How clear,´-or-unclear, is US policy in Syria?

The positions of the Biden administration’s foreign policy approach to the Syrian issue vary among many opponents who believe that the policies of successive US administrations have not changed from Obama to Biden through Trump, and that they do not want to change the Syrian regime because it is better for it and its ally Israel, justifying this because the regime has maintained calm and peace On the Golan border for decades. While others are repeating these supposed policies because America left things going without blatant interference so that Iran, Russia, and Hezbollah would fall into the Syrian quagmire! Consequently, it weakens its enemies in the region and the world, and possibly causes revolutions against them in their countries. In addition to many other ramifications, such as that the United States does not want a democratic regime in Syria that harms its interests, especially in its allies in the Gulf! These and similar analyzes come based on interpretations that do not depend on lived facts, declared positions, and implemented policies, and they are the other side of the “universal conspiracy theory” promoted by the Syrian regime about the conspiracy of the world, and America in particular, on the axis of “resistance and opposition” of which the regime is one of the parties!
We cannot deny America’s desire, with its various administrations, for a change in the Syrian regime,´-or-a change in its behavior, policies, and positions that the two main parties consider harmful to American interests in the region by enabling it to expand Iranian and Russian influence at the expense of the Americans in the Middle East and the Gulf in particular. But all these administrations, including the Biden administration, do not reach this desire for change to the use of force -dir-ectly, except in the case of a -dir-ect threat to America itself. They prefer for reasons related to their laws that prevent America from becoming the “policeman of the world” to use other means to stimulate change around the world, including it aligns with its interests, security, and priorities.
The current Biden administration has not deviated from this context. Its declared policy and practice towards the Syrian issue so far, which is not considered a priority of its foreign policy, focuses first on the humanitarian dimension and the delivery of aid to millions of Syrians who lack the necessities of life in areas that have gone outside the regime s authority,´-or-even in same system regions. And it engaged in a sharp dispute with Russia over this issue, which wants to hand over all aid to the Syrian regime and not use Turkish crossings to deliver it -dir-ectly to the opposition areas. It is also seeking, with its diplomatic efforts, to maintain the fragile cease-fire between the opposition in northwestern Syria on the one hand, and the regime and Russia on the other. In general, work for a comprehensive solution to the Syrian conflict through the United Nations´-or-outside it depends on political settlements and agreements between the different parties to the conflict, and on the condition that international participation in the reconstruction in Syria will not take place until after reaching political solutions that satisfy the conflicting parties.
But this is not enough to describe a clear strategy´-or-policy in the Syrian file. There is no real pressure from the US administration to activate the United Nations, in its currently stagnant role, to bring the parties together to reach political solutions, especially in the Constitutional Committee, which facilitates a political solution within the concept of “neither winner nor loser”, according to Security Council Resolution 2245. The issue of relations with the regime is also emerging, as America s allies in the region, such as the UAE, Jordan, and Bahrain, tend to normalize with the regime, -restore- diplomatic relations, and open up areas for economic investments and trade exchange. It is a new policy faced by the US administration, as well as by the European -union-, by rejecting normalization with the regime without making real concessions related to the return of refugees, the release of detainees, and the achievement of a political settlement in which the opposition participates. The statements of its representatives do not support regional efforts towards normalization by allied Arab countries. In other American statements, it will not pressure to change the policies of normalization, meaning that it does not favor it, but it did not prevent it, so it left the door open to normalization. This contradiction confirms that the policy followed in this matter is not clear and even contradictory. However, some analysts believe that America s position on Arab normalization has changed, as it has decided to oppose it, which led to delay´-or-perhaps reluctance towards Arab countries to normalize after their approach was impulsive and urgent. It is also mentioned that one of the aspects of normalization is the "Arab Gas Pipeline" going from Egypt to Lebanon and passing through Syria. Does the administration s acceptance of it lead to normalization?´-or-are there other means by which gas can be delivered without going through Syria?
The lack of clarity, which sometimes reaches the point of contradiction, explains different statements about the US sanctions policy -dir-ected against the Syrian regime. The insistence on continuing the sanctions brings together the largest number of lawmakers from both parties to force the Syrian regime to make political concessions that would enable progress in the path of a comprehensive political solution. However, there are views opposing the quality of the sanctions currently in effect, as they prefer that the imposed sanctions focus on Assad and his entourage and stay away from sanctions that may harm the living conditions of the Syrian people, which will be followed by more waves of Syrian refugees abroad. It is necessary to follow up on the extent to which a new nuclear agreement between America and Iran, if it happens, despite its difficulty, on the issue of sanctions against Iran, and therefore whether the solution will be at the expense of Syria,´-or-at the expense of the Syrian regime. Iran s main demand, which the United States strongly rejects, is summed up in a complete and rapid lifting of sanctions, whether related to its nuclear program, ballistic missile program,´-or-Iranian activities in the region, which Washington considers terrorist. The US plan is to gradually lift the sanctions and-limit- them to sanctions related to the nuclear program alone, excluding sanctions against the ballistic missile program and Iran s regional behavior. Most likely, Iran will not agree to such an option and will insist on a complete lifting of sanctions in exchange for dismantling the nuclear program and subjecting it to serious international control.
Even in the matter of being present, there are positions and policies that believe that America will not go towards ending its military presence on the ground to confront the remnants of ISIS, which is currently seeking to re-emerge and try to move from a state of “er cells” to a state of “armed resistance,” as It was found in the large-scale operation that led to the seizure of Al-Hasakah prison and the smuggling of ISIS elements detained there. But not ending the military presence is not an obvious issue when Biden declares in his statements that: "The United States is able to eliminate these threats - ISIS and al-Qaeda - without a military presence on the ground." The extent of hesitation on this issue had previously appeared in the era of Trump when he announced that he would withdraw American ground forces, and then retracted days later from his first statement. Most likely, the US forces in Iraq and Syria will not leave in the near future.
Overall, the lack of clarity, lack of coherence, and hesitation is prominent policy feature of the Biden administration on the Syrian issue. Some analysts even claim that there is a split in US foreign policy towards the Middle East between the State Department and the National Security Council. Some may argue that there is no American strategy in Syria, and this reflects, at a minimum, that the Syrian issue is not a priority for US foreign policy, but rather is at the bottom of the list of priorities that first focused on withdrawing from Afghanistan and then is currently focused on confronting the possibility of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine after it mobilized Huge forces on its borders. Just as China remains at the top of the list of US priorities because of the economic and military threat it poses, it may also prepare for a war against Taiwan, an ally of the United States in the Far East.
Some analysts may exaggerate when they explain America s policies that it may leave the Middle East to focus on its priorities. This is unlikely to happen since the large US military presence in the Middle East, estimated at forty thousand in the Gulf states, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq, and Syria, in bases and in the nearby seas, nothing indicates that there is an intention to end it despite America s preoccupation in other regions of the world. It should be noted that there has recently been pressure on the Biden administration from prominent bipartisan members of the Congressional Foreign Affairs Committee to review its strategy towards Syria to come up with a coherent plan to deal with the Syrian issue in various fields, instead of the current confusion, which is characterized by the lack of clarity for the American people, the Syrian people and the countries allied to America in the region.

[email protected]

Rate the article
Bad	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	Very good
Result : 95%							Participated in the vote : 2