عربي English Türkçe اردو فارسى
Logo
Latest News
Features

Washington's Priorities in Syria Don't Include Iran's Withdrawal

US forces patrol Kurdish-controlled oil fields in northeast Syria, Oct. 28, 2019, (AP)
US forces patrol Kurdish-controlled oil fields in northeast Syria, Oct. 28, 2019, (AP)
TT
20
TT

Washington's Priorities in Syria Don't Include Iran's Withdrawal

US forces patrol Kurdish-controlled oil fields in northeast Syria, Oct. 28, 2019, (AP)
US forces patrol Kurdish-controlled oil fields in northeast Syria, Oct. 28, 2019, (AP)

The administration of US President Joe Biden has set five priorities in Syria, none of which call for the withdrawal of Iran, in contrast to the previous administration of President Donald Trump.

According to information obtained by Asharq Al-Awsat, the priorities discussed by American officials behind closed doors are keeping troops deployed in northeastern Syria until the defeat of the ISIS group; providing cross-border aid; maintaining the ceasefire; supporting efforts to hold human rights violators to account and abandoning weapons of mass destruction; pushing forward a political settlement based on United Nations Security Council resolution 2254. Washington is also keen on supporting the stability of Syria's neighbors, including Jordan and Israel.

These priorities were outlined by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken on the sidelines of the conference for the international coalition to defeat ISIS in June. Biden's team is expected to reiterate them when the coalition holds a second meeting in Brussels next month.

Meanwhile, earlier this week Blinken declared during a press conference with his Qatari counterpart Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani in Washington that the US continues to oppose the normalization of ties with Damascus.

"I would simply urge all of our partners to remember the crimes that the [Bashar] Assad regime has committed and indeed continues to commit. We don’t support normalization, and again, we would emphasize to our friends and partners to consider the signals that they’re sending," he said.

Application of priorities
The priorities are the culmination of efforts by the Biden administration since he was sworn in as president some ten months.

US Central Command commander Kenneth McKenzie had paid a secret visit to northeastern Syria in wake of the chaotic American troop withdrawal from Afghanistan in order to reassure Washington's Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) that the US will continue to remain deployed in the region east of the Euphrates River.

The US has also exerted pressure on Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan against launching a new military operation along Turkey's border with Syria because it may distract from the fight against ISIS.

The overall impression is that American forces will remain in their positions until the end of Biden's term.

As for humanitarian files, Biden's Syria team has held dialogue with Russian President Vladimir's Putin's envoy to Syria to ensure that the relevant Security Council resolution on cross-border aid deliveries will be extended. Indeed, it was extended in July and US National Security Council’s coordinator for the Middle East, Brett McGurk, Russian deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Vershinin and the presidential envoy Alexander Lavrentiev met in Geneva this week to agree to extend it for another six months when it expires in early 2022.

On the diplomatic level, the Biden administration has continued to issue statements in support of a comprehensive ceasefire in Syria, the activation of the political process and carrying out constitutional reform in line with resolution 2254. Along with France and Britain, it has also encouraged the Syrian opposition to bring up rights violations committed by the regime.

In late July, the US Treasury issued a new list of sanctions against Syrian figures over human rights violations and ties to terrorism. Washington has also allowed exemptions from the Caesar Act that would allow the operation of the Arab Gas Pipeline from Egypt to Jordan to Syria and then to Lebanon. The exemption was granted on condition that Damascus would not benefit financially from the move or that the parties concerned would not deal with figures and entities that are on the sanctions list.

Iran... the elephant in the room
Apparently, the important elements in these priorities are issues that have not been mentioned, which are the goals that were set by the Trump administration.

Biden's team has yet to appoint an envoy to Syria like James Jeffrey and his predecessors. The file is still being mainly handled by McGurk, while the Defense and State Departments are no longer as involved in it as they were under Trump. It remains to be seen if this will still be the case when Barbara Leaf assumes her position in the State Department. Leaf is nominated as assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs.

