jordan pulse -

Dr. Louay Bawaneh
Many complex and puzzling questions arise for those observing the rapid developments in the region, especially regarding Syria, whose stability has been fragile due to its proximity to Israel, and its evolving relationship with the United States through intermediaries. This relationship has shifted notably both politically and economically since the fall of the Bashar al-Assad regime and the entry of Ahmed Al-Shar’ (formerly Al-Joulani) into power, supported clearly by Turkey and possibly tacitly by the U.S., although the American approval was never publicly confirmed. Any new regime of this nature could not exist without U.S. acceptance, given its revolutionary and Islamic characteristics and its classification in American strategic assessments. U.S. caution stems primarily from concern for Israel’s security and political stability, as Israel’s safety remains a top U.S. priority. Reassurances to the new Syrian leadership, either openly or through regional intermediaries, paved the way for U.S. acceptance of the regime.
American–Syrian rapprochement should not be interpreted as goodwill on the U.S. side; it primarily serves U.S. interests, expanding influence in Syria and the region, repositioning forces to support its strategic plans, and advancing its vision of “peace” in the region, which largely translates to supporting Israel’s security. Leaked reports suggest plans to establish a U.S. base near Damascus to facilitate political and security arrangements between Israel and Syria after repeated Israeli incursions in Quneitra, Mount Hermon, and Daraa, and attempts to support certain Druze factions in As-Suwayda at the expense of broader Syrian unity.
The recent U.S. strikes on ISIS targets in Syria — in the Badia region, Homs, Raqqa, and Palmyra — as part of the “Eagle Eye” operation, cannot be separated from the broader U.S. presence and the forced rapprochement with Syria. These strikes also reflect U.S. efforts to increase influence while Russia is preoccupied with Ukraine and has reduced its regional presence.
While former President Trump stated the strikes were retaliation for the killing of three Americans in Palmyra, the operation appears exaggerated in scope and media portrayal, effectively serving as a probe of Syrian leadership’s willingness to cooperate in future engagements across various files. Syria, through statements by its Foreign Minister Al-Sheibani, signaled full readiness to cooperate without clearly defining its national interests, which some argue opens the door for expanded U.S. political, security, and military influence under the pretext of countering terrorism.
The U.S.–Syrian rapprochement reflects shared interests: the new Syrian regime seeks international recognition, particularly from the U.S., to gain legitimacy, political support, and relief from sanctions, including the Caesar Act imposed in 2019. For the U.S., presence in Syria has high strategic value, serving U.S. and Israeli interests, exerting pressure on Turkey and Iran, and acting as a safeguard in managing Israeli–Syrian relations, prioritizing Israel’s security over Syria’s national concerns and the welfare of its diverse communities, including the Druze.
The region now appears to be facing a new map and a new American-style “peace,” dominated by Israel and the U.S., amid weak Arab mediation and political stagnation. Israel’s delays in implementing the second phase of the Gaza ceasefire, led by the U.S. with Arab and Muslim intermediaries, illustrate the fragile balance. In Syria, repeated Israeli incursions into Daraa, Quneitra, and Suwayda, justified under security and anti-terrorism claims, aim to impose a new geopolitical and security reality benefiting Israel, sanctioned by the U.S. and tolerated by the Shar’ government. The U.S. stance remains ambiguous, refraining from condemning Israeli actions or its support for certain Druze factions. Ultimately, the main losers are Syria and its people, while Israel emerges as the primary beneficiary.
Jordanian academic / Al-Balqa Applied University