Syria an early challenge for foreign policy
New administration has said little on plans for conflict
BEIRUT // Donald Trump enters the White House today with scant details of his foreign policy made public in the more than two months since he was elected.
But one area where his plans might soon be revealed is Syria. With US forces in combat against ISIL and an invitation to attend international talks on Monday to end the civil war, Syria could be the first major overseas challenge for the Trump administration.
On the campaign trail and immediately after winning the November election, Mr Trump was starkly at odds with Barack Obama’s Syria policy. He repeatedly said that the US should not be involved in the war between Syrian government and opposition forces and should limit its focus to defeating ISIL there.
He portrayed Syria’s rebels – some of whom received US arms and training under Mr Obama’s administration – as potential extremists who could not be trusted.
He said Russia, a belligerent ally of president Bashar Al Assad’s government, was “killing ISIL”, although it had mostly targeted rebel forces. Rather than an adversary in Syria, he portrayed Russia as a potential ally.
After his election, Mr Trump said his ideas on Syria were the opposite of many people. But as his inauguration approached, he began to backpedal.
As explosive but unsubstantiated allegations emerged of Russia’s attempts to manipulate him, Mr Trump publicly took a harsher line on Moscow and for the first time explicitly condemned its role in Syria.
“It’s a rough thing. It’s a very bad thing,” he told The Times of London this week. Then, in an apparent condemnation of the same Syrian pro-government forces he had described as fighting terrorism, he said: “Aleppo was nasty. I mean when you see them shooting old ladies walking out of town – and they can’t even walk and they’re shooting ’em – it almost looks like they’re shooting ’em for sport. Aleppo has been such a terrible humanitarian situation.”
In the weeks after the election, Mr Trump repeatedly said the US would establish safe zones in Syria where civilians could take refuge, provided that Arab Gulf states paid their expenses.
This assertion contradicted his earlier stance against intervention, as any safe zone would require some level of US enforcement. How and where a safe zone would be established, who would be permitted entry and how it would be protected are questions still unanswered.
Inevitably, America would be drawn further into the war as any sort of no-fly zone over such areas would probably benefit Syrian rebel forces.
While the idea – and his condemnation of Russia – certainly indicate a development in Mr Trump’s thinking, they do not amount to a policy.
Other fundamental issues remain unresolved. Will the US continue to support Syrian rebel units? How will the US approach negotiations? Will it insist on the removal of Mr Al Assad as a condition for peace? What will happen to the US relationship with Syrian Kurdish forces?
After an increasingly tense relationship with Mr Obama, Turkey – an important ally – has welcomed Mr Trump’s presidency. But Ankara has made it clear it expects him to end US support for Syrian-Kurdish YPG forces – Washington’s best ally on the ground against ISIL in Syria, but a terrorist organisation in Turkey’s eyes.
There has been no indication from Mr Trump or his cabinet nominees that he will end support for the YPG. While campaigning, Mr Trump described himself as “a big fan of the Kurds” and acknowledged their role in fighting ISIL. He has also shown awareness of Turkey’s position on the YPG, but said he believes he can bring them together. Rex Tillerson, Mr Trump’s choice for secretary of state, said at his confirmation hearings that he believed the US should continue supporting Kurdish forces in Syria but also called for closer ties with Turkey.
There is still no indication of whether the new administration will participate in the Syria talks in the Kazakh capital Astana.
It is not clear who would lead a US delegation. Mr Tillerson is still in senate confirmation hearings and his testimony so far has suggested that he is not up to speed on developments in Syria and has yet to discuss major foreign policy issues with Mr Trump.
Lt Gen Michael Flynn, the new national security adviser, however, will be ready to work immediately as his post does not require senate confirmation. He is also the man through whom Moscow invited the US to Astana.
But it is unclear how Gen Flynn would handle Syria. He is seen as close to Moscow but is hostile towards Iran, whose proxies such as Hizbollah are fighting on the same side as Russia in Syria. Comments in recent years suggest that he would be unsympathetic to Syria’s rebels, who he has said have been compromised by extremists.
There are also the questions of how much the new administration cares to be involved in resolving Syria’s conflict and whether there is even space for them to do so.
Last year, the Obama administration was sidelined diplomatically as Russia and Turkey set aside their differences and increased their roles in the conflict.
The Astana talks were brokered by Ankara, Moscow and Tehran. Turkey, which began its involvement in Syria’s war as a vital US ally, is now participating in joint air operations with Russia, and rebels who once thought the US might save them have lost faith in Washington. As it stands, it might be too late for the US to do anything meaningful in Syria.