2 weeks ago
35
ARTICLE AD BOX
Syria’s civil war has entrapped many of America’s worst enemies. Let’s help them to continue to murder each other.
By Daniel Pipes, Middle East Forum
President-elect Donald Trump wants nothing to do with Syria. On December 7, 2024, he wrote that “THE UNITED STATES SHOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. THIS IS NOT OUR FIGHT. LET IT PLAY OUT. DO NOT GET INVOLVED!” (his capital letters).
I disagree. In fact, the U.S. government should help Bashar al-Assad, a brutal, totalitarian dictator, to remain in power. This unhappy example of counterintuitive Realpolitik follows on the circumstances in Syria.
Simply put, when both sides to a conflict are loathsome, Americans must put aside their usually welcome and instinctive feelings of short-term humanitarianism and instead think strategically. What outcome, they should ask, will do the least long-term damage to civilians and to U.S. interests?
As I wrote about Syria in 2013, “Evil forces pose less danger to us when they make war on each other. This (1) keeps them focused locally and it (2) prevents either one from emerging victorious (and thereby posing a yet-greater danger).”
In the prototypical example, the Roosevelt administration correctly helped Stalin against Hitler. It did not do so out of sympathy for the Soviet Union but out of concern that it would fall, thereby augmenting the power of Nazi Germany.
Better they should battle each other on the Eastern Front than aggress globally. In similar spirit, the Reagan administration supported Iraq against Iran.
The same logic holds here. As Michael Rubin noted in the MEF Observer, “The choice policymakers must consider is not a strong Assad versus a pluralistic, democratic opposition, or a strong Assad versus a weak Islamist regime; rather, it is a weak Assad ensconced in Damascus or Alawite strongholds along the Mediterranean coast versus an increasingly strong, radical Sunni regime with the worldview of Hamas, if not the Islamic State, but with the full and open backing of Turkey.”
Were the insurgent forces to sweep victoriously into Damascus, a Türkiye -backed Al-Qaeda off-shoot called Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) almost certainly would dominate the new government.
It would enhance the prestige and power of Türkiye’s strongman, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. It would boost the otherwise flailing Islamist movement. It would also revitalize the northern front against Israel.
In short, it would be a disaster.
Far better that the insurgents engage in a protracted fight against a defensive Assad. Consider the advantages: Türkiye on the one hand and all of Hezbollah, Iran, and Russia on the other would be fighting each other instead of the United States and its allies.
Any resources dedicated to Syria diminish Vladimir Putin’s forces in Ukraine. Likewise, resources dedicated to Syria diminish Ali Khamene’i’s ability to menace Israel. An already emasculated Hezbollah has more troubles rebuilding. HTS remains out of power.
This policy also makes sense from a long-term humanitarian point of view. Yes, it extends the Syrian civil war, now reaching the end of its fourteenth year, with all its attendant atrocities.
But peoples of the Middle East will suffer more, over time, if a new, flamboyant and bellicose HTS regime comes to power in Damascus.
Supporting Assad means taking several potential steps: Pressuring Türkiye to withhold aid to HTS. Calling on Israel not to respond to appeals from Syrian insurgents for help.
Letting aid from Iran reach Syria. Offering Putin a deal to permit Russia to move forces to Syria if he abandons designated forward positions in Ukraine.
Syria’s civil war has entrapped many of America’s worst enemies. Let’s help them to continue to murder each other.
English (US) ·