U.S. must not engage with Syria without clear conditions

Syria continues to face severe challenges post-civil war, with significant dynamics affecting the country. In March, a violent clash between forces loyal to the interim government led to around 1,000 deaths, primarily civilians. The complexities of U.S. engagement are heightened by an agreement between local partner forces and Sharaa's Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, raising concerns about the U.S. position. The Trump administration's cautious approach of delaying a policy statement is seen as wise given the varying international interests at stake. The situation necessitates that regional partners such as Israel and Jordan reinforce their strategies to address potential risks posed by terrorist groups and Iran’s encroachment. Israel has already increased its military presence in southwestern Syria while Jordan has actively intervened to disrupt Iranian-related drug trafficking at its border. These developments, combined with the ongoing military engagement of approximately 2,000 U.S. troops in eastern Syria, highlight the ongoing struggle to counter ISIS and Iranian military build-up. The narrative emphasizes that while Syria's issues cannot be immediately resolved, the U.S. strategy should center on safeguarding its interests and those of its partners. Pursuing localized political solutions without clear conditions has historically led to disastrous outcomes. Jacob Olidort, an expert at the America First Policy Institute, argues it’s crucial to avoid rekindling old patterns of ineffective engagement that disregard U.S. security priorities. Finally, by prioritizing pressing regional threats over direct intervention in Syria’s internal politics, there is potential for a coalition that addresses significant threats posed by terrorism and Iranian influence. Such an approach could also create conducive conditions for a political transition in Syria that ultimately benefits both Syrians and U.S. interests in the region.