The American conditions required for the new Syrian administration are expanding beyond mere diplomatic correspondence to encompass a series of urgent demands. These encompass four key points deemed reasonable by political analysts. These conditions involve the elimination of remaining chemical weapon stockpiles, the commitment to combat terrorism, the expulsion of foreign fighters from top governmental roles, and the appointment of a liaison officer to aid U.S. efforts in locating missing journalist Austin Tice in Syria. In return, Washington may consider easing some of the sanctions imposed on Syria, potentially leading to a thaw in relations between the United States and Damascus. This shift could signify the beginning of the end for a challenging chapter dating back to December 1979, when Syria was designated as a state sponsor of terrorism. However, commitment from the new government, led by Ahmed al-Sharaa following the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime on December 8, 2024, suggests some willingness to comply with certain conditions. Despite this, challenges persist, especially regarding the foreign fighters issue and the ongoing search for Tice, as the U.S. proceeds cautiously in its interactions with Damascus. The diplomatic landscape outlined by experts underscores the complexity of the Syrian situation, particularly in light of competing regional and international interests, most notably from Israel. Israel, a close U.S. ally, has been active in southern Syria, creating potential flashpoints with Turkey for influence on Syrian soil.
In this intricate geopolitical scenario, Enab Baladi explores America’s position towards a post-Assad Syria, detailing the conditions set forth and parsing opinions from diplomats and analysts regarding their viability and implications for U.S.-Syrian relations. This examination reveals that while there is some movement towards dialogue, underlying tensions and challenges complicate the road ahead.
American engagement with Syria has been notably gradual, particularly following the regime change with Assad’s exit coinciding with Donald Trump becoming president. Trump has historically exhibited little interest in the Syrian conflict and has commented against U.S. intervention, suggesting it was not America’s battle to fight. After Assad’s fall, however, the U.S. has expressed support for a politically driven transition in Syria, stipulating numerous conditions for the new government. These stipulations emphasize the establishment of a credible and inclusive administration that respects minority rights, the provision of humanitarian aid, prevention of terrorism emanating from Syrian territory, and ensuring the proper management and destruction of chemical and biological weapon stockpiles.
A significant milestone was reached on December 20, 2024, when official talks between the United States and Ahmed al-Sharaa commenced, marking the first engagement between U.S. diplomats and Syria since 2012. This meeting led the U.S. to halt a longstanding bounty for al-Sharaa’s information and subsequently resulted in a series of sanctions relief initiatives aimed at streamlining humanitarian assistance. Nevertheless, U.S. officials remained firm that sanctions would only be eased in light of observable progress on the established conditions.
Following the overthrow of the Assad regime, the new Syrian government made sweeping changes, including proclaiming al-Sharaa as interim president, abolishing the constitution, and disbanding various political and military entities previously loyal to Assad. The government also initiated an agreement with the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) to facilitate their integration into national institutions, promoting a more inclusive political path. Washington has responded positively to these developments, yet has repeatedly asserted that further concessions will hinge upon the U.S. observing tangible results regarding their outlined priorities.
In April 2025, tensions arose as the U.S. downgraded the visas of the Syrian diplomatic mission at the U.N., resulting in a complex debate about the U.S. stance toward the new government. U.S. State Department representatives clarified that this move did not signify a recognition of the Syrian administration, while Syrian officials insisted it was merely a technical adjustment not reflective of a broader political shift. Observers have noted that while the U.S. has not formally recognized al-Sharaa’s government, the visa adjustment may still deliver political messages.
Producing a stark contrast, Senator Jim Risch and U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Natasha Franceschi’s communications have emphasized that conditions for easing sanctions remain stringent. Among these, the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapon legacy is particularly critical, with al-Sharaa stating intentions to cooperate with the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to navigate this lingering issue. Furthermore, Syria has evidenced proactive steps in regional cooperation against terrorism, facilitating crucial intelligence sharing that can help secure the region and combat threats such as the Islamic State.
Despite overtures for cooperation, apprehensions persist regarding foreign fighters. Al-Sharaa suggested the assimilation of these fighters if aligned ideologically, yet this raises significant security implications given historical U.S. concerns surrounding extremist elements operating within Syria. Experts emphasize the need for careful management of this complex issue, especially as Damascus grapples with external pressures to address the role of these foreign elements within its borders.
The fate of Austin Tice remains central to U.S. negotiations, with indications of potential cooperation from Damascus in seeking answers. Al-Sharaa indicated engagement with Tice’s family, which some analysts perceive as an opportunity for a goodwill gesture from the new Syrian administration, possibly leading to increased security ties between the countries. As the U.S. continues to formulate its position, the delicate balance between addressing Tice’s case and broader security threats could define future engagements.
Amid these developments, Israel emerges as a critical factor, exercising significant influence over U.S. policy regarding Syria. Israel’s longstanding campaign against perceived threats to its security has continued unabated with various airstrikes targeting Syrian military assets. Analysts suggest that Israel has communicated its disapproval of the new Islamist administration, urging the United States to maintain a fragmented and manageable Syria. Many experts concur that the U.S. under Trump has provided Israel with a tacit green light to intensify its operations in Syria, which complicates the political landscape for the new Syrian government.
Moreover, discussions about potential normalization between Syria and Israel surface, with U.S. officials alluding to possibilities of joining the Abraham Accords following Israeli and Syrian ties destabilization. Despite these overtures, al-Sharaa’s government has yet to formally take a stance on such agreements but has expressed that it does not seek conflict with its neighbors. Such dynamics reflect the complexities inherent in the evolving relationship whereby Syria’s new Sunni leadership contrasts sharply with its Alawite predecessor.
Furthermore, Turkey’s contentious role in Syria’s operations underlines the multilateral pressures Syria faces. Israeli-Turkish tensions can impact U.S. intentions, as the Trump administration has shown a willingness to mediate discussions to alleviate these issues. While collaboration within a complex regional framework appears favorable, observers remain skeptical of the long-term effectiveness of U.S. interventions, especially with respect to diminishing Ankara’s assertiveness and fostering stability in Syrian territory.
In summary, the future of the U.S.-Syrian relationship hangs in a delicate balance marked by caution and responsiveness. While the new Syrian government demonstrates initial willingness to adhere to American demands, persistent challenges related to foreign fighters and prominent humanitarian issues present significant hurdles. The American administration’s approach may evolve as the Syrian government is compelled to shift from dependence on past allegiances towards a more governance-based mindset. Collaboration on security matters remains the probable path towards reintegration into the international community. However, this will require concerted efforts to resolve critical issues surrounding Tice’s case and managing foreign fighters effectively as a key stepping stone in transforming diplomatic relations.
As the U.S. continues to assess its position amid conflicts of interest involving Israel, Turkey, and broader regional dynamics, the coming months could prove pivotal in determining the trajectory of Syria’s geopolitical landscape. The interplay between American strategic calculations and Syrian governance reform will likely dictate the complexity of subsequent negotiations, making the unfolding scenario pivotal in shaping the future of this embattled nation.
image source from：https://english.enabbaladi.net/archives/2025/04/washington-damascus-possible-opening-of-relations/
