Our approach should be humanitarian aid, yes, but no to US reconstruction aid or sanctions relief until Syria is unambiguously not jihadist.
By ERIC R. MANDEL | DECEMBER 25, 2024
HTS LEADER Abu Mohammed al-Julani (right), meets with Lebanese Druze leader Walid Jumblatt in Damascus. (photo credit: Khalil Ashawi/Reuters)
A New York Times editorial disguised as a front-page news article demanded, “The West must ease financial controls to help the [Syrian] economy… the way forward starts with sanctions relief.” The writer, Patricia Cohen, claims “there is widespread agreement… the single most important step in rebuilding Syria’s economy can be taken only by the United States: Lift the punishing layers of sanctions.”
Last week, US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Barbara Leaf met with Hay?at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) leader Ahmed al-Sharaa (Abu Mohammed al-Julani).
She said, “We discussed the critical need to ensure terrorist groups cannot pose a threat inside Syria or externally, including to the US and our partners in the region. Based on our discussion, I told him that we would not be pursuing the Rewards for Justice reward offered.” According to AP, “She told reporters that al-Sharaa had committed to renouncing terrorism.”
Mr. President, taking the $10 million terrorist bounty (Rewards for Justice) off the HTS rebel leader’s head does not magically change his historical record as the leader of a radical jihadist organization with blood on his hands.
The record of Sunni jihadists taking control of authoritarian states and promising moderation and tolerance for Western acceptance is not encouraging. Look at the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, as well as the ongoing chaos in Libya post-Gaddafi.
Let’s look at al-Sharaa’s human rights record before we get giddy and believe the HTS leader’s words. HTS was created 13 years ago by al-Qaeda and ISIS leadership, all US-designated terrorists. The US government reported HTS had “committed the war crime of rape and other forms of sexual violence” last year.
Add to that torture, stringent imposition of Sharia law in the Idlib province they have administered in northwest Syria, running secret prisons, killing journalists, repressing women, executing opponents, and using child soldiers.
As the Washington Institute’s Counterintelligence and Terrorism expert Matthew Levitt wrote, “America’s Syria policy going forward should be based not on trusting new Syrian officials’ words but on verifying their actions… before considering the removal of sanctions.”
Even more damaging to our security interests, one expert featured in the NYT article suggested that our Syrian Kurdish ally (SDF/YPG) abandon its oil field revenue to the jihadist rebels who will lead the next government in Damascus.
“Oil previously provided around half of the country’s revenues, said Joshua Landis, co-director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma. Those fields, he said, belong to the government in Damascus and should be returned to its control.”
US foreign aid is a valuable tool for advancing national security interests
I WRITE this as someone who believes in the importance and effectiveness of US foreign aid creating disproportionate American leverage and influence in relation to the monies we invest, despite the views of isolationists. It is one of the most critical tools to advance our national security interests.
Our primary adversary in the world, China, has bested us in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia with its Belt and Road Initiative, undermining our interests by investing in underdeveloped nations. Unfortunately for those nations, they end up accepting unrepayable loans that the Chinese use to manipulate and extort what they want from these poor countries, a blow to US interests.
America’s humanitarian impulse is to help civilians affected by the wars in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria. This noble impulse accords with our value-based interests as a beacon of democracy. But it will be counterproductive and a waste of American taxpayer dollars unless we know the nature of the new government we are assisting and insist on not being taken for a ride.
In Lebanon, the government is still dominated by the Iranian proxy Hezbollah. Reconstruction aid is not a good US investment unless the next Lebanese government is freed from the terrorist group. An election is coming up in January, but I wouldn’t hold my breath for real change in the failed state of Lebanon.
Propping up the government in the hopes that it will encourage Lebanese Christians, Druze, and Sunnis to become independent from Hezbollah’s grip is like rearranging Beirut’s parliamentary deck chairs on the Titanic.
In Gaza, humanitarian aid is essential, but rebuilding the infrastructure of the Gaza Strip before we know for sure Hamas is not returning to power is a poor investment to advance our interests or those of our ally, Israel.
Suppose terrorists like Hamas think the civilian areas they use for weapons factories, holding hostages, and hiding munitions will be rebuilt, as they were after previous wars dating back to 2008. In that case, we are being played again and should say no, thank you.
Other than humanitarian aid of water, food, and fuel that is tightly regulated, at arm’s length from NGOs that are in bed with Hamas, e.g., UNRWA, America should not invest any money in reconstruction until we are convinced Hamas cannot be a military or a governing authority again. This will take time and patience.
ELON MUSK and Vivek Ramaswamy are in charge of a new American agency, DOGE, with a fiduciary responsibility not to waste taxpayer dollars. They think America should cut our foreign aid budget.
Although most Americans think 25% of the US budget goes for overseas aid, in reality, it is closer to 1%. Foreign aid is a potent tool for American influence worldwide on realpolitik and value-based interests.
However, this does not mean prematurely giving reconstruction aid to Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria beyond basic humanitarian needs until the chaos and governing authorities are sorted out.
Before we start to celebrate the rise of HTS and listen to the UN’s envoy for Syria, Geir Pedersen, who said Syrian rebel leaders had issued “reassuring statements” about forming a government of “unity and inclusiveness,” we need to pause and remember the ideologically driven imperatives of HTS’s radical jihadism.
So, while the press reinvents HTS leader Julani, giving him the benefit of the doubt, or the Biden administration prematurely takes the terrorist tag off him, I hope the next administration formulates a plan to help Syria with both carrots and sticks, rewarding tangible moves toward the US position, and continuing the stick of sanctions until it does so.
Therefore, our approach should be humanitarian aid, yes, but no to US reconstruction aid or sanctions relief until Syria is unambiguously not jihadist.
The writer is director of MEPIN, the Middle East Political Information Network, and the senior security editor of The Jerusalem Report. He regularly briefs members of Congress and their foreign policy aides.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.