OPINION:
Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa shot hoops with U.S. military commanders during his recent Washington visit, but where he really scored big was with Congress. It now looks certain that in the next few days, the House will follow the Senate and pass a version of the National Defense Authorization Act that repeals the Caesar Act, a 2019 law barring international business with Syria, and the most powerful remaining sanctions on the country. Proponents seek to stoke Syria’s economy and stabilize its politics.
We hope the effort succeeds, but the rush to repeal Caesar is ignoring a more dangerous threat to stability: Mr. al-Sharaa’s centralizing governance approach, which has dangerously alienated Syria’s most significant minorities.
A permanent repeal of Caesar has been Mr. al-Sharaa’s highest priority since he conquered Damascus last December. It’s why he has proved so responsive to U.S. demands to push Iran out of Syria, negotiate security arrangements with Israel and fight Islamic State group terrorism.
The question is whether it makes sense to surrender Washington’s most powerful lever to shape Mr. al-Sharaa’s behavior when his approach to Syria’s ethnic and religious communities (at least a quarter of the population) remains deeply problematic. Mr. al-Sharaa has concentrated near-dictatorial powers in his hands, imposed an interim constitution that ignored meaningful minority protections, and incorporated foreign jihadis into his military.
Most alarming, Mr. al-Sharaa’s forces were implicated earlier this year in two massacres against Syria’s Alawite and Druze religious sects, leaving more than 2,000 dead. Today, his regime remains in a standoff with the Kurds of northeastern Syria, America’s essential allies in fighting the Islamic State group for the past decade. Mr. al-Sharaa has demanded that the Kurds largely dismantle the political and security structures established during Syria’s civil war to protect their historically beleaguered community.
The risks of a full-scale war that would mark the death knell of a unified Syria are considerable.
With the stakes so high, we have argued that the United States should keep Caesar in place and wield the possibility of repeal to incentivize Mr. al-Sharaa to compromise his hard-line vision and accommodate the legitimate needs of Syria’s minorities.
We agree with the advocates of repeal that economic growth is urgent to Syria’s recovery. That’s why we supported the major sanctions relief that President Trump has already granted Syria through an executive order and regular six-month waivers of Caesar’s penalties.
Certainly, the risk that Caesar sanctions might return dampens enthusiasm for long-term investments, but we disagree that it poses an insurmountable obstacle to meaningful improvement in the lives of average Syrians — especially when juxtaposed against the misery and deprivation of 14 years of civil war.
Even without repeal, electricity production — a key indicator of quality of life — has dramatically increased since liberation. Local crowdfunding campaigns across Syria made history by raising an estimated $500 million for reconstruction. Gulf states have pledged billions more, with hundreds of millions already spent to pay government salaries, import natural gas and modernize ports. The World Bank has provided Syria with an initial $146 million grant for infrastructure projects. More than 1 million Syrian refugees have returned over the past year, injecting their savings into the economy.
The Trump administration could do even more to greenlight large-scale international investment. It could aggressively use its substantial authorities — both in terms of the Treasury Department’s licensing power and government-to-government agreements — to insulate from future sanctions reconstruction efforts undertaken by trusted partner nations and companies. If Mr. Trump wants Saudi Arabia and U.S. energy companies to invest billions of dollars into Syria’s economy, those transactions can be de-risked without Caesar repeal.
That said, lifting Caesar now seems inevitable. A handful of House Republicans who sought to hold the line pending further Syrian performance on key concerns, including minority protections, have all relented under sustained pressure from the administration. In the NDAA vote this week, the House is nearly certain to join the Senate and repeal Caesar.
It’s a risky bet that preemptively ceding bargaining power will better advance U.S. interests than purposefully wielding it, especially when dealing with onetime jihadis whose reign has already been marred by mass slaughter. Economic stagnation is no doubt dangerous to Syria’s future, but the surest route to Syria’s demise remains Mr. al-Sharaa’s failure to convince major parts of his own population that his regime doesn’t pose a mortal threat to their existence.
• John Hannah, a national security adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney, is the Wax senior fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, where Rena Gabber is a research associate. They are co-authors of “Course Correction: Getting America’s Syria Strategy Right.”
Please read our comment policy before commenting.