The US position on normalization with the Assad regime in Syria has sparked heated debate, as former officials, lawmakers, and international partners weigh the potential benefits and risks of engaging with the embattled regime. The debate comes amidst reports of shifting dynamics in the Middle East and ongoing US efforts to counter Iran’s regional influence.
James Jeffrey, former US envoy to Syria, recently suggested that the US and Israel have shown interest in cautiously improving ties with the Assad regime. Speaking to Al-Hurra TV, Jeffrey explained that this approach could serve key strategic goals, including curbing the flow of weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon and distancing Assad from Iran’s sphere of influence.
“Russia is also interested in this approach,” Jeffrey added, noting Moscow’s alignment with efforts to avoid escalation between Iranian proxies and Israel. However, he emphasized that the Assad regime’s support for Hezbollah remains a longstanding concern for both the US and Israel.
Despite these challenges, Jeffrey highlighted that Assad has largely refrained from direct involvement in the escalating violence in the region since October 2023, a stance that has caught Washington’s attention. “If Assad responds appropriately to US, Turkish, and Israeli concerns, this may lead to easing pressure on him,” Jeffrey said.
Not everyone shares Jeffrey’s optimism. Senator Michael McCaul, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, has voiced strong opposition to any normalization with Assad, calling it a “strategic mistake and a moral disgrace.”
In a statement on social media, McCaul criticized reports of the EU’s plan to appoint a special envoy to Syria. “Normalization with the Assad regime will not enhance security or stability,” McCaul said, urging the EU to reconsider its stance.
McCaul has been a leading advocate for the “Anti-Normalization with the Assad Regime Act,” which aims to strengthen sanctions on Damascus and renew the provisions of the Caesar Act, a landmark US law targeting Assad and his allies for human rights abuses. He stressed the importance of passing this legislation before the year’s end, warning that creeping normalization undermines US values and regional stability.
Meanwhile, Europe appears divided on its approach to Syria. Recent reports revealed that the EU is considering appointing a special envoy to re-engage with Damascus, with former Austrian diplomat Christian Berger reportedly being tapped for the role.
This move, driven by efforts from Italy and other EU member states, aims to address the Syrian refugee crisis and encourage voluntary repatriation. However, critics argue that such steps risk legitimizing Assad’s regime without addressing its role in years of conflict and atrocities.
Anne Snow, the UK’s special envoy to Syria, recently reiterated her country’s commitment to sanctions against Assad. In an article, she stressed that British sanctions target individuals responsible for human rights abuses while ensuring humanitarian aid remains unaffected. “Sanctions are not the cause of Syria’s suffering; Assad’s policies are,” Snow said, urging the international community to maintain pressure on Damascus.
The debate over normalization also ties into broader questions about US leadership in Syria. Speculation has emerged about how a potential return of Donald Trump to the White House could shift policy. Reports suggest Trump may tap Senator Marco Rubio, a vocal opponent of Assad, as Secretary of State. Rubio has consistently criticized normalization efforts, describing Assad as a “war criminal” and calling for accountability for his regime’s use of chemical weapons and other atrocities.
Rubio has been a staunch supporter of anti-normalization legislation, emphasizing the importance of maintaining sanctions to pressure Assad into meaningful reforms and adherence to UN Security Council Resolution 2254, which outlines a framework for peace in Syria.
The US position on normalization with Assad remains deeply contentious. Proponents like Jeffrey argue that engaging with Damascus could serve strategic interests, while critics like McCaul and Rubio stress the moral and political risks of legitimizing a regime accused of war crimes.
As the Biden administration winds down in this complex landscape, the outcome of legislative efforts, such as the renewal of the Caesar Act and the passage of the Anti-Normalization with Assad Act, could shape the trajectory of US policy toward Syria for years to come.
