A Non-Interventionist Approach in Syria Is Extremely Dangerous

The shockingly sudden fall of Assad in Syria should certainly prompt the United States to intervene to help the new regime stabilize the country, which would serve not only the welfare and well-being of the Syrian people, but also the United States’ geostrategic interest and the security of its allies.

The question is: What measures should the United States take to secure its goals vs. what President-elect Trump may or may not do once he reassumes the presidency?

Trump explicitly stated immediately following the toppling of Assad that “Syria is a mess, but is not our friend. The United States should have nothing to do with it. This is not our fight. Let it play out. Do not get involved.”

Ominous regional implications

If Trump follows through with his non-interventionist approach, it will have ominous regional implications.

The United States has no choice but to get involved because leaving the new Syrian regime entirely to its own devices could backfire and lead to adverse consequences for the United States and its allies. This can be prevented only by taking timely, constructive measures.

Trump will quickly recognize that the United States cannot afford to take any chances in a volatile region where the stakes are so high, and the danger of non-interference for the United States looms even higher.

The challenges of interfering are daunting, but precisely because of that, the United States should rise to these challenges and help shape the events in Syria. Otherwise, it would be left to Iran, Turkey and Russia to turn the country once again into a staging ground to promote their nefarious designs and objectives.

The challenges for the U.S.

The challenges the United States faces are widespread and multifaceted, including:

1. The difficulties of communicating with a government splintered ideologically by several rebel factions.

2. How and when to remove U.S. sanctions on Syria and mitigate the impact on other countries that were cooperating with Syria.

3. How to balance the relationships with neighboring countries, especially Turkey, that maintain a military presence in Syria.

4. How to deal with the Kurdish aspiration for autonomy without compromising the central government’s authority.

5. How to reconstruct financial and trade relations to address the dire need for cash inflow and credit.

These and other challenges can — and indeed must — be dealt with now because time is of the essence. The sooner the United States acts, the sooner other countries will follow and the easier it will be for the new government to function, stabilizing the country.

Measures the U.S. should take now

President Biden is correct in stating that the new regime will be judged not by its promises to establish “a state of freedom, equality, rule of law and democracy,” but by its actions.

While “waiting and judging,” he should now directly appeal to the new leadership as well as, crucially, to the Syrian people, stating something along the following lines:

What Biden should say now

“You have won the war against tyranny. Your victory should mark a new beginning. It is time to heal a battered nation. The United States is ready and willing to extend a helping hand and support you in every way possible, provided that human rights are fully and unreservedly protected.

After all, the Syrian people have suffered enough, unimaginably beyond any human capacity to endure. It is time for healing, time to feel safe, to rebuild and to restore order and confidence to a shattered populace.

It is time to grow and prosper again and never engage in revenge and retribution and never instigate violence domestically or against any of your neighbors.”

Time is of the essence

Given that time is of the essence for Syria to stand on its feet, the United States should first remove Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) from the terrorist list to send a clear message that it is willing to demonstrate its initial trust in the new leadership and offer diplomatic recognition.

The United States should engage in Track II diplomacy to discuss regional and domestic security. In this regard, the United States should work with its ally, the Syrian Kurds, along with Turkey and the new regime, to preserve Kurdish security and safety. It should not withdraw U.S. forces from Syria unless a satisfactory solution is found for the Kurdish community.

The United States should also promise to return control of the country’s oil fields to the new government. That will provide an incentive for the new leadership to work out a mutually beneficial arrangement with the Kurds.

Removing sanctions

Furthermore, the United States should provide economic assistance by first removing the sanctions from 2012, second by assisting in the efforts to recover funds stolen by Assad and his government and third support reconstruction efforts to help improve living conditions and stabilize the country.

The United States could also offer technical know-how and training for civil society organizations and help promote independent media and democratic institutions.

By taking these and other measures, the United States can demonstrate its commitment to supporting the Syrian peoples’ aspiration for democracy and the prospect of growth and prosperity while addressing the United States’ and its allies’ concerns over regional stability.

The Trump approach

President-elect Trump, who has already stated that “the United States should have nothing to do with it,” is in for a rude awakening. The United States cannot simply walk away from the revolutionary changes that have taken place in Syria.

Irrespective of his current thinking, it is already clear that Trump’s non-interventionist approach will not stand the test of time. Without the United States’ constructive words, actions and assurances, Syria could potentially plunge into another domestic turmoil. To make matters worse, this would have a ripple effect on every ally in the region, which the United States cannot risk.

Jordan would be the first U.S. ally to be affected. Any renewed turmoil would aggravate its problems with refugee influxes, drug smuggling, security threats, economic disruptions as well as potential challenges to King Abdullah’s rule if extremist elements gain power.

This would destabilize the Kingdom, which is already under tremendous economic and national security pressures.

The Israel and Gulf states dimension

Israel, for its part, faces a new security threat due to the power vacuum in Syria and increased instability along its northern borders.

Although Israel has been busy destroying much of what is left of Assad’s military assets, some advanced weapons may still fall into the hands of hostile groups. In addition, the resurgence of radical groups like ISIS in the region would pose a new significant threat that Israel will have to grapple with.

The Gulf states are concerned that Syria will become a failed state, which could lead to regional instability. They are painfully aware of the fact that potential domestic conflict between the warring groups, especially the jihadists among them, would inspire extremism within their own borders.

Such a new political vacuum would be a gift to rival regional powers such as Iran. They would exploit it and try to re-establish a foothold in Syria.

Trump will come around

Given the risks of non-intervention, Mr. Trump will sooner rather than later recognize that the United States cannot simply divorce itself from a country in a region laden with widespread violent conflicts where the United States has a huge, vested interest in its stability.

Even if Trump tries to stick to his non-interventionist path, his foreign policy advisors, especially Marco Rubio, his designee for Secretary of State, will work on bringing their boss around. As we saw during his earlier term in the Oval Office, the perspective of his advisors could change his approach.

One reason Trump will come to understand that the United States is an irreplaceable power in the Middle East lies in the fact that he doesn’t want to be a repeat of Barack Obama, who famously let Syria down during his presidency.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the United States can neither shed its responsibilities towards its allies nor its moral responsibility toward the Syrian people.

Nor can it abandon its vital geostrategic interests in the region. Trump will sooner rather than later have to come to terms with this reality.