US shifts Syria policy, backs Ahmed al-Sharaa over Kurdish forces I Analysis

US Policy Shift in Syria & Potential for Regional Realignment

Key Concepts:

• Akbar Shara: Current President of Syria.
• Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF): Kurdish-led militia formerly supported by the US in Syria.
• Tartous Port: Syrian port on the Mediterranean Sea, strategically important to Russia.
• Golan Heights: Territory occupied by Israel since 1967.
• Abraham Accords: Agreements normalizing relations between Israel and several Arab nations.
• Pragmatism: A practical approach to problems, prioritizing results over ideology.
• Honest Broker: A neutral party in negotiations.

US Policy Towards Syria & the Kurds

The United States has demonstrably shifted its policy in Syria, moving away from support for the Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and instead focusing on bolstering the regime of President Akbar Shara. According to former US Ambassador Henry Ener, the US has explicitly communicated to the Kurds that an independent Kurdish presence is no longer aligned with US national security interests. This policy change provides Shara with a “unique opportunity to unify the country,” a feat not seen in at least 15 years. Ener emphasizes this represents a complete abandonment of previous US support for the SDF.

Shara’s Pragmatic Approach & Relations with Russia

Shara’s upcoming second visit to Russia, despite past Russian actions against the Syrian population (including actions resulting in personal losses for Shara), highlights his “ruthless pragmatism.” Ener notes that Russia’s primary interest in Syria is access to the Tartous port on the Mediterranean Sea. Shara is expected to negotiate a “really good price” for continued Russian access, prioritizing the stability of his regime and, potentially, the benefit of Syria, even if it requires setting aside emotional considerations regarding past Russian aggression. This willingness to engage with former adversaries demonstrates a level of pragmatism “that you don’t see very often.”

Potential for Syria-Israel Normalization

The discussion then turns to the potential for improved relations between Syria and Israel, particularly concerning the Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights. Ener points out that Shara, formerly known as Abu Galani (the “father of the Golan”), has a vested interest in unifying Syria and is unlikely to initiate conflict with Israel at this juncture. He recounts his personal experience during negotiations between Syria and Israel, stating they reached “the last 10 meters” of a potential settlement on the shores of Galilee. He believes a deal is possible, potentially leading to a working arrangement or even peace, even if a formal joining of the Abraham Accords is delayed. He notes Israel has caused significantly less harm to Syria than Russia has.

The US Role as a Mediator & Historical Bias

The conversation addresses the US’s potential role as a mediator between Syria and Israel. Ener acknowledges the US’s historically pro-Israel stance, stating the US has “always backed Israel regardless of the outcome of the negotiations.” He admits the term “honest broker” is “not strictly true” when describing the US role. While expressing disappointment over the failure of previous negotiations, he concedes the US ultimately supported Israel’s position, leading to “30 years of chaos and uncertainty.” However, Ener suggests the current US administration may be more willing to exert pressure on Israel to achieve stability between the two countries, recognizing that the US has no interest in further conflict. He anticipates a deal or arrangement, short of a full peace treaty and the reopening of an Israeli embassy in Damascus, is likely.

Notable Quotes:

• “The United States has chosen Shada as its instrument in Syria now and has told the Kurds that an independent operation, an independent existence for the Kurds is no longer part of US national security policy.” – Henry Ener
• “His willingness now to engage [with Russia] shows the kind of pragmatism that is necessary to succeed in that region.” – Henry Ener
• “Certainly Israel has not done as much harm to Syria as Russia did.” – Henry Ener
• “Historically, the US in the end has always backed Israel regardless of the outcome of the negotiations.” – Henry Ener

Synthesis/Conclusion:

The interview reveals a significant shift in US foreign policy regarding Syria, prioritizing stability through engagement with the Shara regime over support for Kurdish autonomy. This shift is driven by pragmatic considerations, as evidenced by Shara’s willingness to engage with Russia despite past conflicts. The potential for normalization between Syria and Israel exists, facilitated by Shara’s focus on national unity and the US’s potential willingness to apply pressure on Israel. While the US’s historical bias towards Israel remains a factor, the current administration may be more inclined to pursue a stable regional outcome, even if it falls short of a comprehensive peace agreement. The overall takeaway is a move towards a more transactional and pragmatic approach to Middle Eastern politics, prioritizing immediate stability over long-held ideological commitments.