Moreover, the Biden team has not launched a diplomatic and political campaign with Arab countries to prevent them from normalizing ties with Damascus. American officials have so far informed Arab officials that the US does not encourage normalization and it will not take that step.

Furthermore, it believes that normalization should come at a price, significantly since the Caesar Act still stands.

"None of them have been told not to" speak with Assad by senior American officials, Jeffrey said this week. As a result, Arab leaders feel they have an implicit green light to strengthen ties with Assad’s regime.

This is not the only change. On the geopolitical level, there has been a significant shift in the declared stance on Iran's presence in Syria.

The Trump administration's Syria strategy was drafted by his Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Jeffrey and others. It prioritized the defeat of ISIS; support for the implementation of resolution 2254; Iran's withdrawal from Syria; prevent the regime from using weapons of mass destruction and ridding it of chemical arms; and providing the necessary humanitarian aid to ease the suffering of Syrians in Syria and abroad.

The former administration had also set conditions for normalizing ties with Assad: Ending support to terrorism; ending support from the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and Hezbollah; refraining from threatening neighboring countries; abandoning weapons of mass destruction; the voluntary return of refugees and the displaced; and holding war criminals to account.

The administration had resorted to isolating Damascus - in coordination with its Arab and European allies - to implement its priorities in Syria. It also kept American troops deployed east of the Euphrates and at the al-Tanf base. It prevented Damascus from benefiting from strategic resources and imposed economic sanctions and introduced the Caesar Act. It stood against Arab or European normalization with Assad and provided intelligence and logistic support to Israeli raids in Syria and to Turkey's deployment in northwestern regions.

McGurk's appears to have a different approach that the former administration. He believes that the American goals must be aligned with its tools and ability to use these tools, as well as how willing Moscow is to work with this pressure.

The Biden team has been keen on preventing the collapse of the Iran nuclear negotiations and has held back from taking escalatory steps against it in Syria.

In an article to Foreign Policy in 2019, McGurk said the Arab countries will resume cooperation with Damascus. Washington's opposition to such a move will force the Arabs to carry out diplomacy behind Washington's back, so the best approach is for the US to draft a realistic agenda with its Arab partners. This includes encouraging them to condition renewing relations with Assad in exchange for trust-building measures from the regime.

The Biden team is expected to present its goals in Syria to Washington's partners on the sidelines of next month's international anti-ISIS coalition conference.

Most Viewed

 
Features

Iran Risks Severe Economic Downturn, Unrest as Renewed UN Sanctions Bite 

Iranian women shop in a store at the Tehran Bazaar after the approval of the bill to remove four zeros from the national currency, in Tehran, Iran, October 5, 2025. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via Reuters
Iranian women shop in a store at the Tehran Bazaar after the approval of the bill to remove four zeros from the national currency, in Tehran, Iran, October 5, 2025. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via Reuters
TT
20
TT

Iran Risks Severe Economic Downturn, Unrest as Renewed UN Sanctions Bite 

Iranian women shop in a store at the Tehran Bazaar after the approval of the bill to remove four zeros from the national currency, in Tehran, Iran, October 5, 2025. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via Reuters
Iranian women shop in a store at the Tehran Bazaar after the approval of the bill to remove four zeros from the national currency, in Tehran, Iran, October 5, 2025. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via Reuters

Iran's economy is at risk of simultaneous hyperinflation and severe recession, officials and analysts say, as clerical rulers scramble to preserve stability with limited room to maneuver after a snapback of UN sanctions. They followed a breakdown in talks to curb Iran's disputed nuclear activity and its ballistic missile program.

Diplomacy to resolve the deadlock remains possible, both sides say, though Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has rebuffed US President Donald Trump's offer to forge a new deal.

Three senior Iranian officials, speaking to Reuters on condition of anonymity, said Tehran believes the US, its Western allies and Israel are intensifying sanctions to fuel unrest in Iran and jeopardize the very existence of the republic.

Since the reimposition of UN sanctions on September 28, multiple high-level meetings have been held in Tehran on how to avert economic collapse, circumvent sanctions and manage simmering public anger, the officials told Reuters.

