The Syrian Quagmire

The recent escalations by jihadist groups in Syria constitute unforeseen complications to the diplomatic strategies of the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and the United States aimed at coaxing President Bashar al-Assad away from Iran’s orbit. The potential exchange of sanctions relief for a strategic reorientation by Assad has been a point of discussion between the four countries for some time, but the current dynamics in Syria have cast a shadow over these ambitions.

The Syrian conflict, now entering its 13th year, has long been a proxy battleground for regional and global powers. Iran’s support for Assad has been crucial, not only for maintaining his regime but also in expanding Iranian influence at the expense of Sunni-majority states and their allies. In Assad’s precarious position, the UAE and Saudi Arabia have seen an opportunity to redraw the regional power map by offering economic incentives in exchange for his distance from Tehran.

However, the recent major assault by Turkish-backed jihadist groups on the cities of Aleppo and Hama and the Israeli military’s continued strikes against Iranian assets in Syria have disrupted this calculation. The situation is further complicated by the major blow Israel served to Hezbollah in the last months, inadvertently exposing the fragility of Assad’s position without the full backing of its Iranian shield.

The UAE, known for its pragmatic foreign policy, has been at the forefront of attempts to normalize relations with Assad, driven by both economic interests and a desire to counterbalance Iranian influence. The Emirati strategy has been twofold: economic investment in Syria’s reconstruction and diplomatic engagement to pull Damascus from Tehran’s embrace. Yet, the timing could not have been worse. The escalation in Syria not only risks increasing Assad’s dependence on Iran for military support, assuming that Iran still can provide it but also provides him with a rationale to resist external pressures for change in his foreign alignment.

Saudi Arabia, traditionally more reserved in its public outreach toward Assad due to historical support for the Syrian opposition, has also navigated this terrain with caution. The Kingdom’s nuanced approach reflects a broader shift in its foreign policy, moving from outright confrontation to a more diplomatic engagement with former adversaries, aiming to contain Iran’s regional influence without directly challenging its military prowess in Syria. However, the current chaos has put potential Saudi investments and diplomatic efforts on hold as stability rather than strategic shifts become the immediate priority.

For the US, the situation presents a complex dilemma. The Caesar Act, the sweeping set of sanctions against Syria, was designed not only to punish Assad for human rights abuses but also to leverage a political solution by isolating him economically. The prospect of lifting these sanctions in exchange for Assad’s alignment shift was always controversial, balancing between economic warfare and the practicalities of Syrian reconstruction.

The prospect of lifting the sanctions was always so painful for the Americans that the Emiratis asked for them just to be left to expire. The recent escalation has made the American strategy even less viable. The US must now weigh the impact of prolonged sanctions against the strategic goal of diminishing the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah axis, all while managing its relations with Gulf allies who are increasingly independent in their foreign policy pursuits.

The challenge for these nations lies in the balance of exerting influence without pushing Assad further into Iran’s arms. The Syrian leader, aware of his limited options, might leverage the current chaos to extract concessions from both sides. This round of conflict serves as a stark reminder that in the Middle East, the landscape can shift dramatically overnight, often rendering long-term strategies obsolete.

Moreover, the strategic calculus is not just about Syria. It involves broader dynamics of the US-Iran rivalry, the Saudi-Iranian détente, and the UAE’s ambition to be a key mediator in regional politics. The Syrian conflict, therefore, isn’t merely a local issue but a microcosm of the major power plays and ideological battles.

As the chaos proceeds, the path forward requires a strategy for Syria and a comprehensive reevaluation of how regional stability can be achieved. The escalation has underscored that any approach must consider the volatile nature of regional power balance, where military might, economic incentives, and diplomatic finesse must all be played with precision.