Despite the Sweida clashes, Trump's backing of Al Shara will remain solid
The problem with blinkers is that they lead to tunnel vision, obstructing the development of a broad or deep perspective, and reducing perception to a single direction. Mr Trump surrounds himself with family and a handful of billionaire loyalists, and often dismisses complexity, history and the fundamental principles of strategic policymaking.
This has been evident in his handling of several global files, including the future of Syria – a country trying to get back on its feet after the exit of Bashar Al Assad's government last December. Syria is currently grappling with violent clashes in the southern province of Sweida, involving forces loyal to President Ahmad Al Shara's government, the Druze and the Bedouins living in that part of the country.
The US President's Syria file is now effectively managed by Tom Barrack, his ambassador to Turkey. A billionaire businessman, Mr Barrack is savvy and politically attuned, but views policy primarily through an investment lens just like Mr Trump and his other close advisers. There is less emphasis on historically grounded political frameworks. For them, financial power is the foundation of geostrategy.
Mr Trump's fondness for Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan – a relationship that is key to Syria's future – didn't arise overnight. Over the years, Mr Trump has lavished Mr Erdogan with praise, backed him within Nato, and accommodated his concerns regarding the Kurdish movement both inside and outside Syria.
The US President agrees to Turkey's influence in Syria.
Ankara's role in ousting the Assad establishment, pushing Iran out of Syria, and undercutting Russia's foothold there have all unfolded in full co-ordination with Washington. Indeed, Turkey alone might not have orchestrated these dramatic reversals in Syria without tacit US support. Today, Mr Al Shara's hold over power is the product of US-Turkish investment with backing from key Arab powers.
These stakeholders see Mr Al Shara as a stabilising force who can prevent Syria from slipping into total chaos. They believe his background as leader of the now-defunct Hayat Tahrir Al Sham means he can negotiate with the fundamentalist forces he emerged from, and that he understands the language of appeasement needed to co-opt and contain them.
Mr Trump's representatives in Syria and Turkey often sing in Ankara's choir. They view Turkey as the senior supervisor and guarantor in Syria, sharing influence with Washington and some of its Arab partners.
For the US President's circle, this soft American tutelage over Syria is enough, the task delegated to Turkish influence over critical Syrian institutions, provided that Turkey and Israel maintain an understanding, even if through superficial cordiality. Israel remains America's foremost ally after all, and its share in any regional arrangements must therefore be always assured.
The Trump administration is aligned with Israel's ambitions to establish a buffer zone inside Syria and to designate southern Syria a demilitarised zone. It supports Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights and is working on a framework for Israeli-Syrian security arrangements to replace the current UN Disengagement Observer Force. This would be a stepping stone to a transitional agreement and, eventually, a form of normalisation between the two neighbours.
The Israelis, however, don't share the US's assessment of Syria's extremist factions. They don't believe Mr Al Shara is willing or able to dismantle these factions, nor that he can completely break with his past associations with key extremist groups. In other words, Israel is far less enthusiastic than the Trump team is about positioning Mr Al Shara as Syria's future.
While Israel is open to forging new security agreements and even exploring versions of the Abraham Accords with Syria, it isn't prepared to invest in Mr Al Shara the way Washington and Ankara are. It doubts the Syrian President can meet American-Israeli demands because his core base would never allow it.
That may be a realistic reading. In truth, Mr Al Shara's powers are either exaggerated – given that he lacks a viable army to enforce presidential authority independently – or he tacitly agrees with his base's opposition to the American-Israeli agenda but seeks to avoid direct confrontation with Israel due to the latter's military superiority.
What matters most to Trump is the investment in Al Shara, working in tandem with Ankara, and nudging Israel towards a scenario in which Damascus does little to obstruct Israel's agenda
The Trump administration is turning a blind eye to the recent clashes in Syria. The US President has put on his blinkers once again, unwilling even to consider that his policies might facilitate the resurgence of ISIS and other extremist groups. He is thus unconcerned about warnings of Syria's possible fragmentation and partition if the violence gets out of hand. That's why his administration has dismissed recent turmoil in Sweida as mere tribal skirmishes between the Druze and the Bedouins.
Indeed, what matters most to Mr Trump is the investment in Mr Al Shara, working in tandem with Ankara, and nudging Israel towards a scenario in which Damascus does little to obstruct Israel's agenda. In exchange, the Syrian President would receive US support, perhaps including help to rebuild the military alongside securing international legitimacy and the promise of reintegration and reconstruction.
The Trump administration understands that Russia is now out of Syria, with no path for return. And it is determined not to allow Iran any opening to re-enter Syria either.
Yet Mr Trump and his advisers appear to believe that financial power solves all problems. They hence believe that co-opting figures aligned with Mr Al Shara – regardless of ideology – could help pacify them, based on the principle of resource-sharing to prevent territorial fragmentation.