Deepening economic disparities between ordinary Iranians and a privileged clerical and security elite, economic mismanagement, galloping inflation and state corruption - reported even by state media - have fanned discontent.

"The establishment knows protests are inevitable, it is only a matter of time ... The problem is growing, while our options are shrinking," said one of the officials. Iran's leadership is leaning heavily on its "resistance economy" - a strategy of self-sufficiency and closer trade with China, Russia and some regional states. Moscow and Beijing back Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy and condemned US and Israeli strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites in June.

But analysts warn that such workarounds may not be enough to shield the sprawling country of 92 million people from the renewed economic blow.

"The impact of the UN sanctions will be severe and multifaceted, deepening the country’s longstanding structural and financial vulnerabilities,” said Umud Shokri, an energy strategist and senior visiting fellow at George Mason University near Washington.

"The government is struggling to maintain economic stability as sanctions disrupt banking networks, restrict trade and constrain oil exports - the country’s main revenue source, resulting in escalating social and economic pressure."

OIL LIFELINE UNDER THREAT AS UN SANCTIONS RETURN

Iran has avoided wholesale economic meltdown since 2018 when, during his first term, Trump withdrew the US from Tehran’s 2015 nuclear deal with six world powers and reimposed US sanctions.

But the revival of wider UN sanctions is inflicting shocks that will stymie economic growth, accelerate inflation and the collapse of the rial currency, pushing the economy toward a recessionary spiral, one of the Iranian officials said.

Iran’s economy contracted sharply after 2018 due to renewed US sanctions. It rebounded in 2020 to grow modestly at times, largely due to oil trade with China. But the World Bank this month forecast a shrinkage of 1.7% in 2025 and 2.8% in 2026 - sharply down from the 0.7% growth it had projected in April for next year.

While Tehran still relies heavily on oil exports to China - its biggest customer and one of the few countries still doing business with it despite Trump's "maximum pressure" policy, doubts reign over the sustainability of that trade.

Although sold at a discount, crude remains a vital source of income for Tehran, with oil and petrochemicals making up about a quarter of GDP in 2024. Despite public assurances that oil sales to China will continue, one Iranian official said the reimposed global sanctions could stifle that flow.

Shokri said that if China seeks to ease tensions with the Trump administration, it may tighten its stance on Iranian oil - demanding steeper discounts or cutting imports altogether.

For Tehran, the costs could be devastating. Every dollar shaved off the price of oil translates into roughly half a billion dollars in lost annual revenue, he said. The rial has shriveled to 1,115,000 per dollar from 920,000 in August, stoking inflation to at least 40% and gutting purchasing power. Persistent currency depreciation and trade sanctions are driving up prices and sapping investor confidence.

HARDSHIP SPREADS, PUBLIC ANGER SIMMERS

Few Iranians can escape the attendant hardships. A sense of desperation is rippling through society, affecting urban professionals, bazaar traders and rural farmers alike.

"How much more pressure are we supposed to endure? Until when? I’m a government employee, and I earn just 34 million tomans (around $300) a month," said Alireza, 43, speaking by phone from the capital Tehran. Like others, he asked not to be further identified for fear of retribution from authorities.

"My wife is jobless. The import-export company she worked for shut down last month. With just my salary and two kids, we’re struggling to even pay rent and school expenses. What are we supposed to do?”

Iran’s official inflation rate is around 40% though some estimates exceed 50%. Official data in September showed prices for 10 staple goods, including meat, rice and chicken, rose 51% in one year. Housing and utility costs have also surged. Beef now costs $12 a kilo - too expensive for many families.

The clerical elite increasingly worry that mounting public distress could reignite mass protests that have erupted periodically since 2017 among lower- and middle-income Iranians, the second Iranian official said.

Many Iranians like Sima, 32, a factory worker in the central city of Shiraz worn down by years of economic strain, worry that the expanded sanctions will push them past the breaking point.

"Now they say we’re facing new sanctions again, but we’re already struggling to provide for our three children. Prices go up every single day and we can’t even afford to buy meat for them once a month,” said Sima.

