In what may one day be remembered as a defining moment in U.S. foreign policy, President Donald Trump’s first major international move since returning to office has sent shockwaves through the Middle East. His surprise announcement in Riyadh to lift longstanding U.S. sanctions on Syria — conditional on a dramatic shift in Damascus’s foreign and domestic posture — marks a gamble with potentially enormous returns. If successful, the rewards for the United States and the West could be profound.
The End of Assad, the Rise of Sharaa
At the heart of Trump’s initiative lies the emergence of a new Syrian leadership. Ahmad al-Sharaa, formerly known as Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, leads the interim government that has replaced the Assad regime following its collapse and Bashar al-Assad’s flight to Russia. The sight of Sharaa, Trump, and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman posing for a historic photo in Riyadh is more than symbolic. It signals a new alignment — one where Syria, long a client state of Iran and Russia, might instead tilt toward the West.
But make no mistake: this pivot is conditional.
Conditions for Normalization
The Trump administration has laid out clear expectations for Syria’s new rulers. Among them:
Join the Abraham Accords and normalize ties with Israel
Expel all foreign terrorist fighters from Syrian soil
Deport Palestinian terrorist elements sheltered by the previous regime
Cooperate with the U.S. in preventing the resurgence of ISIS
Take over and manage ISIS detention centers in northeastern Syria
These objectives are not just diplomatic niceties. They represent core U.S. security interests, and they are — in principle — achievable, even if the path to fulfilling them is fraught with difficulty. Some tasks, such as removing designated terrorists, are immediate and practical. Others, like forging peace with Israel and rebuilding credible national institutions, will require time, internal political reform, and likely international support.
A Chance at Redemption
The decision to lift sanctions and re-engage diplomatically is not based on blind faith. Since Assad’s fall, the new Syrian regime has signaled a desire for legitimacy and stability. The interim government has reached out to Christian and Alawite minorities — historically persecuted under Islamist rule — and cracked down on Iranian military networks that once flourished under Assad. Sharaa’s forces have cooperated with the U.S. on high-level arrests and even publicly embraced the idea of constitutional reform and democratic elections.
That is, at least on paper, a considerable departure from Syria’s dark recent past.
It’s also worth noting that HTS — once a jihadist group aligned with al-Qaeda — has significantly moderated its rhetoric and behavior under Turkish and Western pressure. While the transition from militant group to governing authority is inherently rocky, history shows that insurgents, under the right incentives and pressures, can evolve.
The Critics Are Right to Worry
None of this is to suggest that the skeptics are wrong. They’re not.
Senator Lindsey Graham’s call for a slower, more measured approach is grounded in the realities of Syria’s deeply fractured society. The new government is still struggling to integrate militias, establish rule of law, and repair basic civil infrastructure. Reports of continuing religious repression, Sharia-inspired vigilante justice, and unaddressed war crimes linger like toxic remnants of the past. HTS’s ideological baggage — and its continued control by a tight-knit cadre of hardliners — poses a real risk to the reform narrative.
Figures like National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard and Counterterrorism Director Sebastian Gorka aren’t wrong to push for continued vigilance. Rehabilitating Syria must not mean whitewashing its problems.
A Strategic Opportunity
But here's the key point: The alternative to engagement is not a stable, democratic Syria. It is chaos — a power vacuum that will be filled by Iran, Russia, ISIS, or some combination of the three.
The Assad regime was one of the most destructive forces in the modern Middle East. It funneled terrorists into Iraq to kill U.S. troops, enabled Iranian adventurism, violated international law with chemical weapons, and gave safe harbor to Russia’s military expansion. Its replacement by a government willing — even grudgingly — to align with American security interests represents an extraordinary strategic opening.
If Syria joins the Abraham Accords, if it helps suppress terrorism instead of exporting it, and if it becomes a neutral or pro-Western actor in the Levant, that is nothing short of a geopolitical coup.
It's Worth the Risk
Engagement doesn’t mean trust. It means leverage. By offering relief from sanctions and economic reintegration into the international community, the United States is not giving Syria a free pass. It is offering a conditional opportunity — one with milestones and red lines.
This approach keeps pressure on the regime to reform while dangling the very thing most post-conflict nations crave: legitimacy and prosperity. It allows Washington to shape events from the inside rather than reacting to crises from the outside.
Conclusion: A Bet with High Stakes
President Trump’s overture to Syria’s new rulers is undeniably a risk. But the potential upside — peeling Syria away from Iran and Russia, ending a decade-long war, neutralizing jihadist threats, and fostering a more stable Middle East — is too great to ignore.
America has tried isolation. It’s tried intervention. Now it’s trying diplomacy backed by leverage.
If it works, it could change the map of the Middle East. If it fails, it will at least have clarified the boundaries of what’s possible. But to not try at all would be to cede Syria — again — to America’s enemies.
.jpg)
.jpg)
