President Donald Trump’s decision to lift sanctions on Syria was a smart gamble for a president with historic ambitions. On Tuesday in Saudi Arabia, Trump announced that he will lift all sanctions on Syria, many of which have been in place for decades. Then, on Wednesday, he met Syrian President Ahmed al Sharaa, the first encounter between an American president and a Syrian counterpart in a quarter-century. Though not without risks, Trump’s move to normalize relations between the United States and the war-torn country could secure long-term strategic interests and reshape a region long beset by chaos.
Crucially, the move signals Trump’s determination to prevent Iran from reasserting its influence following Israel’s punishing military campaigns against Iranian proxies. Tehran spent tens of billions of dollars propping up the Bashar Assad regime to maintain its land bridge to Lebanon, without which the prospect of rebuilding Hamas and Hezbollah grows drastically more difficult. Syria aligning with the U.S. and moderate Arab allies such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates severely hampers Iran’s efforts to dominate the region and threaten Israel. This, in turn, further improves the U.S. position in negotiating a new nuclear deal with Iran.
Lifting the sanctions also weakens Russia’s and China’s strategic and economic leverage in the country and region. Russian President Vladimir Putin was a key backer of the Assad regime during the Syrian civil war, offering military and economic aid. Assad’s fall cost Russia its most significant regional ally and Moscow’s military foothold in the Mediterranean. Syria’s subsequent normalization with the U.S. will likely cost Russia lucrative energy contracts and arms deals.
Beijing’s soft power also stands to take a significant hit. China previously positioned itself, with its Belt and Road Initiative, as the chief financier of Syria’s reconstruction, an effort likely to cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Allowing U.S. companies to compete with Chinese firms for contracts will counter China’s use of debt-trap diplomacy, in which it extends large loans to developing countries for infrastructure projects that lead to financial dependency or asset forfeiture. China could lose its regional foothold.
Meanwhile, there will be new opportunities for U.S. companies in infrastructure and energy, particularly in reconstruction. U.S. exporters will be able to tap Syria’s market, generating millions of dollars in trade. Stabilization will allow the U.S. to reduce its presence in the Middle East and pivot to Asia, which it must do.
The strategic shift comes with risks. Al Sharaa and others in his Hayat Tahir al Sham movement have violent jihadi pasts. Al Sharaa joined al Qaeda in Iraq shortly before the 2003 U.S. invasion and fought for three years before being captured and held until 2011. He then became the emir of an al Qaeda affiliate and struggled for power with Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al Baghdadi. His leadership of the offensive that overthrew Assad led to his eventual appointment as president of Syria.
Dealing directly with and thereby legitimizing such a figure could encourage other violent jihadis to attain power through militancy and could alienate Israel. It also risks empowering and enriching a leader with jihadism in his veins. But al Sharaa’s actions so far signal a willingness to moderate. He has pursued ties with moderate Arab states and expressed openness to joining the Abraham Accords. He has vowed to protect minorities and promised not to impose strict Shariah law. He has even appointed a Christian woman to his Cabinet. Sanctions relief should be crafted to encourage moderate behavior, but also to be easily restored should al Sharaa backslide into extremism.
The upside of normalizing relations is worth these risks. We applaud Trump’s decision to avoid ideological crusades in favor of pragmatic engagement. By normalizing relations with Syria, the U.S. can be a stabilizing force in the Middle East and have a hand in charting its future, all while dealing strategic blows to our greatest geopolitical adversaries.
This article was originally published at www.washingtonexaminer.com
