Four months after the euphoria that marked the sudden ouster of Bashar al-Assad, Syria’s brutal dictator, the fragility of the country’s new reality is clear.
Syria, awash in weapons and trauma and with almost no money to rebuild, is exceptionally vulnerable. Its economy is in a state of collapse, 90 percent of the population lives below the poverty line, and the state can only provide two hours of electricity a day. Half of the infrastructure is either destroyed or dysfunctional. A recent U.N. report determined that, at current growth rates, Syria would not regain its pre-conflict GDP before 2080.
In this febrile environment, the Islamic State could re-emerge, and the caretaker government, starved for funds, could start trafficking in illicit goods, as the Assad regime did with the illegal amphetamine captagon. Iran, a longtime ally of the regime and an enemy of the new government, could return to cause havoc — Hezbollah is already exploiting vulnerabilities, joining the other external hostile forces that have already started to jockey for influence.
That includes Russia — which helped the former regime raze the country, took in Mr. al-Assad after his ouster and has been providing shipments of much-needed bank notes to ease Syria’s liquidity crisis while it tries to salvage Russian military bases in the country. And Israel, which has publicly declared its mistrust of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, the rebel group that toppled Mr. al-Assad, has conducted hundreds of attacks and invaded and occupied large areas of southern Syria. (Israeli forces are so close to the capital that their technology presence appears to have triggered cell notifications in southwestern Damascus that read, “Welcome to Israel.”)
None of this is inevitable. In December, Syrian civil society, full of enthusiasm, started returning to Damascus and pressing for more inclusive representation in government. A National Dialogue Conference in February, though rushed and imperfect, was notable for the fact that the people were finally convening in what is now being called the People’s Palace, a cavernous stone building that just a few months earlier was reserved for the regime and its cronies.
But trying to build an effective government and a disciplined army in a war-ravaged country without humanitarian aid or sanction relief is like trying to get up with a boot on your neck. The United States, which contributed more than $18 billion since 2011, was Syria’s largest foreign aid provider. But aid was rescinded as part of the dismantling of the United States Agency for International Development, and several European countries are now cutting their foreign aid budgets to fund higher military spending.
This aid is not likely to return soon, but it’s possible to help Syria move forward even without it. The Trump administration has so far maintained the sanction exemption on transactions with Syrian governing institutions that the Biden administration put in place, and on March 18 the United States handed Syria a list of conditions that it wants Damascus to fulfill in exchange for additional partial sanction relief. This is a good step, but it is still unclear how extensive this relief is or how long Damascus will need. And in any case, offering partial or narrow relief with no support is inadequate because businesses, financial institutions and governments will often overcomply to avoid the severe consequences of inadvertently violating sanctions.
The United States should lift its broad sanctions on Syria’s financial and economic sectors, encourage investment and revisit the foreign terrorist designation on the government. There are Persian Gulf and European countries and businesses that could provide support but are wary of running afoul of U.S. sanctions and foreign terrorist designations or afraid that the United States and other powers would punish those who attempt to help or invest. Qatar, for example, moved forward with a plan to provide Syria with gas only after receiving express U.S. permission. Ad hoc permissions like this are not sustainable in the long term.
There are valid concerns about Ahmed al-Shara, the interim president, in particular his jihadist past commanding a rebel group aligned with Al Qaeda during Syria’s civil war. As acting leader, his record has been mixed in the face of grave challenges.
The caretaker government that Mr. al-Shara announced on Saturday can be understood as a compromise that tries to meet some of the demands for a diverse cabinet but satisfies his apparent desire to keep trusted allies around him. Out of 23 cabinet members, one is a woman, five served the Assad regime before the war, and several are from Syria’s main ethnic and religious minorities (Kurds, Druze, Christians and Alawites), but seven officials affiliated with the provincial administration Mr. al-Shara once led in Idlib were also appointed to key positions.
And in March, when insurgents loyal to the Assad regime clashed with security groups affiliated with the new government and bands of fighters — including some nominally under the control of the government, according to rights groups — responded by killing hundreds of Alawite civilians as well as suspected insurgents, it displayed the government’s lack of control over its own forces and ignited fears that the country was descending into sectarian violence.
With elections some years away, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and Mr. al-Shara are not going anywhere anytime soon. The smartest way to steer the country toward a peaceful future is to engage with this government on concrete steps that steer the country toward recovery, security and a society that serves Syria’s people, not its rulers — relief from sanctions as the means to make compliance possible, rather than a reward for it.
Mr. Trump has repeatedly expressed his distaste for involvement in foreign wars, and his administration’s Middle East policy has focused on containing Iran, preventing the resurgence of the Islamic State and precluding the need for U.S. boots on the ground. All of these things can be achieved only with a peaceful and prosperous Syria; a country with a strong, inclusive government and active ties to the free world is a much harder place for hostile forces to exploit.
The United States could also curb the excesses of the other countries, including allies and partners that have attempted to divide and further weaken Syria. Israel has reportedly lobbied the U.S. administration to keep Syria weak and allow Russia to maintain its bases. But even if Israel insists that a divided Syria is better for its own national security, it is not in the United States’ interests.
For years U.S. presidents have tried to deprioritize the Middle East to confront other strategic challenges, only to be dragged back into conflicts in the region over and over. But for now, in this delicate moment of geopolitical competition, Syria is still an opportunity for the United States to stabilize the heart of the Middle East.
Natasha Hall is a senior fellow with the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected].
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp and Threads.
The post There’s Still a Chance to Get Syria Right appeared first on New York Times.
