BEIRUT // Donald Trump enters the White House on Friday with few specifics of his foreign policy made public in the more than two months since he was elected.
But one area where his plans might soon be revealed is Syria.
With US forces active in combat against ISIL in the country, and an invitation to the new US administration to attend international talks on Monday to end the civil war, Syria could emerge as the first major foreign policy challenge for the Trump administration.
On the campaign trail and immediately after winning the November election, Mr Trump appeared starkly at odds with Barack Obama’s Syria policy. Mr Trump consistently said that the US should not be involved in the war between Syrian government and opposition forces and should limit its focus instead to defeating ISIL in the country.
He portrayed Syria's rebels, some of whom received US arms and training under Mr Obama's administration, as potential extremists who could not be trusted. He said Russia, an ally of president Bashar Al Assad's government, was "killing ISIL", although it had mostly targeted rebel forces. Rather than an adversary in Syria, he portrayed Russia as a potential ally. In the days after his election, Mr Trump told The Wall Street Journal that his ideas on Syria were "the opposite view of many people".
But as his inauguration approached, Mr Trump began to back-pedal.
As explosive but unsubstantiated allegations emerged of Russian attempts to manipulate him, Mr Trump publicly took a harsher line on Moscow and for the first time explicitly condemned its role in Syria.
"I think it's a rough thing. It's a very bad thing," he told The Times of London in an interview this week.
Then, in an apparent condemnation of the same Syrian pro-government forces he had previously described as fighting terrorism, he said: “Aleppo was nasty. I mean when you see them shooting old ladies walking out of town – and they can’t even walk and they’re shooting ’em – it almost looks like they’re shooting ’em for sport … Aleppo has been such a terrible humanitarian situation.”
In the weeks after the election, Mr Trump repeatedly stated the US would establish “safe zones” in Syria where civilians could take refuge – provided that Arabian Gulf states paid for their expenses.
This assertion contradicted his earlier stance against intervention, as any safe zone would require some level of US enforcement. How and where a safe zone would be established, who would be permitted entry and how it would be protected are questions still unanswered. Inevitably, America would be drawn further into the war, as any sort of no-fly zone over such areas would probably benefit Syrian rebel forces.
While the idea – and his condemnation of Russia – certainly indicate a development in Mr Trump’s thinking, they do not yet amount to a policy.
Other fundamental issues remain devoid of clarity. Will the US continue supporting Syrian rebel units? How will the US approach negotiations? Will it insist on the removal of Mr Al Assad as a condition for peace? What will happen to the US relationship with Syrian Kurdish forces?
After the increasingly tense relationship with Mr Obama, Turkey – an important ally – has welcomed Mr Trump’s presidency. But Ankara has also made it clear that it expects the new president to end US support for Syrian-Kurdish YPG forces – Washington’s best ally on the ground against ISIL in Syria, but a terrorist organisation in Ankara’s eyes.
There has been no indication from Mr Trump or his cabinet nominees that he will end support for the YPG. On the campaign trail, Mr Trump described himself as “a big fan of the Kurds” and acknowledged their role in the fight against ISIL. He has also shown awareness of Turkey’s sensitivity regarding the YPG, but said he believes he has the ability to bring them both together.
Rex Tillerson, Mr Trump’s choice for secretary of state, said at his confirmation hearing that he believed the US should continue supporting Kurdish forces in Syria but also called for closer ties with Turkey.
There is still no indication of whether the new administration will participate in the Syria talks in the Kazakh capital Astana. It is not clear who would lead a US delegation: Mr Tillerson is still undergoing senate confirmation hearings and his testimony so far has suggested that he is not up to speed on developments in Syria and has yet to discuss major foreign policy issues with Mr Trump. But whoever attends the talks must be clear about America’s intentions.
On the other hand, Lt Gen Michael Flynn, Mr Trump’s national security adviser, will be ready to work from day one as his post does not require senate confirmation – and he is the man through whom Moscow sent the invitation to Astana.
But it is unclear how Gen Flynn would handle Syria. He is seen as close to Moscow but is extremely hostile towards Iran, whose proxies such as Hizbollah are fighting on the same side as Russia in Syria. His comments in recent years suggest that he would be unsympathetic and unfriendly to Syria’s rebels, who he has said have been compromised by extremists.
There is also the question of how much the Trump administration actually cares about getting involved in the resolution of Syria’s conflict, and whether there is even space for them to do so.
Last year, the Obama administration saw itself sidelined diplomatically as Russia and Turkey worked to set aside their differences and increase their dominant roles in the conflict. The Astana talks were brokered by Ankara, Moscow and Tehran, with the US left out of the picture. Turkey, which began its involvement in Syria’s war as a vital US ally, is now participating in joint air operations with Russia, and rebels who once thought the US might save them have lost faith in Washington.
As it stands, it might be too late for the US to do anything meaningful in Syria.
jwood@thenational.ae