US divisions hinder the formulation of clear policy towards Syria

These divisions are evident to those observing the statements issued by various figures in the administration regarding the Syrian file. Lenderking says that the United States is "looking for opportunities to build confidence," indicating that these issues will not be resolved overnight, and that the administration is open to engaging with the Sharaa government to assess them.

Gorka repeatedly points out that Sharaa was a founding member of Jabhat al-Nusra. In an interview with the conservative Breitbart website, he said, "(Jabhat al-Nusra) was part of (al-Qaeda). So you have someone who won a battle to oust the secular Alawite leader (Assad) and replace dictatorship with what? We don't know. All we know is that the so-called interim president said that Islamic Sharia would be the law of Syria. So we're still uncertain about al-Julani and what he wants to do in Syria." Gorka, who insists on continuing to use the title al-Julani, not Sharaa, in his statements, said, "If anyone says they know the future of Syria, they're lying. Everything is flexible, everything is changing."

Natasha Hall, a senior fellow at the Institute for Strategic and International Studies, believes that a US strategy regarding Syria is absent because "the United States has always approached Syria through the prism of confronting Iran and protecting Israel, and has rarely focused on the Syrians and Syria itself." In an interview with Asharq Al-Awsat, she points out that the absence of this strategy has become problematic since the fall of the Assad regime, as there is no future-oriented strategy where the administration and even members of Congress can exploit this historical moment as an opportunity. Hall believes that figures such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Joel Raburn view Syria through the prism of Iran and Israel, rather than based on Syria's own circumstances, reflecting their reluctance to engage with the current Syrian administration. On the other hand, there are individuals such as Trump's Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, who has a different perspective and may be more aligned with the beliefs of President Trump, who is seeking opportunities without a strong ideological background. This could be useful in moving things forward, she says. But she adds, "Of course, there are Gorka and Tulsi Gabbard (Director of National Intelligence), who want to avoid dealing with the Shara government, saying, 'If someone is a jihadist, they'll remain a jihadist.'"

Lifting Sanctions

Amid these divisions, the fate of US sanctions on Syria is in jeopardy. While some are calling for a complete lifting of sanctions, others are warning against haste. Republican Senator Jim Risch, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told Asharq Al-Awsat, "We must not make a mistake. There are real risks, both in lifting sanctions on Syria too quickly and in wasting the opportunity before us. While America must not rush into Syria, we can create space for our regional and other allies to do so." Regarding the divisions within the Trump administration, Risch continued, "I have full confidence that the Trump administration will handle the situation with the precision it deserves."

The term "opportunity" is often repeated by many in Washington, regardless of their differing positions on the Shara government. The decline of Iranian influence in the region represents, for Americans, a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. In this context, Jeffrey calls on the US administration to prioritize ensuring that Iran and its proxies do not return, on the one hand, and that ISIS does not return, on the other. He added, "To achieve these goals, the United States must work to ensure that Syria is united and stable, not weak and divided. Therefore, it must join the international community in gradually easing sanctions and engaging with Damascus, in addition to mediating Israeli-Turkish tensions."

Jeffrey stated that, while some of the demands set by the US administration for lifting sanctions are reasonable, ongoing communication is necessary to clarify these demands in preparation for reaching an agreement with the Syrians who demonstrate cooperation.

Here, Schenker believes it is good to set high standards with the new Syrian government, "especially given its past jihadist ties," but he warns, "Unjustified delays in easing sanctions, even if minor and temporary, could lead to the government's failure, with repercussions for neighboring countries." He continues: "Washington must engage intensively with Damascus to push the new government to take steps toward meeting US demands that would allow the lifting of existing economic measures against Syria. If the street government does not meet these demands, these and other sanctions can always be reimposed." However, Hall believes that the time has come to lift the sanctions imposed on the Assad regime as soon as possible, warning that they "push regimes toward engaging in black markets and illegal activities, placing them in the arms of other countries like Iran, China, and Russia."

Congressional delegation

Recent days have witnessed a flurry of domestic and foreign American activity regarding the Syrian issue. These include modest efforts, such as an unofficial visit by Republican lawmakers to Syria, which was described as ineffective due to the legislators' lack of influence in Congress. Other messages from prominent lawmakers, such as Senator Jim Risch and the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Jeanne Shaheen, to the Trump administration, urging him to "remove barriers to expanded engagement with the Syrian Interim Government, with the US approach aiming to achieve the appropriate balance between opportunity and risk." Perhaps messages of this kind are more likely to be heard by Trump than the congressmen's visit. This is what Frederic Hof, the former envoy to Syria, alluded to when he called on the Trump administration to appoint "a high-level diplomat in Damascus capable of forging decent relationships based on trust and confidence with the new leaders in Syria." At a roundtable event with Think Research and Consulting, affiliated with the Saudi Research and Media Group, attended by Asharq Al-Awsat, Hof said, "What's needed is someone who can convince President Trump that what's happening in Syria doesn't stay in Syria. It's always been that way, and American interests are tied to it, whether we like it or not." Hof continued in a caustic tone, "I don't think the two uninfluential congressmen who recently visited Syria can convey this idea to the president."

An Expected US Withdrawal

Here, Syrian diplomat Bassam Barabandi recalls a very important point: the US withdrawal from Syria in September. Speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat, he noted that "Trump wants to say that the withdrawal was a success, unlike Biden's withdrawal from Afghanistan." He added, "The US withdrawal requires regional consensus on the stability of Syria, the stability of the Kurds, addressing Turkish reservations, trying ISIS members in prisons, and organizing these prisons. Part of this organization is for the Syrian government to commit to not allowing the Taliban or the jihadist movement to expand its influence." His authority after America's withdrawal from Syria."

Barbandi believes that the US administration is approaching the Syrian issue from the perspective of the timing of the withdrawal from Syria, rather than from the perspective of what Syria needs. He explains this by saying: "The conditions proposed are linked to Israel and are related to how the administration views the entire region. The implementation of the US conditions must be expedited and the opportunity must not be wasted." Barbandi believes that the biggest challenge here lies in the White House's requirement that all eight conditions be met, adding, "If they are met before the fourth deadline for the suspension of some sanctions in July, more sanctions could be lifted. If compliance is not met, then cooperation with the Syrian government is not a good idea."