A Non-Interventionist Approach In Syria Is Extremely Dangerous

The shockingly sudden fall of Assad in Syria should certainly prompt the US 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 US’ geostrategic interest and the security of its allies. The question is raised: what measures should the US take to secure its goals vs. what might or might not President-elect Trump 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!” If Trump follows through with his non-interventionist approach, it will have ominous regional implications.

The US 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 US and its allies, which can be prevented only by taking timely, constructive measures. Trump will quickly recognize that the US cannot afford to take any chances in a volatile region where the stakes are so high, and the danger of non-interference for America looms even higher.

The Challenges for the US
The challenges of interfering are daunting, but precisely because of that, the US 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 the US faces are widespread and multifaceted, including:

• The difficulties of communicating with a government splintered ideologically by several rebel factions;
• How and when to remove US sanctions on Syria and mitigate the impact on other countries that were cooperating with Syria;
• How to balance the relationships with neighboring countries, especially Turkey, that maintain a military presence in Syria;
• How to deal with the Kurdish aspiration for autonomy without compromising the central government’s authority;
• 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, and the sooner the US acts, the sooner other countries will follow and the easier it will be for the new government to function, stabilizing the country.

Measures the US Should Take Now
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, democracy” but by its actions. While ‘waiting and judging,’ President Biden should now directly appeal to the new leadership in Syria, stating something along the following lines:

‘You have won the war against tyranny; your victory should mark a new beginning. It is time to heal a battered nation. The US 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. The Syrian people have suffered enough, unimaginably beyond any human capacity to endure; it is time for healing; time to feel safe, to rebuild, to restore order and confidence to a shattered populace, and it’s time to grow and prosper again and never engage in revenge and retribution, and never instigate violence domestically or against any of your neighbors.’

Given that time is of the essence for the country to stand on its feet, the US should first remove HTS from the terrorist list to send a clear message that the US is willing to demonstrate its initial trust in the new leadership, and offer diplomatic recognition. The US should engage in Track II diplomacy to discuss regional and domestic security. In this regard, the US should work with its ally, the Syrian Kurds, along with Turkey and the new regime, to preserve Kurdish security and safety and not withdraw US forces from Syria unless a satisfactory solution is found for the Kurdish community. The US should promise to return control of the country’s oil fields to the new government, which will provide an incentive to work out a mutually beneficial arrangement with the Kurds.

Furthermore, the US should provide economic assistance by first removing the sanctions from 2012, assisting in the efforts to recover funds stolen by Assad himself and his government, and supporting reconstruction efforts to help improve living conditions and stabilize the country. The US 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 US can demonstrate its commitment to supporting the Syrian peoples’ aspiration for democracy and the prospect of growth and prosperity while addressing the US and its allies’ concerns over regional stability.

The Trump Approach
Trump, who has already stated that “the United States should have nothing to do with it,” is in for a rude awakening. The US cannot simply walk away from the revolutionary changes that have taken place in Syria. Trump’s non-interventionist approach will not stand the test of time. Without the US’ comforting words, actions, and assurances, Syria could potentially plunge into another domestic turmoil that will have a ripple effect on every ally in the region, which the US cannot risk.

Jordan will be the first US ally that will be affected, specifically because any renewed turmoil would aggravate the problems of refugee influxes, drug smuggling, security threats, economic disruptions, and 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.

Israel will face a new security threat due to the power vacuum in Syria and increased instability along its northern borders. Although Israel is destroying much of what’s 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, and the potential domestic conflict between the warring groups, especially the jihadists among them, would inspire extremism within their own borders. A new political vacuum will be exploited by rival regional powers such as Iran, which will try to reestablish a foothold in Syria.

Given the risks of non-intervention, Trump will sooner than later recognize that the US cannot simply divorce itself from a country in a region laden with widespread violent conflicts where the US has a huge vested interest in its stability. But then, even if Trump tries to stick to his guns, his foreign policy advisors, especially Marco Rubio, his designee for Secretary of State, will bring his boss around. As we saw during his last term, the perspective of his advisors could change his approach.

Trump will understand that the US is an irreplaceable power in the Middle East. It can neither shed its responsibilities towards its allies nor its moral responsibility toward the Syrian people, nor abandon its vital geostrategic interests in the region. Trump will sooner than later have to come to terms with this reality.