Hussein Omar
From the heart of Damascus, one of the most intricate political games in the contemporary Syrian landscape is being orchestrated. The focus, however, is not on Tehran or Moscow this time, but squarely on Washington. The interim Syrian government is seeking an “existential” deal that, if achieved, could overturn the balance of power and place the credibility of the U.S. administration under a relentless test.
The diplomacy of the interim Syrian government, backed by Turkey and the Gulf states, is centered on a dual objective: first, to obtain full political recognition that includes the removal of all sanctions imposed on Syria; and second, to persuade Washington to end its strategic alliance with the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in northern Syria, replacing them with its own affiliated armed factions under the title of the “Syrian Army” as Washington’s sole and legitimate partner.
This scenario does not merely reflect a shift in the balance of power; it represents a fundamental reconfiguration of U.S. alliances across the Middle East.
Field reports indicate that the “Damascus government” is now experiencing a fragile state of strategic paralysis, awaiting the outcome of interim president Ahmad al-Sharaa’s visit to Washington, scheduled by U.S. envoy Tom Barrack for November 10. As a result, negotiations with the SDF have been suspended, the Sweida file frozen, and the coastal regions left vulnerable to jihadist groups that are exploiting global silence and the absence of protection to carry out looting, kidnapping, and killing operations unchecked. No decisive decisions are being made, nor are any major military operations launched, pending the outcome of these critical Washington talks. In this equation, the United States is not a mere mediator but the holder of the key to “international legitimacy.”
The greater danger lies in linking this pursuit to broader regional interests. Reports suggest that the Washington deal could be sealed by signing, or pledging to sign, agreements before the end of the year, possibly in coordination with or under the sponsorship of Israel. If concluded, this unexpected alliance would not only grant the Damascus government the green light to act but would also transform Syrian geography into a stage for a programmed and all-out military escalation under the pretext of “counterterrorism.” The paradox, however, lies in Damascus’s radically altered and distorted definition of this term. “Terrorism” is no longer limited to ISIS or jihadist groups once affiliated with the so-called Syrian Army, but now encompasses key political and military opponents who reject absolute central control without constitutional guarantees safeguarding the rights of minorities and various sects. These groups are now officially labeled “terrorists,” with all state media targeting them.
The regions newly branded under this label include the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, Washington’s closest local ally and the primary rival over territory and resources, which eradicated the ISIS caliphate, liberated northern and eastern Euphrates, and established a stable civil governance system to serve citizens’ needs. They also include the popular movement areas in Suwayda, which broke free of Damascus’s control following massacres committed by jihadist factions against the Druze community, who defended themselves and formed a nucleus for local self-administration. Similarly, the coastal region, predominantly Alawite, still lives under the shadow of massacres committed during the early days of al-Sharaa’s rule in Damascus.
Meanwhile, references to “ISIS,” the “Muslim Brotherhood,” and “Jabhat al-Nusra” have conspicuously vanished from official rhetoric as designated terrorist entities under international classifications. This glaring contradiction underscores that the priorities are no longer ideological or security-driven but purely geopolitical, aimed at eliminating Damascus’s local rivals with an “American-sanctioned legitimacy.”
We are thus facing a profound moral and political dilemma. The test is not directed solely at the Damascus government but at the U.S. administration itself. Washington has long raised the banners of democracy, human rights, and countering extremism, yet this potential deal places those very slogans on the auction block.
Will Washington adhere to its principles and refuse to grant legitimacy to entities that are ideologically and practically indistinguishable from the groups it claims to combat? Or will narrow interests and the pursuit of swift regional deals lead it to overlook this fundamental contradiction?
The decision Washington makes in the coming period will have consequences that extend far beyond Syria. It will either reaffirm American principles or expose that the “war on terror” has become a negotiable commodity in the marketplace of global politics, even if the price is legitimizing extremist forces in the heart of an Arab capital. Such a move risks igniting yet another sweeping conflict in the region, one that could ultimately rebound against American interests themselves, just as history has shown in Afghanistan.
The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of +963 association.