Many business owners fear deeper international isolation and further Israeli airstrikes if diplomacy fails to resolve the nuclear standoff.

"With the constant fear of a possible attack and not knowing whether I’ll even be able to export this month or next, how am I supposed to keep my business running?” said Mehdi, who ships fruit to neighboring countries.

Features

Lebanon at Political, Security Crossroads as Risks of Escalation with Israel Rise 

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun meets US envoy Tom Barrack at the Baabda presidential palace, July 2025. (AP)
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun meets US envoy Tom Barrack at the Baabda presidential palace, July 2025. (AP)
TT
20
TT

Lebanon at Political, Security Crossroads as Risks of Escalation with Israel Rise 

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun meets US envoy Tom Barrack at the Baabda presidential palace, July 2025. (AP)
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun meets US envoy Tom Barrack at the Baabda presidential palace, July 2025. (AP)

Lebanon stands at a political and security crossroads amid mounting external pressure, a deadlocked political landscape, and escalating military tensions marked by Israel’s continuing daily violations of the November ceasefire.

The stalemate was laid bare by Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, who told Asharq Al-Awsat on Monday that the proposed negotiation track between Lebanon and Israel - known as the “US paper” - had collapsed.

His remarks came just hours after US envoy Tom Barrack warned that if Beirut continues to hesitate over disarmament, Israel may act unilaterally, and the consequences will be "grave", adding that it is time for Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah as it had said it would.

“Should Beirut continue to hesitate, Israel may act unilaterally and the consequences would be grave,” cautioned Barrack in an opinion piece posted on his account on the X platform.

Berri said Barrack had informed Beirut that Israel rejected a US proposal to launch a negotiation process starting with a two-month halt to Israeli operations and culminating in an Israeli withdrawal from occupied Lebanese territory, alongside border demarcation and security arrangements.

Barrack also revealed that an offer the US made to Lebanon earlier this year, part of a plan called “One More Try,” included a framework for phased disarmament, verified compliance, and economic incentives under American and French supervision.

However, Lebanon “refused to adopt it due to Hezbollah's representation and influence in the Lebanese cabinet,” he claimed.

Fears of escalation

What lies ahead remains uncertain with many watching how the political deadlock might affect Lebanon’s fragile security. Beirut’s insistence on upholding the ceasefire agreement, which Berri described as “the only current path” despite obstacles related to Hezbollah’s disarmament, does not necessarily mean Israel will abide by it.

Ministerial sources close to the presidency said the prospect of military escalation “cannot be ruled out,” adding: “There is no doubt this is a critical stage, and escalation could happen at any moment, especially since Israeli violations have not ceased.”

The sources noted that “Israeli drones have been flying constantly over Baabda - the location of the presidential palace - in recent days.”

While the sources rejected talk of a complete breakdown in negotiations, they stressed that “Israel is not committed to the ceasefire agreement” and that “Washington is not applying the necessary pressure to enforce it.”

“How can the Lebanese Army complete its deployment along the southern border when the Israeli occupation persists?” they asked.

The sources reiterated that the president opened the door to negotiations based on the maritime border demarcation experience, which both Israel and Hezbollah respected, in addition to Lebanon’s adherence to the ceasefire.

“The problem,” they said, “is that the other side is neither responsive nor committed to what has been agreed upon, while the US remains completely silent.”

Successive setbacks

In this tense atmosphere, retired Major General and political science scholar Abdul Rahman Chehaitli said the “November agreement has collapsed, leaving Lebanon in a grim reality.”

Political science and international relations professor Imad Salamey likewise said Lebanon “is going through a clear escalation phase, especially as political forces shy away from pursuing a negotiated settlement with Israel amid the absence of serious guarantees from Washington or Tel Aviv.”

He recalled Barrack’s repeated warnings of a potential new military confrontation “under the pretext of enforcing Hezbollah’s disarmament,” adding that “in reality, the situation points to a series of successive setbacks in the security understandings.”

