To access the full paper, download the PDF on the left-hand sidebar.
The Syrian crisis has had important impacts on US national security interests. Since 2011, the war in Syria has killed hundreds of thousands, displaced millions, and spurred crises that have affected the international community. A complex web of actors on the ground and internationally has prolonged the conflict and severely challenged policymakers. The Trump administration will have to address this issue—defining US core interests and principles and formulating specific policies to achieve them. In Syria, US interests can be defined as: 1) counterterrorism, 2) restoring stability, and 3) refugee relief. In pursuing these aims, the US relationship with international actors will be important. But while the US notionally shares some security interests with Russia, Iran, and Syria in regard to counterterrorism, the limitations of these states as potential partners are very significant.
A key first step for the Trump administration should be to reengage with traditional regional partners with which relationships have weakened in recent years. The administration’s foreign policy message must be that the US is back to listen to our strategic partners’ concerns and interests, to engage with the region, and to take a fresh look at ongoing problems with a renewed commitment to collaborate with partners to achieve security, stability, and good governance. The US relationship with Turkey will be important, especially in clarifying the Kurdish issue. US policy toward Iran will also play a role in how strategic partnerships are rebuilt. While US withdrawal from the nuclear agreement would bring little benefit and could have negative effects, tougher US policies on Iran outside of the agreement might reassure allies.
In negotiations, the US must consider the limitations that come with attempting to decentralize the Syrian government and calling for Bashar al-Assad to step down. The US could accept a straw man option in which the Assad regime remains as part of a longer term transition, and attempt to play a role in the negotiation and rebuilding processes, setting standards for Assad to meet on key issues. And while a grand bargain will be difficult to achieve, the prospects for multiple packages of smaller, dynamic negotiations and agreements may have a better chance for success. An important point of leverage for the US and its partners is their collective capacity to provide financial and developmental support for Syrian reconstruction, as well as their established relationships with opposition groups. However, any support to rebuild Syria would not be possible without obtaining serious concessions from the Syrian regime and its allies, lest the US be perceived as footing the bill to support the political gains of Assad, Iran, and Russia.
Finally, the US must take a hard look at immediate and long-term strategy toward the Middle East while being mindful of history. Since the conflict began, 11 million people have been displaced in one of the largest diasporas in world history. Failure to find sustainable solutions to the refugee issue in neighboring countries will breed radicalism in the future and have destabilizing effects regionally and globally. In the longer term, the reabsorption of refugees and rebuilding of Syria will be critical to stability and security. The United States and its partners must also address the region’s failures in governance and socioeconomic development, while avoiding the pitfalls that accompany nation building.
This material may be quoted or reproduced without prior permission, provided appropriate credit is given to the author and Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. The views expressed herein are those of the individual author(s), and do not necessarily represent the views of Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy.
