How Assad’s fall shows the political dissonance between Biden and Trump
Within hours of Syrian rebels entering Damascus on Sunday, President Joe Biden appeared on national television outlining military preemptions and pledging continued U.S. engagement in Syria. He said that the fall of the Assad regime is “a moment of danger and uncertainty,” pledging that the United States “will work with our partners in Syria” and “remain vigilant.”
In fact, this moment represents, in the eyes of many regional observers, a number of opportunities that were unimaginable even one week ago, including containing the Iranian nuclear program. But diplomats say the United States will only be able to exploit these opportunities through practical engagement.
Why did we write this?
Story focused on
The fall of authoritarian Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad has created challenges and opportunities for the United States. But the dissonance between current and future US administrations is confusing the main players in the Middle East.
This view contrasts sharply with the approach cheered by President-elect Donald Trump. “The United States should not do anything about this,” he wrote on social media, referring to Syria.
The United States has already carried out dozens of strikes against weapons sites in Syria, yet US allies and adversaries alike may wonder whether Mr. Biden’s latest move will be followed by a domestic shift by the Trump White House.
“We’re in this strange situation where it’s not entirely clear what US policy is at a time of tremendous volatility and opportunity,” says John Hanna, who has served in Democratic and Republican administrations.
Within hours of Syrian rebels entering Damascus on Sunday and forcing authoritarian leader Bashar al-Assad into exile, President Joe Biden was on national television outlining military preemptions and pledging continued U.S. engagement as Syrians chart a new path forward.
Biden said that the fall of the Assad regime “represents a moment of historic opportunity for the long-suffering Syrian people.” He added that it was “also a moment of danger and uncertainty,” and pledged that the United States would “work with our partners in Syria” and “remain vigilant.”
The president said that nearly 900 American soldiers in eastern Syria, charged with preventing the return of ISIS, will remain on the ground, stressing that the power vacuum has not opened the door to new forms of Islamic extremism.
Why did we write this?
Story focused on
The fall of authoritarian Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad has created challenges and opportunities for the United States. But the dissonance between current and future US administrations is confusing the main players in the Middle East.
Then on Tuesday, White House National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby announced that President Biden would send National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan to the region to address the ceasefires in Syria and Gaza and hostage issues. Also this week, Secretary of State Antony Blinken will visit Türkiye, which supports a rebel faction that has clashed in northeastern Syria with U.S.-backed Kurds, and Jordan.
The flurry of activity – and the commitment to remain intensely engaged in the turbulent Middle East – contrasts sharply with the message sent so far by President-elect Donald Trump in response to the Syria crisis.
As rebel forces swept south toward Damascus last week, Mr. Trump jumped on social media to announce a non-interference approach that could become the guiding principle of his Middle East policy and his broader foreign policy vision.
“The United States should not do anything about it,” Trump wrote, referring to Syria. “This is not our fight.”
“We are in this strange situation.”
Some Middle East policy experts say the dissonance between current and future US administrations is confusing key players in the region and raising questions about the future of US relations.
“This comes at a very critical time in the presidential transition,” says John Alterman, director of the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “Trump’s stated goal is to remain aloof from the conflict in Syria, but many U.S. allies have acute interests at stake [while] The potential for problems to occur…and spread is great.
Perhaps most troubling to the United States among the problems that could spread from an unstable Syria is international terrorism. ISIS was regaining power in Syria even before Assad’s fall, with counterterrorism experts reporting a doubling of attacks by the group over the past month.
Administration officials say the United States has already carried out dozens of strikes against weapons sites in Syria, and will remain prepared to take further action against assets that threaten regional stability, including a resurgent ISIS.
However, US allies and adversaries alike may wonder, experts and former diplomats say, whether Mr. Biden’s latest move will be followed by a turn inward and a much higher threshold for international engagement by the Trump White House.
“We’re in this strange situation where it’s not entirely clear what U.S. policy is at a time of tremendous volatility and opportunity,” says John Hanna, who has held senior national security positions in Democratic and Republican administrations.
Worrying about missed opportunities
Indeed, for many regional observers, this moment represents a number of opportunities that were unimaginable even a week ago. They range from seeing an end to Russia’s military presence in Syria to rolling back the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels’ grip on international trade routes off the coast of Yemen. But the United States will only be able to exploit these challenges – and carefully assess the looming risks the situation poses – through sustained hands-on engagement, some experienced diplomats say.
“This is a time when there is a great need for what I call exploratory diplomacy,” says Ryan Crocker, a former US ambassador to Syria. “This is the right time, if we want to avoid major mistakes or surprises, to hold the closest possible consultations with our partners in the region.”
Ambassador Crocker also calls for “a diplomatic presence on the ground as soon as possible,” despite the complexities the United States faces in dealing directly with the main rebel faction, Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham. Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham has been designated a terrorist organization by the United States, the European Union and the United Nations, although it has sought to demonstrate its moderation.
For the most ambitious among the “this moment offers opportunities” camp, Assad’s downfall — and the blow that Assad’s downfall has dealt to his two main patrons, Russia and Iran — reinforces a growing conviction that there is an opportunity to act against Tehran’s advanced nuclear program.
Their concern is that the transition from an American administration that is in a lame duck phase to one that is already showing isolationist tendencies may lead to lost opportunities.
“There are some unique opportunities” because of events in Syria “to address some of the unresolved challenges in the Middle East… the most important of which is the Iranian nuclear program,” says Mr. Hanna, now a senior fellow in defense and strategy. At the Jewish Institute for National Security of America. “We may have a chance to get the job done.”
Diplomats and others who served in Trump’s first administration say they are confident that the United States will return next year to the “maximum pressure campaign” of tightening sanctions against Iran.
“Battle for Trump’s mind”
Meanwhile, others acknowledge that there may be an intense competition between intervention versus non-fighting within the new Trump administration to get a green light on consequential policy decisions on the horizon. It includes the level and type of cooperation with Israel regarding any military action against Iranian nuclear sites.
For interventionists, the opportunity may be now or never to prevent a severely weakened Iran from responding to the loss of a cornerstone of the “axis of resistance” by rushing to produce a nuclear weapon. United Nations officials said last week that Iran’s nuclear program has made significant progress in recent months.
The other major Syria-related question that a returning President Trump will face is what to do about U.S. forces on the ground and their counterterrorism mission.
“I think there will be a struggle over Trump’s opinion about how quickly we can withdraw our forces from eastern Syria,” Mr. Hanna says.
Analysts with connections within the incoming administration’s foreign policy circles say the Not Our Fight group will argue that any renewed international terrorism threat could be addressed by other U.S. assets in the region.
But others say President Trump may want to think twice before halting counterterrorism forces.
“If I were talking to President Trump about our forces there, I would remind him that their primary mission is to regulate ISIS” and stop the group’s resurgence, says Elliott Abrams, who served as special representative for Iran in Trump’s first White House.
“I would say, ‘Mr. “Mr. President, if you pull our guys out, and there’s an attack here by one of their guys, you’re going to be blamed,” Ambassador Abrams says. “It’s not worth it.”