In Syria, we are still paying down the debt from Obama’s Iran deal

Syria was once a treasured cradle of civilization, rich with abundant heritage. Now it is arguably the world’s most intransigent quagmire — which is quite a competitive title to hold. The country lies in ruins, still prone to explosions of violence courtesy of a containment strategy from past administrations in Washington which created a frozen conflict.

As we approach the 12th anniversary of the end of the revolutionary uprising against Syrian President Bashar Assad and the start of the civil war, it is worth looking back at how we got to our ugly current reality, and see where exactly things went wrong. Whomever prevails in November’s U.S. presidential elections is going to have to develop a new Syria policy, as the negative externalities are piling up on surrounding nations at an unsustainable pace.

The U.S. stance on Syria has been a masterclass in ambiguity, a page from the “Not Our Problem” playbook, much to the chagrin of regional actors. But there are a number of key differences in how most analysts believe a Biden or Trump presidency may approach the Syrian crisis.

Donald Trump is often unfairly derided by the foreign policy establishment as a curator of risk and chaos in the international realm. But the deal-maker-in-chief, theoretically, could bring a much different hand to play on the frozen conflict.

He has already shown an increased distaste for costly foreign entanglements involving taxpayer dollars in a number of areas. He’s unlikely to let the Syrian conflict continue to siphon billions of dollars or entangle the U.S. in endless, unwinnable conflicts. But he also likely remembers the shameful spectacle of the Biden administration’s Afghanistan withdrawal. His likely focus? Guarantees from allies to keep ISIS at bay, not rehashing Obama-era follies.

Syria, now a proxy battleground, sees Assad clinging to power with Russia’s lifeline. Russia’s Mediterranean ambitions keep Assad afloat, providing Moscow a strategic perch in the Middle East. Add Iran into the mix, with Syria as its satellite, and the plot thickens, manifesting Tehran’s long-nurtured animosity towards America.

Assad enjoys something of a reputation as the Arab Spring’s lone survivor, a dictator of unique staying power. His continued reign stands as a symbol of the limits of American power, empowering adversaries, from Iran to Russia, while perpetuating regional instability. His stability is also a reminder of the failures of President Obama’s strategy for stabilizing the region through the much maligned Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA).

The JCPOA aimed to reduce tensions in the region, protect Israel and facilitate a smooth U.S. exit from Iraq. Yet, the Middle East’s intricate web of alliances and enmities proved resistant to such neat solutions. The Obama administration’s strategic naivety in dealing with regional dynamics was evident as it sought to appease Iran, hoping to bridge gaps with Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries and stabilize Iraq, all while dreaming of ending endless wars. But they fundamentally misunderstood the true interests of the authorities in Tehran, underestimated the strength of sectarian identities, failed to see the rising ambitions of the Gulf nations with whom he was attempting to bridge the gap.

As a convenient measure to avoid further military exposure to Syria and to put a check on ISIS, Obama and Joe Biden crafted a tenuous alliance with the the People’s Defense Units (YPG), which is an offshoot of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), an international recognized terrorist group which has killed thousands of Turkish citizens in various bombings and attacks since the 1980s. This alliance has become a contentious issue for Ankara and Washington. The YPG’s ambitions for an independent Kurdistan across Syria, Iraq, Iran and Turkey exacerbated regional tensions, threatening larger conflicts.

Syria demands a nuanced approach, balancing regional interests with American goals. The status quo is no longer sufficient.

One interesting way to consider the doctrine of potential future Trump administration has been articulated by Matthew Kroenig of the Atlantic Council. He calls it the “Trump-Reagan fusion,” reflecting a shared commitment to prioritizing American interests, supporting key allies, confronting adversaries, and emphasizing military strength and deterrence.  

Trump’s preference toward transactional relationship could in this case craft a viable strategy, avoiding the pitfalls of endless intervention. Past proposals like Hillary Clinton and John McCain-backed no-fly zones or Biden’s miscalculations about regional allies underscore the complexity of Syria’s plight.

But perhaps Trump may see an opportunity to prioritize tangible deliverables as opposed to ambitious visions of transforming the region. Sometimes the best deals are not made directly, but through trusted brokers, such as Oman or Qatar, to deliver a framework for de-escalation. A future Trump presidency could be more likely to consider improved diplomacy with Turkey, the second-largest NATO member, to make such a roadmap possible.

Biden’s Syria policy, haunted by JCPOA hangovers, will likely struggle to align with regional dynamics without a serious rethink. The current stance regarding YPG has also limited the cooperation potential with Ankara. Meanwhile, the entire conflict suffers from attention deficit disorder as Israel’s war in Gaza, Russia’s war in Ukraine, and China’s bullying of everyone in the Pacific continues to absorb resources.

But we ignore the Syrian frozen conflict at our own peril. Whomever wins the presidency next fall, they will need to forge a new doctrine, grounded in Middle Eastern realities and strategic pragmatism.

Bilal Bilici is a member of Parliament (Turkey) and a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.