A Gaza-style approach

A year after the November deal, Salamey said “confidence in the diplomatic process is eroding by the day,” noting that there are “no signs that any disarmament effort will be met with an Israeli withdrawal from occupied Lebanese land or a permanent halt to violations.”

This, he argued, “deepens Lebanese suspicions that US pressure aims to impose a security arrangement serving Israel’s interests.”

According to Salamey, any future Lebanese deal “would need an approach similar to the one adopted in Gaza - under regional sponsorship and with Iran’s cooperation as a guarantor - to consolidate the ceasefire and lay the groundwork for a broader settlement.”

Without such balanced regional and international guarantees, he warned, “the risk of escalation will remain, if not grow, as the circle of military and political confrontation widens in the South.”

Pressure for direct talks

Chehaitli said Israel’s ongoing pressure, backed by Washington, aims to force Lebanon into direct negotiations. “All the rounds of shuttle diplomacy by Barrack were merely time-wasting exercises, while Israel was busy in Gaza,” he told Asharq Al-Awsat.

“Now it seems Tel Aviv is shifting its focus toward Lebanon, using military pressure to push for direct talks.”

“In the coming phase, we may witness significant escalation targeting Hezbollah’s areas of influence to make any ceasefire conditional on a political deal,” he added. “Israel believes it has won the war and now wants to impose its terms.”

Features

Israel Still Fires on Lebanon Almost a Year After a Ceasefire. Some Predict the Same for Gaza

Smoke billows over the village of Aaichiyeh after Israeli strikes, as seen from Marjeyoun in southern Lebanon, October 20, 2025. (Reuters)
Smoke billows over the village of Aaichiyeh after Israeli strikes, as seen from Marjeyoun in southern Lebanon, October 20, 2025. (Reuters)
TT
20
TT

Israel Still Fires on Lebanon Almost a Year After a Ceasefire. Some Predict the Same for Gaza

Smoke billows over the village of Aaichiyeh after Israeli strikes, as seen from Marjeyoun in southern Lebanon, October 20, 2025. (Reuters)
Smoke billows over the village of Aaichiyeh after Israeli strikes, as seen from Marjeyoun in southern Lebanon, October 20, 2025. (Reuters)

As a tenuous ceasefire took hold in Gaza this month, Israel launched more airstrikes on southern Lebanon — 11 months into a ceasefire there.

The bombardment of a construction equipment business killed a Syrian passerby, wounded seven people including two women, and destroyed millions of dollars worth of bulldozers and excavators.

The Oct. 11 strikes would be an anomaly in most countries not at war. But near-daily Israeli attacks have become the new normal in Lebanon, nearly a year after a US-brokered truce halted the latest conflict between Israel and Hezbollah.

Some see a likely blueprint for the Gaza ceasefire, with ongoing but lower-intensity conflicts. On Sunday, Israel struck Gaza after it said Hamas fired at its troops, in the first major test of the US-brokered truce.

Mona Yacoubian, director of the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank, described the Lebanon scenario as a "lessfire" rather than a ceasefire.

Lebanon "could well serve as the model for Gaza, essentially giving leeway to Israeli forces to strike whenever they deem a threat without a full resumption of conflict," she said.

A ceasefire with no clear enforcement

The latest Israel-Hezbollah conflict began the day after the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas-led attack on Israel triggered the war in Gaza. The Iran-backed Hezbollah, largely based in southern Lebanon, began firing rockets into Israel in support of Hamas and the Palestinians.

Israel responded with airstrikes and shelling. The low-level conflict escalated into full-scale war in September 2024.

The ceasefire on Nov. 27, 2024, required Lebanon to stop armed groups from attacking Israel and Israel to halt "offensive" military actions in Lebanon. It said Israel and Lebanon can act in "self-defense," without elaborating.

Both sides can report alleged violations to a monitoring committee of the US, France, Israel, Lebanon and the UN peacekeeping force known as UNIFIL, but the deal is vague on enforcement.

In practice, Israel has largely taken enforcement into its own hands, asserting that its strikes in Lebanon target Hezbollah members, facilities and weapons.