As for the Druze, the Trump camp believes it could fare better under a model of limited self-governance yet without full secession. It envisages a scenario in which this key minority group benefits from the envisioned buffer zone to enjoy a degree of autonomy within Syria's governing framework.
What matters most to the Trump team is the conviction that a stable Syria is the strongest bulwark against an ISIS resurgence, and that Mr Al Shara is the lock on that door.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
40 minutes ago
- The National
Iran rules out abandoning nuclear enrichment as talks to begin with European powers
Iran will not abandon its nuclear programme, including uranium enrichment, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has said before renewed talks with European powers set to be held in Istanbul on Friday. The dialogue with Britain, France and Germany – also known as the E3 – will be the first since Tehran's 12-day war with Israel last month, during which the US also carried out strikes against Iran's nuclear sites. US President Donald Trump said the installations had been "obliterated". But the strikes do not appear to be a long-term setback for Tehran's plans. For now, enrichment has stopped "because, yes, damages are serious and severe", Mr Araghchi told Fox News in an interview aired on Monday. "We cannot give up enrichment because it is an achievement of our own scientists. And now, more than that, it is a question of national pride," he said. "Our enrichment is so dear to us." The Foreign Minister confirmed that the damage caused by the US strikes to Iranian infrastructure was "serious" but did not comment on whether any enriched uranium had survived the attacks. "Our facilities have been damaged – seriously damaged," Mr Araghchi said. "The extent of which is now under evaluation by our atomic energy organisation. But as far as I know, they are seriously damaged," he added. Mr Trump responded to the comments on his platform Truth Social, saying Washington would carry out strikes again "if necessary". The 2015 agreement, reached between Iran and UN Security Council permanent members Britain, China, France, Russia and the US, plus Germany, imposed curbs on Iran's nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief. Mr Trump unilaterally withdrew the US from the deal in 2018 and reimposed sanctions. The E3 countries last met with Iranian representatives in Geneva on June 21 - just one day before the US strikes. Iran will meet for talks with the Europeans. "Iran holds the European parties responsible for negligence in implementing the agreement," said foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei ahead of Friday's talks in Istanbul on the deal's future. Iran will also host a trilateral meeting on Tuesday with Chinese and Russian representatives to discuss the nuclear issue and potential sanctions. The Chinese Foreign Ministry said Beijing would "continue to play a constructive role in pushing relevant sides to restart dialogue and negotiations, and reach a solution that takes into account the legitimate concerns of all parties". European countries have in recent days threatened to activate the deal's "snapback" mechanism, which allows the reimposition of sanctions in the event of non-compliance by Iran.
The National
3 hours ago
- The National
US President Donald Trump 'caught off guard' by Israeli strikes on Syria and Gaza church
US President Donald Trump was "caught off guard" by Israeli bombing of Syria and a Catholic church in Gaza last week, White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said on Monday, adding that he had discussed the issue with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Three people were killed and 14 injured in an Israeli strike on the Holy Family Church in Gaza city last week. Parish priest Father Gabriel Romanelli was among those wounded. The attack sparked international condemnation, including from Mr Trump who called Mr Netanyahu to voice his displeasure. Mr Trump also appears to have been surprised by Israeli strikes on government buildings in the Syrian capital last week, at a time when his administration is working to improve ties with the new authorities there. The US President "was caught off guard by the bombing in Syria and also the bombing of a Catholic church in Gaza," Ms Leavitt told journalists. "In both accounts, the President quickly called the Prime Minister to rectify those situations," she said. The US is Israel's main ally and Mr Netanyahu has visited the White House three times since Mr Trump returned to power in January. "The President enjoys a good working relationship with Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, and stays in, you know, frequent communication with him," Ms Leavitt said. Mr Netanyahu called Pope Leo to express regret over the strike on the Catholic church in Gaza, blaming a "stray missile". US special envoy to Syria Tom Barrack announced a ceasefire between Israel and Syria on Saturday after days of conflict sparked by sectarian clashes in Sweida. Israel launched a series of attacks against Syria, including striking the Ministry of Defence and the presidential palace, in what it claimed was an effort to protect the Druze community. But diplomats and analysts said its goal is to weaken the new Syrian authorities. Israel remains sceptical of the new Hayat Tahrir Al Sham leadership in Damascus. But Mr Trump has met Syrian President Ahmad Al Shara, announced the lifting of sanctions on Syria and revoked the US's foreign terrorist organisation designation of HTS, a former Al Qaeda affiliate. While Israel and the US are strong allies, the personal relationship between the two leaders has been rocky throughout the years. But Mr Trump appeared to be closer than ever to Mr Netanyahu when he decided to join Israel's bombing campaign of Iran. During his last visit to the White House earlier this month, Mr Netanyahu also presented Mr Trump with a copy of a letter he wrote to the Nobel committee, nominating the US President for the Peace Prize. But Mr Netanyahu departed without a ceasefire deal in Gaza being announced, as Mr Trump had hoped and hinted at before the visit. 'The President's message on this conflict we've seen in the Middle East taking place for far too long, that has become quite brutal, especially in recent days, you've seen reports of more people dying. I think the president never likes to see that. He wants the killing to end,' Ms Leavitt said. She highlighted the administration's efforts to enable more aid deliveries to Gaza, despite foreign ministers of 25 western nations on Monday condemning Israel for "drip feeding" aid into the war-ravaged enclave where cases of starvation are on the rise. 'The President is the reason that aid is even being distributed in Gaza at all,' Ms Leavitt said. 'He wants to see this done in a peaceful manner, where more lives are not being lost.'
