized terrorist group The YPG has killed thousands of Turkish nationals in various bombings and attacks since the 1980s. The alliance has been a contentious one for Ankara and Washington, whose ambitions for an independent Kurdistan, which stretches across Syria, Iraq, Iran and Turkey, have exacerbated regional tensions and threatened a larger conflict.

Syria seeks a nuanced approach that balances regional interests with American objectives. The status quo is no longer enough.

An interesting way to think about doctrine for a future Trump administration has been articulated by Matthew Kronig of the Atlantic Council, who calls it “a fundamentally ideological and political theory that is fundamentally fundamental.”Trump and Reagan combinedThis reflects a shared commitment to prioritizing American interests, supporting key allies, confronting adversaries, and prioritizing military strength and deterrence.

In this case, Trump’s preference for transactional relationships may help him craft a workable strategy that avoids the pitfalls of endless intervention. Past proposals such as a no-fly zone, supported by Hillary Clinton and John McCain, and Biden’s misjudgment of regional allies underscore the complexity of Syria’s predicament.

However, Trump may seize the opportunity to prioritize concrete outcomes rather than ambitious visions for transforming the region. Sometimes the best deals are made through trusted intermediaries such as Oman or Qatar to provide a framework for easing tensions rather than directly. A future Trump administration would likely consider improving diplomacy with Turkey. NATO’s second largest memberto make such a roadmap possible.

Biden’s Syria policy is still suffering from the JCPOA hangover and will be difficult to reconcile with regional dynamics unless it is seriously rethought. The current stance on the YPG also limits the possibility of cooperation with Ankara. Meanwhile, Israel’s war on Gaza, Russia’s war in Ukraine, and China’s bullying of Pacific nations continue to suck up resources, putting the entire conflict in a state of attention deficit disorder.

But we ignore the frozen conflict in Syria at our own peril. Whoever wins the presidential election next fall will need to forge a new doctrine based on Middle East realities and strategic pragmatism.

Bilal Bilic is a member of the Turkish Parliament and a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.