While the U.S. has expressed support for democratic principles in Syria, its actual influence has been constrained by the internal dynamics of the conflict, the resilience of the Assad regime and the involvement of foreign powers that back opposing sides in the war.
The United States’ pursuit of democracy in Syria has been a complex and often controversial aspect of the U.S. foreign policy over the past several decades. The situation in Syria involves a mix of political, strategic, and humanitarian considerations, and the U.S. has pursued different approaches depending on the political landscape and regional dynamics. Here’s an overview of the U.S. approach to promoting democracy in Syria:
COLD WAR AND PRE-CIVIL WAR ERA
During the Cold War, the U.S. policy toward Syria was heavily influenced by the broader context of the U.S.-Soviet rivalry. Syria, under the leadership of the Ba’ath Party and figures like President Hafez al-Assad (1970–2000), was seen as an ally of the Soviet Union. The U.S. was concerned with Syria’s support for groups deemed terrorist organizations, such as Hezbollah and Palestinian militant groups, and its antagonism toward Israel.
In this context, the U.S. largely pursued containment rather than promoting democratic change. While the U.S. occasionally engaged diplomatically with Syria, promoting democracy was not a major focus of U.S. policy. Instead, Washington’s interests were primarily shaped by the desire to limit Syria’s influence in the region and counteract its alliances with the Soviet Union and Iran.
POST-9/11 ERA AND SHIFT IN U.S. STRATEGY
Following the September 11 attacks, U.S. foreign policy underwent a significant shift, and the Middle East became a focal point for promoting democracy, especially under the George W. Bush administration. In the wake of the Iraq invasion in 2003, there was a push for democratization across the region, dubbed the “Greater Middle East Initiative.”
Syria, under Bashar al-Assad, who had succeeded his father in 2000, was initially viewed by the Bush administration as a potential partner in the “War on Terror.” However, Syria’s continued support for Hezbollah and its involvement in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in 2005 led to increased tensions between Washington and Damascus.
In 2004, the U.S. passed the Syria Accountability Act, which imposed sanctions on Syria, primarily due to its support for terrorism and its role in the destabilization of Iraq. The Bush administration also pushed for democratic reforms in Syria, but these efforts were largely rhetorical and had little effect on Assad’s regime, which remained largely resistant to such reforms.
SYRIAN CIVIL WAR AND U.S. INVOLVEMENT
The Syrian Civil War, which erupted in 2011, marked a dramatic turning point in U.S. policy toward Syria. Initially, the U.S. supported the Syrian opposition’s calls for democratic reforms and an end to Assad’s authoritarian rule. The Obama administration, in particular, emphasized the need for Assad to step down and for a peaceful transition to democracy.
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION (2009–2017)
Early in the conflict, the Obama administration called for Assad to step down and supported moderate opposition groups with non-lethal aid. The U.S. also advocated for international action through the United Nations and pursued diplomatic efforts to broker a peaceful resolution to the conflict.
The situation became more complicated as extremist groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda affiliates began to take advantage of the chaos. The U.S. ultimately shifted its focus to combating these groups, even as it continued to support certain opposition forces that opposed Assad.
The U.S. was involved in training and arming these opposition forces, although these efforts were criticized for lack of effectiveness and for the unintended strengthening of extremist factions. In 2014, the U.S.-led coalition began airstrikes against ISIS in Syria and Iraq, which complicated U.S. relations with Assad’s government, Russia and Iran, all of whom were backing the Syrian regime.
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION (2017–2021)
President Donald Trump took office with a more ambivalent approach toward Syria. While initially signaling a willingness to disengage from the region, Trump authorized airstrikes against Syrian government targets in response to chemical weapons attacks in 2017 and 2018.
The U.S. continued its efforts to defeat ISIS and maintain a presence in Syria, but Trump announced plans to withdraw U.S. troops from northern Syria in 2019, which led to a controversial Turkish military operation against the Syrian Kurdish forces (YPG), who were U.S. allies in the fight against ISIS. The withdrawal was criticized as abandoning Kurdish fighters, many of whom had suffered heavy casualties in the war against ISIS.
BIDEN ADMINISTRATION (2021–Present)
President Joe Biden’s administration has largely continued the policy of fighting ISIS, maintaining a U.S. military presence in Syria, and pressuring Assad’s regime to accept a political solution to the conflict, including potential democratic reforms.
The Biden administration has imposed targeted sanctions on the Assad regime and has supported diplomatic efforts to hold the regime accountable for war crimes and human rights abuses. However, the U.S. has been cautious about directly intervening in the conflict, especially after the challenges faced by earlier U.S. efforts.
The U.S. has also been concerned about the role of Iran and Russia in Syria, seeing them as key backers of Assad’s regime. The U.S. has continued to criticize their influence in the region, particularly as Russia has played a central role in supporting Assad militarily.
CHALLENGES TO DEMOCRACY IN SYRIA
Several factors have hindered U.S. efforts to promote democracy in Syria:
- Authoritarianism of the Assad Regime: Bashar al-Assad’s regime has maintained tight control over Syria, and despite widespread opposition, it has survived the civil war. The regime has shown no interest in pursuing democratic reforms or negotiating a transition to a more inclusive government.
- Fragmentation of the Opposition: The Syrian opposition is deeply fragmented, with a mix of moderate groups, Islamist factions, and Kurdish forces. The presence of extremist groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda further complicated U.S. support for the opposition, as the U.S. struggled to find a reliable and democratic partner.
- Regional Powers: Russia and Iran have been critical allies for Assad, providing military support and political backing. Their influence has undermined U.S. efforts to isolate the Assad regime and push for democratic change. Russia’s military intervention in 2015 ensured that Assad remained in power and shifted the balance of power in the conflict.
- Humanitarian Crisis and War Crimes: The war in Syria has caused immense human suffering, with hundreds of thousands of deaths and millions of refugees. The Assad regime has been accused of numerous war crimes, including chemical weapons attacks, barrel bombings, and the siege of civilian areas. These atrocities have complicated the international community’s efforts to promote democracy, as much of the focus has been on humanitarian aid and peace negotiations rather than democratic reform.
- Geopolitical Priorities: U.S. interests in Syria have often been shaped by broader geopolitical concerns, such as countering terrorism and limiting Iranian influence. These strategic goals have sometimes taken precedence over efforts to promote democracy, especially when it comes to supporting groups with limited democratic credentials.
CURRENT STATUS AND FUTURE PROSPECTS
As of late-2023, the prospect of a democratic transition in Syria remains uncertain. The Assad regime has regained control over most of the country, and there is little momentum for a peaceful transition.
The U.S. continues to pressure Assad diplomatically, but the likelihood of meaningful democratic reforms under his leadership is slim. Additionally, the U.S. military presence in Syria is primarily focused on counterterrorism efforts, particularly against ISIS and other extremist groups.
The situation in Syria is deeply influenced by the interests of other regional and global powers, including Russia, Iran and Turkey, all of whom have competing agendas in the country.
The U.S. has made limited progress toward its goal of democracy in Syria, and it remains unclear how a peaceful and democratic resolution to the conflict might be achieved given the entrenched interests of various actors in the region.
In sum, while the U.S. has expressed support for democratic principles in Syria, its actual influence has been constrained by the internal dynamics of the conflict, the resilience of the Assad regime and the involvement of foreign powers that back opposing sides in the war. The pursuit of democracy in Syria, therefore, remains a distant and uncertain goal.
Ahmed Khalid Al-Fahad is an blogger and contributor to multiple media outlets, where he covers current affairs concerning the Arab world.
OpEd Column Syndication 