Navigating Syria's Aftermath: U.S. Faces Complex Choices in Shifting Middle East Landscape

As the dust begins to settle in Syria following the fall of Bashar al-Assad's regime, a pivotal moment emerges for U.S. foreign policy. The complexity of the situation presents both an opportunity and a challenge for the Biden administration and any future leadership that may follow. The key question is how to navigate this new landscape strategically and effectively while holding all actors accountable. At the forefront is Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (H.T.S.), the rebel group most responsible for the regime's downfall. The legitimacy of H.T.S.'s claim to have renounced its past affiliations with terrorism and radical Islamism remains in question. A potential gesture of goodwill from the U.S. could involve lifting the $10 million reward for H.T.S. leader Mohammad al-Jolani, signaling a willingness to engage. However, any sanctions relief or recognition should come with stringent conditions: assurances for religious freedoms, the acceptance of Kurdish autonomy, and a commitment to combatting ISIS. The regional implications are significant. The fall of Assad could spell trouble for Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed militia entrenched in Lebanon. Acknowledging the reality that Hezbollah's existence hinges on its ability to rearm through Syrian channels, the U.S. must advocate for the full enforcement of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701, demanding the disarmament of Hezbollah. Former President Donald Trump, with his influence, could assert that Israel is not bound by cease-fire agreements until Hezbollah disarms. Such a stance could force Hezbollah into a binary choice: either participate fully in Lebanese democracy or face intensified military pressure. Iran is another critical player in this dynamic. With the Islamic Republic ramping up its uranium enrichment, the U.S. must reinforce its position through direct communication to Tehran: further nuclear pursuits would endanger the regime’s very existence. A subsequent Trump administration could adopt a "normalization for normalization" approach, offering Iran an incentive to halt its nuclear ambitions and regional proxy support. While this may be met with skepticism, it provides a framework for both Iranian citizens and leadership to reassess their path in light of changing regional circumstances. Moreover, the situation in Gaza requires careful handling. With Israel emerging victorious in its recent confrontations, the focus should now shift to securing the release of hostages held by Hamas. The U.S. must not allow a perceived compromise to undermine Israel's position. Instead of incremental hostage negotiations, a firm stance should be taken, with Trump's influence potentially leveraging Qatar to ensure full compliance by Hamas or risk losing its strategic alliance with the U.S. The broader regional landscape will also require vigilance. The Turkish government must be deterred from using the upheaval in Syria to settle scores with Kurdish groups, necessitating a sustained American military presence in eastern Syria. Additionally, Saudi Arabia has a vital role to play in leading reconstruction efforts in Syria and pursuing normalized relations with Israel. The resolution of Syria's conflict opens a plethora of strategic doors, yet each comes with its own set of intricate challenges. The U.S. must balance its responses to various actors in the region through a combination of incentives and deterrents, navigating a diplomatic path that promotes stability while ensuring accountability. As these dynamics unfold, the potential for a more secure and cooperative Middle East hangs in the balance, contingent on the choices made by both regional leaders and the U.S. itself.