Civilians walk through city ruins in Syria, October 8, 2017. /Getty
Editor's note: Bradley Blankenship is a Prague-based American journalist, political analyst and freelance reporter. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.
After a decade of war, Syria, now a deeply wounded country, is still under significant pressure. What began as protests that were part of the larger Arab Spring devolved into armed conflict and finally to what it is now, a proxy for various competing regional and international interests.
But it is no longer the war itself that is squeezing Syria, rather financial pressures stemming from U.S. sanctions. Where Washington failed to oust Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from direct military intervention, they are now seeking to oust him through economic strangulation that is drawing the country in poverty.
To be sure, the United States did not cause the crisis in Syria; however, it is impossible to deny that various American agencies have long been fielding destabilizing forces in the country – even now.
It was, after all, the U.S. that was behind the fall of Syria's democratic government in 1949 and, as was revealed in diplomatic cables published by WikiLeaks, the Department of State was assessing the possibility of intervention several years before the war.
The administration of former President Barack Obama, who was president when the Syrian conflict erupted, however, struggled to actively shape events and was left to simply react. After the international and domestic political fallout from the Iraq War, an invasion of Syria would have been untenable.
In order for there to be a pretext to intervene, Syria would have to cross a line where "someone" would have to do "something," i.e. a justification for the kind of humanitarian war that Obama had noted in his Nobel Peace Prize speech.
This nearly happened in 2013 when the Syrian government allegedly used chemical weapons in an attack against opposition forces in Ghouta; however, it was averted thanks to a U.S.-Russian deal that saw Syria hand over its chemical weapon stockpile days after the U.S. filed a resolution for military intervention.
The administration was also reluctant to go a more clandestine route by enthusiastically supporting the so-called "moderate" armed opposition because they knew it was infiltrated by radical elements.
Current U.S. President Joe Biden, who was serving as vice president at the time, actually admitted this in 2014 when he made a "gaffe" admitting that several regional American allies had been so fervent about removing Assad from power that they gave supplies to anyone, including al-Qaeda in Iraq and Syria, which eventually split into ISIL.
A U.S. military vehicle is seen passing through the Tal Tamr area in the countryside of Hasakah Province in northeastern Syria, November 14, 2019. /Xinhua
Finally in 2015 when Syria was on the verge of collapsing to ISIL, Russia intervened in force. This effectively shut the U.S. out of any hopes of regime change in Syria, turned the tide of the war in favor of the Syrian government and pretty much spelled the end of American adventurism in the Middle East.
Even so, the U.S. is having trouble accepting this reality. In his first known military act as president, Biden signed off on airstrikes near the Syrian-Iraqi border against Iranian militias. His justification was that these forces attacked U.S. troops, who are there in breach of international law to begin with since they were never approved by the Syrian government.
With this, Biden established his "red line" for military force: If U.S. troops are under threat, even if they're somewhere they have no right to be, the U.S. will respond in kind. This obviously sets an extremely dangerous precedent.
More importantly, as it relates to Syria, the U.S. is continuing the brutal sanctions that former President Donald Trump signed into law under the so-called Caesar Act. These sanctions are obviously being felt by Syria's elite, but are also altering the social class structure so much that middle-class Syrians are sinking into deep poverty.
Because they are through executive action, Biden could not reverse the sanctions immediately; however, it shows the bipartisan consensus in Washington that the president is essentially bound to. This line of thinking, unfortunately, does nothing to promote peace, democracy or human rights, but only entrenches conflict.
On the other hand, there are certainly things that Biden could do. His team could, for example, unblock a meaningful agreement between the Syrian government and Syrian Democratic Forces, give back Syria's oil wells and wheat fields and pull U.S. political capital back from blocking normalization efforts, such as Syria's return to the Arab League.
The fact that these steps are not being taken and Syria is being forced to rebuild with so many unnecessary hurdles, and during an unprecedented global health emergency, shows that the Biden administration is hoping to keep the country in a sort of limbo until a total economic collapse ensues. It's hard to see where the concept of human rights fits into this equation.
(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com.)