A New Order in Syria: Can the US Shape a Moderate Path?
With Bashar al-Assad fleeing to Moscow, Syria stands at a crossroads. While the Syrian people celebrate the demise of Assad’s brutal regime, a new power player has emerged: Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a terrorist organization with a complicated history entwined with al-Qaeda and ISIS. Led by the enigmatic Abu Mohammed al-Jolani, HTS asserts its commitment to a more moderate Islamic governance, a proposition met with both hope and skepticism.
Navigating a Labyrinth: HTS’s Promises and Past
Jolani, who boasts of a past fighting US troops in Iraq and now rejects the “terrorist” label, presented a seemingly conciliatory stance in a recent interview, assuring a CNN correspondent that those who fear Islamic governance “do not understand it properly.” Such pronouncements, however, fail to completely assuage concerns, especially considering the Taliban’s track record in Afghanistan, leaving a trail of broken promises after seizing power three years ago. History offers further cautionary tales: the Iranian Revolution of 1979 and Ayatollah Khomeini’s pledge that the Iranian people, not clerics, would rule.
A Cautious Pragmatism: US Interests and Syrian Realities
Despite the turmoil, the United States cannot afford to detach itself from Syria’s fate. While Americans across the political spectrum desire no part in the ongoing conflicts, certain national interests demand attention. First and foremost is the fate of American hostages languishing in Assad’s prisons, like Austin Tice, and securing the return of the remains of those who perished in these brutal conditions, such as Majd Kamalmaz.
Chemical Weapons: A Line in the Sand
Equally pressing is the question of Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal. This dangerous stockpile cannot fall into the hands of any group, regardless of promises made. Israelite airstrikes against suspected Assad chemical weapons sites offer a temporary solution, but the United States and its allies must demand unconditional access for international inspectors to dismantle these threatening remnants.
Leveraging Leverage: Incentivizing a New Syria
Washington wields considerable leverage over the emerging Syrian government, primarily through sanctions. These sanctions should be removed gradually and only in exchange for concrete actions. Foremost among these actions are the release of American hostages, the complete dismantling of Assad’s chemical weapons program, and the shutdown of the multibillion-dollar narco-trafficking enterprise Assad employed to finance his regime.
The Role of Local Partners: Stabilizing Northeast Syria
For over a decade, the US military has partnered with local forces in northeast Syria to dismantle the ISIS caliphate and prevent its resurgence. These local partners, primarily Kurdish but also including Arab groups, control a region rich in oil and gas reserves and agricultural potential. Without cooperation between Washington and these partners, the new Syrian government will be deprived of vital economic resources.
Walking a Tightrope: HTS’s Agenda and the Future of Syria
While HTS may be willing to govern from the rubble left behind by Assad, they might not be motivated to engage with Washington’s demands. Jolani’s presentation of moderation suggests a willingness to engage in a diplomatic dance where both sides maneuver for advantage. While the best-case scenario is a Syrian government upholding civil liberties and allowing for democratic elections, it is more likely that those with weaponry, like HTS, will
What are the potential risks and benefits for the Syrian people if HTS gains control of more territory?
## Interview with Dr. Sarah Khan, Middle East Expert
**Host:** Welcome, Dr. Khan. Syria is in a state of flux after Assad’s departure. We’re seeing the rise of groups like Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, who present both hope and concern. Can you shed some light on this complex situation?
**Dr. Khan:** Thank you for having me. The situation in Syria is indeed incredibly complex. The rise of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) is a prime example of this complexity. [[1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tahrir_al-Sham)]. As a Sunni Islamist group with ties to al-Qaeda and ISIS, they’ve presented themselves as a more moderate alternative to Assad, promising a form of Islamic governance. However, their history and rhetoric raise serious doubts.
**Host:** You mentioned ties to al-Qaeda and ISIS. Can you elaborate on HTS’s past and how that might influence their future actions?
**Dr. Khan:** HTS has evolved significantly, previously operating under the name al-Nusra Front, which was directly affiliated with al-Qaeda. While they’ve since split and renounced this affiliation, their ideological roots and many of their members remain connected to extremist views. This makes their promises of moderation difficult to believe for many, especially given the Taliban’s broken promises in Afghanistan – a cautionary tale we cannot afford to ignore.
**Host:** What are the implications for the United States in this new Syrian landscape?
**Dr. Khan:** The US faces a delicate balancing act. While public appetite for military intervention is low, crucial national interests are at stake.
The safe return of American hostages like Austin Tice, and the recovery of remains like those of Majd Kamalmaz, are paramount. Additionally, preventing the acquisition of Syria’s amassed chemical weapons by HTS or any other group is a critical security concern for the US and the world.
**Host:** Thank you for your insights, Dr. Khan. This is clearly a situation that requires careful navigation, balancing humanitarian concerns with strategic interests.
**Dr. Khan:** Thank you for having me. It’s a complex situation that demands nuanced understanding and careful action.
