New US approach to Syria a welcome sight to many in region

The Trump administration has promised to do what needs to be done to reclaim America’s role in the global arena, regain allies’ trust and hold accountable state actors threatening American interests.

Recent statements by Nikki Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, signal a major shift in America’s Middle East policy, a new approach reinforced by the U.S. airstrikes against Assad’s air base. However, this shift needs to be followed by specific policy actions.

During the Obama administration, the premise was that America only made things worse wherever it intervened. Intending to do no harm, the U.S. therefore took a step back from the international arena. The result of this disengagement, however, was chaos; the newly created power vacuum was quickly filled by bad actors. 

{mosads}The crisis in Syria is the most catastrophic consequence of the disengagement policy. President Obama stepped back and did not act upon his vow to punish Assad for using chemical weapons against civilians.

His decision was viewed by Iran, Hezbollah and Russia as reassurance that they would get away with escalating their interventions. In fact, Iran extended its destabilizing influence to the entire Middle East.  

When the people of Aleppo were suffering from the brutalities of the Iranian forces and their proxies, Samantha Power, then U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., responded by asking Assad, Russia, and Iran: “Are you truly incapable of shame?” The answer, presumably, is yes. In any case, her statement persuaded none of these bad actors to act differently.  

In contrast, the Trump administration’s response to another atrocious chemical attack was swift, proportional and decisive. Ambassador Haley followed up with a warning that America is prepared to do more, if it becomes necessary.

In this context, the Trump administration’s promise to regain America’s traditional role as a superpower is off to a strong start. It has been met with optimism by regional partners, who hope that by supporting friends and allies and deterring enemies and adversaries in the most urgent conflict zones, the new U.S. approach will promote peace and stability. 

The clearest statement of the Trump administration’s vision was outlined by Nikki Haley a few weeks ago: “Syria can no longer be a safe haven for terrorists, we’ve got to make sure we get Iran and their proxies out…”

She emphasized America’s support for a political solution based on the Geneva talks, i.e., a two-pronged approach: removing ISIS along with Iran and its proxies. 

Ousting Assad and fighting ISIS as the cornerstone of a comprehensive policy in Syria is what America’s allies have been asking for. Recent events support the conclusion that the U.S. is moving in that direction. 

Speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations, Ambassador Haley said, “The United States is the moral conscience of the world. We will not walk away from this role.” She added, “For me, human rights are at the heart of the mission of the United Nations… Human rights abuses are not the byproduct of conflict — they are the cause of conflict.”  

The Trump administration’s response to Assad’s use of chemical weapons can best be understood as a shift in America’s approach to the significance of human rights abuses.

In contrast to the disengagement policy of the past, this new approach promises to support those who share American values and to hold bad actors accountable for violating international norms. As Ambassador Haley emphasized, human rights are not just a matter of morality, but also of peace and security. 

Actions need to be taken to translate these words into policies. Political transition in Syria will not happen as long as the presence of Iran and its proxies is tolerated. America should make that clear to Russia.

In addition, the Assad regime’s heinous record of human rights violations needs to be addressed by the international community as an essential part of creating stability and peace. Finally, countering Iran’s human rights abuses at home should legitimately be part of United States’ Iran policy. 

A U.S. policy of re-engagement in areas of strife and conflict, if the intention is to protect civilians’ rights and the goal to promote peace and stability, is in America’s national interest. For over 50 years, it has also been the American promise.

Shahram Ahmadi Nasab Emran, M.D., M.A., Ph.D. (c), teaches at Albert Gnaegi Center for Health Care Ethics at Saint Louis University. He has participated in international policy forums, including the Policy Studies Organization’s 2016 Middle East Dialogue, and has written for multiple Iranian news outlets. 

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.