QAMISHLI, Syria (North Press) – A number of op-eds, analyses, and an open letter by Syria experts and former US officials have demanded that the Biden administration set a concrete Syria policy after over two years of neglect. They correctly highlight the problems, but many still miss the point.
An opinion piece in the Washington Post says that the “Biden administration seems to have forgotten about Syria these days.” An Al-Monitor piece agrees. The Economist quotes a congressional advisor saying Biden aids are keeping Middle East issues off of his desk as the president concentrates on a war in Europe and the threat of China. Recently, 40 former US officials and experts signed an open letter asking for a policy review on Syria and laying out a number of concrete proposals.
The new focus on Syria seems to be driven by the rapprochement between the Bashar al-Assad government and other Arab heads of state (and Turkey) in the wake of a deadly earthquake in Turkey and Syria, as well as recent attacks by Iranian proxies on US forces in Syria.
Josh Rogin, the author of the Washington Post op-ed, says that “privately, many Biden officials tell me they just don’t see any good US policy options.” Since President Donald Trump’s disastrous decision of pulling back US forces to allow for a Turkish invasion of northern Syria in 2019, Washington’s policy for Syria has remained nearly static.
The US maintains around 900 troops in Syria, across the Jazira (Hasakah Governorate) and Deir ez-Zor regions, where they conduct counter-terrorism raids with their main local partner, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). It also continues to run a base in al-Tanf, near the tri-border area with Iraq and Jordan.
Syria is anything but unimportant. US inaction could plunge an already impoverished population further into misery; it could lead to a resurgence of the Islamic State, the further entrenchment of Iran in the region and Iranian attacks against US positions; it could worsen Turkey’s attacks against Kurds and lead to the loss of the only political project in the country with a semblance of democratic organization; finally, leaving the Assad government, after over a decade of attacking its own population, unpunished would inspire similar behaviour on a global stage. Most writers agree on the possible negative outcomes of America’s apathy.
The proposed solutions, however, are largely uninspired. Rogin argues that Biden is leaving a major weapon in the US’ arsenal against the al-Assad government unused: the so-called Caesar sanctions. Biden used it only once, against Syrian drug traffickers, Rogin says, but it could be put to better used. Similarly, the open letter argues for an “expansive use” of sanctions.
The US imposed crippling Caesar sanctions on Syria in 2020. They have had almost no effect on the ruling class around President al-Assad, but have instead plunged the country further into poverty. Even the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES), the main American partner in the country, was placed under these sanctions for nearly two years. As they were lifted for northeast Syria in 2022, the autonomous region was still prohibited from trading in the region’s oil, which accounted for around 90% of the AANES’ revenue in 2022 (it is instead sold to the Assad government at well below market value). Clearly, more sanctions are not the answer.
Instead, Washington needs to reinforce existing democratic institutions in the country. The AANES is a good starting point. In order to halt its slide into militarization, and a society led by commanders instead of democratically-elected officials, the US should offer concrete security assurances. This involves commitments to act as a bulwark against further encroachment by Russia, Iran, and Damascus. But it also includes bringing Ankara and the Kurds to the negotiating table and ending Turkey’s occupation of northern Syria. Should a liberal government be elected in Turkey next month, as polls seem to indicate it will, Biden’s priority should be brokering such an agreement.
Instead of attempting to impoverish the rest of Syria, the US should reward good governance. A major step in that direction, beyond lifting Caesar sanctions on AANES oil, is to allow the northeast to conduct cross-border trade to the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI) and Iraq proper. Washington could easily use its influence in the region to establish such mutually-beneficial relationships. This would allow for much needed technical machinery to enter the region, allowing the AANES to import much-needed medical equipment, to repair the electricity-producing turbines on its derelict dams and to improve its agricultural sector, which feeds much of Syria. A prosperous and safe northeast could be an effective pull factor for the country at large.
America is not wholly blind to Syria’s importance. The visit of Gen Mark Milley, the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, to northeast Syria last month demonstrates as much. In general, the Pentagon has followed a more congruous Syria policy for the past decade than the White House. Part of the problem is the fact that the US’ presence in Syria is formally classified as a counter-terrorism operation, but is simultaneously seen as counter-weight to Iranian influence in the region by military leaders. And, after nearly a decade of working together, US presence has also become integral to the continued existence of the AANES political project – at least in the short term. President Biden, and future administrations, could see this as an additional burden on America. Or they could see in it the potential to formulate an effective vision for the future of Syria.