Zawya
3 hours ago
- Zawya
Trump's Fed attacks puncture veneer of central bank independence: McGeever
(The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters.) ORLANDO, Florida - If U.S. President Donald Trump's public attacks on Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell have achieved one thing, it has been to thrust the issue of central bank independence firmly into the spotlight. But this raises the question, what does 'independence' really mean? Central bank independence is widely considered a bedrock of modern-day financial markets. Economists, investors and policymakers almost universally agree that monetary policy should be set for the long-term good and stability of the economy, free from short-term and capricious political influence. But maintaining that theoretical separation between policymakers and politicians is very challenging in practice. Ultimately, central banks are creations of – and, to varying degrees, extensions of – their national governments. The legislatures determine their statutes, parameters, goals, and key policymaking personnel. One need only look at the intertwined and often coordinated responses of countries' central banks and governments to the global financial crisis and pandemic for evidence that complete independence doesn't actually exist. DE FACTO OR DE JURE 'Independence' has two primary meanings in studies of monetary policy. Academic studies often refer to 'de jure' independence, essentially legal or institutional independence, and 'de facto' or operational independence. Importantly, de jure independence is no guarantee of de facto independence or vice versa. Perhaps surprisingly, the U.S. scores pretty low on a de jure basis, mainly because the Fed's statutes have barely changed since it was created over a century ago in 1913. Davide Romelli, associate professor at Trinity College Dublin, has updated a central bank independence index created by Alex Cukierman, Steven Webb, and Bilin Neyapti in the 1990s. The index, in which 0 is no independence and 1 is total independence, shows the US scoring 0.61. That suggests the Fed is a less institutionally independent body than the European Central Bank, which scored 0.90, and even the People's Bank of China, which scored 0.66. But on a de facto basis, the Fed would almost certainly rank as higher than the PBOC, given its design, transparency, and accountability mechanisms such as the chair's regular press conferences and appearances before Congress. And look at how the Fed resisted the clamor to raise interest rates when inflation first exploded after the pandemic as well as its patience in lowering them now given the uncertainty surrounding the U.S. trade agenda. You can argue the wisdom or folly of the Fed's actions in either case, but both episodes put its operational independence on full display. 'BANANA REPUBLIC' When experts talk about threats to central bank independence, they are usually referring to concerns about de facto independence. Indeed, this is why Fed-watchers have grown increasingly troubled by Trump's excoriating verbal attacks on Powell over the last six months for not cutting interest rates. If there is a line demarcating political interference, however amorphous, Trump has crossed it. "The words that Trump uttered are the ones one expects from the head of a banana republic that is about to start printing money to fund fiscal deficits," former Fed Chair and U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen told The New Yorker earlier this month. Of course, even if Trump were to replace Powell with a more amenable chair, this would not completely eliminate Fed independence. The Fed chair does not single-handedly set interest rates and represents only one of 12 votes at each policy meeting. But in many ways he or she is the first among equals, as University of Maryland's Thomas Drechsel shows in a recent working paper. Analyzing over 800 personal interactions between Fed officials and each U.S. president from Franklin D. Roosevelt to Barack Obama in 2016, Drechsel found that 92% were with the Fed chair. President Richard Nixon interacted with Fed officials 160 times, reflecting his infamous efforts to influence then chair Arthur Burns, while only six interactions took place during Bill Clinton's two terms. To be sure, not all meetings or telephone calls involve political pressure, and for purely logistical reasons, it makes sense that the president would prioritize speaking with the head of the monetary policy body as opposed to all its members. As such, appointing the governor is a key area where a central bank's independence can be damaged. In a 2022 academic paper titled "(In)dependent Central Banks" revised in February analyzing 317 governor appointments in 57 countries between January 1985 and January 2020, the authors noted that as central banks' powers – and perceived independence – have expanded, political incentives to control them have intensified, "especially in an era of growing global populism." Thus, in many cases, the more power a central bank has to ignore political pressure, the more motivated government leaders are to apply it. If that is a global trend, Trump appears to be at the vanguard. (The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters.) (By Jamie McGeever. Editing by Mark Potter)