Israel says it aims to stop the badly weakened group from rebuilding. Lebanese officials say the attacks obstruct its efforts to get Hezbollah to disarm by giving the group a pretext to hold onto its weapons.

Lebanon also says Israel's strikes, including the Oct. 11 one, often harm civilians and destroy infrastructure unrelated to Hezbollah.

Lebanon’s health ministry has reported more than 270 people killed and around 850 wounded by Israeli military actions since the ceasefire. As of Oct. 9, the UN human rights office had verified that 107 of those killed were civilians or noncombatants, said spokesperson Thameen Al-Kheetan.

No Israelis have been killed by fire from Lebanon since the ceasefire.

From Nov. 27, 2024, to mid-October, UNIFIL detected around 950 projectiles fired from Israel into Lebanon and 100 Israeli airstrikes, spokesperson Kandice Ardiel said. During the same period, it reported 21 projectiles fired from Lebanon toward Israel. Hezbollah has claimed one attack since the ceasefire.

Conflicting narratives

After the Oct. 11 strikes in Msayleh, Israel's army said it hit "engineering equipment intended for the reconstruction of terrorist infrastructure in southern Lebanon."

Lebanese authorities, Hezbollah and the equipment’s owner disputed that.

"Everyone in Lebanon, from all different sects, comes to buy from us," owner Ahmad Tabaja told journalists. "What have we done wrong?"

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun called the strikes "blatant aggression against civilian facilities." Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri accused Israel of seeking to prevent communities' reconstruction. Lebanon complained to the UN Security Council.

A few days later, Israel struck a cement factory and a quarry, claiming Hezbollah planned to use it to rebuild its infrastructure.

Last month, an Israeli strike hit a motorcycle and a car carrying a family in Bint Jbeil. It killed Shadi Charara, a car salesman, three of his children — including 18-month-old twins — and the motorcyclist, and badly wounded Charara’s wife and oldest daughter. It was among the highest death tolls since the ceasefire, sparking particular outrage because of the children.

"My brother was a civilian and his children and wife are civilians, and they have nothing to do with politics," said sister Amina Charara.

Israel’s military said it was targeting a Hezbollah militant, whom it did not name, but acknowledged that civilians were killed.

Even when the target is a known Hezbollah member, the military necessity can be disputed.

Earlier this month, an Israeli drone strike killed a Hezbollah member who was blinded last year in Israel’s exploding pagers attack, along with his wife. Israel's army said Hassan Atwi was a key official in Hezbollah’s Aerial Defense Unit. Hezbollah officials said he had played no military role since losing his eyesight.

The end of ‘mutual deterrence’

Hezbollah was formed in 1982, with Iranian backing, to fight Israel’s occupation of southern Lebanon at the time. Israeli forces withdrew in 2000, and Hezbollah grew into one of the region's most powerful non-state armed groups.

In 2006, Hezbollah and Israel fought a month-long war that ended in a draw. For the next 17 years, "there was a tense calm ... that was largely due to mutual deterrence," said Nicholas Blanford, a senior fellow with the Atlantic Council’s Middle East program.

Strikes in Lebanon were generally understood to be off limits. Both sides wanted to avoid another damaging war. Now that equation has changed.

Though Blanford said Hezbollah could still deliver blows to Israel, the group's "deterrence has been shattered by the recent war," he said.

In an interview with The Associated Press last month, Hezbollah political official Mohammad Fneish said the prospect of coexisting with daily Israeli attacks is "not acceptable."

But the group has largely limited itself to calling on Lebanon's government to pressure Israel with what Fneish called "its political, diplomatic or other capabilities."

He added: "If things develop further, then the resistance leadership is studying matters, and all options are open."

Yacoubian, the analyst, said she didn't see the situation in Lebanon changing any time soon, "barring a breakthrough in behind-the-scenes negotiations brokered by the US."

With the Gaza ceasefire, she said, the difference could be the "significant role" of fellow mediators Qatar, Egypt and Türkiye.