Washington has started to pursue a more pragmatic approach in its relations with the new Syrian government headed by Ahmad al-Sharaa, who assumed power in December 2024 following the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad. This development marks a significant shift in U.S. policy toward Syria and reflects a strategic transformation in Washington’s approach to Damascus, as the United States seeks to re-evaluate its interests in light of the region’s evolving political and security dynamics.
The U.S. Special Envoy for Syria, Tom Barrack, affirmed Washington’s support for the new government, emphasizing the rejection of any attempt to create a “state within a state” or to adopt a federal system in Syria. He also stressed that the new Syrian government must shoulder its responsibilities, particularly given the country’s pressing security and humanitarian challenges.
However, some analysts note that the U.S. position remains ambiguous, oscillating between cautious endorsement of the new government’s direction and Washington’s close ties with Israel and certain regional actors, complicating the task of defining clear American priorities in Syria.
Within this context, the role of President Ahmad al-Sharaa stands out. He seeks to rebuild Syrian state institutions and strengthen relations with international and regional powers. He has underscored the importance of ending the era of mutual strikes between Syria and Israel and highlighted the need for security arrangements that would contribute to regional stability.
Nonetheless, recent U.S. actions, such as the partial lifting of sanctions, the Syrian foreign minister’s visit to Washington, and direct meetings between the American and Syrian presidents, suggest a desire to rebuild relations on new foundations. Yet significant challenges persist, including the question of formal recognition of the new Syrian government’s legitimacy and coordination with key regional and international powers involved in the Syrian file.
Read also: The Middle East After the Gaza War: A Region Without a Centre.
The American Discourse
Dr. Eyad al-Majali, a researcher in international and Iranian affairs, told +963 that Washington’s approach to the Syrian situation following the rise of interim President Ahmad al-Sharaa reflects a complex reality that cannot be easily deciphered. This is especially true given the political, humanitarian, and pragmatic tools the United States is attempting to employ to mobilize regional support for the transitional government led by al-Sharaa.
He added that American and regional media coverage aims to portray the Syrian scene as a potential turning point that could serve regional stability and the security of various Syrian components, while emphasizing the protection of minorities and the fight against extremism and terrorism as part of a new U.S. strategy.
Dr. a-Majali explained that the American discourse has evolved in line with this fundamental shift, yet it has not addressed the nature of Syria’s ideologized power structure. Instead, it has sought to tie the Syrian government to a series of constraints that consolidate U.S. strategic gains without genuine efforts to tackle the political, security, and social roots of Syria’s fragmentation.
He further noted that in its rhetoric toward al-Sharaa’s government, the United States has gone beyond political calculations, allowing Israel to impose a de facto reality in southern Syria and granting Turkey space to advance its political project in the north. Washington, he said, has secured political gains benefiting Tel Aviv by curbing Tehran’s influence and confining Moscow’s role in Syria to its military presence along the Mediterranean coast in Tartus.
Dr. al-Majali went on to say that American statements have been inconsistent and overlapping, resulting in no tangible change in Syria’s grim landscape. Even regarding the “Caesar Act” sanctions, their easing appeared hesitant, conditional, and driven by Washington’s shifting mood.
Russia, Iran, and the Shaping of Washington’s Position
Commenting on the impact of Iranian and Russian influence in shaping the U.S. position toward Damascus following the transfer of power, Dr. al-Majali described this stage as a pivotal moment in Syria’s political history. He noted that current indicators point to a clear decline in Russian influence and a noticeable retreat in Iran’s ability to shape Syria’s political geography.
He added that this reality has made Syria’s present stage one of its most ambiguous since Assad’s fall and al-Sharaa’s assumption of power. The escalating competition has become evident between Washington, which manages the pace of events, and Moscow, which seeks to preserve its influence, while Turkey and Israel, he said, race to control the levers of the Syrian scene.
Dr. al-Majali concluded that within this struggle, Washington is shaping its stance toward the Damascus government in a way that increases pressure on it, safeguarding American interests and ensuring that the United States remains a principal actor in Syria, particularly in the absence of a comprehensive Syrian reform initiative capable of restoring the state’s sovereignty and national security.
Washington’s Handling of Al-Shar’a’s Rise
Bashar Ali al-Hajj Ali, a former Syrian diplomat and researcher in political and international affairs based in Austria, told +963 that Washington’s handling of al-Sharaa’s ascent to power in Damascus stems from a perspective of opportunity testing rather than historical rupture. He added that the U.S. administration viewed the development as a chance to restructure its approach to Damascus following the decline of Iranian influence and the withdrawal of its units and advisers from Syrian territory.
He explained that the U.S. stance has been characterized by pragmatism and restraint, an acceptance of the new reality without full formal recognition, coupled with readiness to manage the emerging situation in ways that serve U.S. and Arab partners’ regional and security interests, while avoiding premature bets on the new leadership.
Regarding the nature of U.S. discourse toward the new Syrian government, al-Hajj Ali said it reflects “conditional cautious engagement.” He noted that the administration has kept communication channels open with the new government but has not yet granted it the status of a political partner.
He added that the U.S. position balances between encouraging gradual openness and protecting red lines related to political participation, human rights, and regional policy directions. Washington, he said, has adopted a strategy of “active monitoring,” offering flexible support that can expand or contract depending on Damascus’s political and field behavior.
Read also: Syria and Turkey: Between Cooperation and Rivalry
Managing and Conditioning American Influence
Commenting on the impact of Russian and Iranian influence in shaping Washington’s position after the transfer of power, a-Hajj Ali noted that external influence has been a decisive factor, but Iran’s withdrawal from the battlefield has significantly altered U.S. calculations. He added that the administration viewed this withdrawal as an opportunity to reduce regional friction and recalibrate power balances within Syria, without allowing a security or political vacuum that could benefit other powers such as Russia or Iran.
He explained that the current U.S. approach focuses on managing divergence with Russia rather than confronting it, while seeking to ensure a minimum degree of Syrian decision-making independence to prevent the re-emergence of any axis hostile to U.S. or Arab interests.
Regarding Washington’s review of its military presence in northeastern Syria, al-Hajj Ali pointed out that a strategic reassessment is indeed underway, though discussions remain within institutional channels and have not yet led to concrete executive decisions.
He added that the new approach seeks to transform the U.S. presence from a “combat deployment” model to a “flexible political and security posture,” maintaining influence without entanglement in prolonged conflict. This shift, he noted, reflects a growing conviction that U.S. influence can be exerted through diplomatic, economic, and carefully structured local partnerships rather than through heavy military presence.
On Washington’s conditions for lifting sanctions or resuming diplomatic relations with Damascus, the former diplomat said that sanctions relief has been partial and experimental, based on periodic assessments of political and institutional behavior in Damascus.
He added that core U.S. conditions remain unchanged: tangible progress in the UN-sponsored political process, respect for human rights commitments, and the alignment of regional policies with collective regional and international security requirements.
Al-Hajj Ali emphasized that the partial easing of sanctions is not a reward but a conditional incentive, subject to reversal if political progress stalls, if Iranian influence reemerges, or if institutional reforms falter.
Regarding Washington’s view of Syria’s new regional role after its leadership change, he said that the United States now sees post-December 2024 Syria as a potential element in rebuilding regional balance rather than as a direct threat. Iran’s withdrawal, he added, has created space for Damascus to reposition itself within its Arab and regional sphere, an orientation Washington seeks to encourage through a realistic approach that balances national independence with regional openness.
He concluded that the significance of the new Syria lies in its potential to play a stabilizing role, provided that its foreign policy is managed with sufficient balance to avoid a return to bloc politics or renewed polarization.
