Afrasianet - Author: Noah Rothman - The American magazine "National Review" publishes an article discussing the ongoing debate within the US Trump administration over how to deal with the new Syrian government.

The text reviews the division of the US administration into two camps: a camp that supports communication and engagement with the new regime in Syria, and a camp opposed to communication with the new administration.

Below is the text of the article translated into Arabic by Edited:

For now, the Trump administration appears tentatively moving toward engagement. But London's Saudi-owned newspaper Al-Majalla reported that the administration's leaders are roughly divided into two camps on the issue. One prefers to be optimistic about the new government, while the other tends to stay out of the conflict in Damascus. 

"Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and Director of Counterterrorism Sebastian Gorka are members of this latter camp, which rejects any contact with the new Syrian administration," the magazine report said, while "in the other camp, there is US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the CIA."

Both factions have sufficient evidence to support their conclusions, and neither should be completely confident in its assessment of the emerging order. It is a thorny question that deserves attention, and it should be addressed.

Those belonging to the Gabbard/Gorkha camp are right to point out that the regime in Syria is, in theory, a terrorist project. The U.S. State Department and the United Nations have designated Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham, which contributed most to the collapse of Bashar al-Assad's regime late last year, as a foreign terrorist group. It is the successor to Jabhat al-Nusra, an al-Qaeda affiliate with a history of horrific atrocities and a declared desire to export terror to the West. 

Ten years before his inauguration as Syria's interim president, Ahmad al-Shara' (also known as Abu Muhammad al-Julani) called for replacing the Baathist regime in Damascus with Islamic law, and appeared hostile to the presence of ethnic and sectarian minorities in his country. But the new Syrian leader's reputation has undergone a radical transformation in recent years, even before the fall of the Assad regime. At least, that's the image he presents to the West of himself. 

Talk is costly, of course, and the new Syrian regime has existed long enough to judge it by its actions. When it comes to the Syria debate in Washington, both sides can back up their conclusions.

For those in the pro-engagement camp, there are indications that the HTS-led regime is better than its predecessor, and that courting it could advance U.S. interests in the region.

Last week, the HTS regime arrested two senior members of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a move that the New York Times noted coincided with Republican Congressman Cory Mills' visit to Sharia in Damascus. This may have been a show in favor of the West, but it is something Washington should welcome. After all, if Damascus is "keen to ease sanctions on the ousted Assad regime," it would be a welcome behavioral shift. Indeed, such political shifts Influential is what sanctions were created for.

In some ways, the regime seems ready to move forward with its policy. The new Syrian government is waging a diplomatic campaign aimed at attracting foreign direct investment from its Arab neighbors and Western interests. Syria's envoy to the United Nations said in January, "We need an inclusive transition leading to a new constitution, free and fair elections, in a Syrian-led and Syrian-owned political process that restores Syria's sovereignty and territorial integrity."

This comment is consistent with some of the regime's actions, including al-Shara's high-profile visit to a Christian cathedral in the central Syrian city of Aleppo (which was not the first time the new Syrian leader courted Christians). The interim president and his cabinet have issued welcoming statements indicating their openness to the era of equality with the country's minorities, the easing of religious restrictions on women, and the centrality of the rule of law following the ratification of a new constitution. 

Perhaps the new Syrian government is trying to deceive the West with a false sense of security to entrench its presence. Or perhaps the regime wants to deceive the West with a real sense of security. Time will tell, but those skeptical in Washington about the transformation of the Syrian government have reason to doubt Damascus' new commitment to Western values.

It may be an exaggeration to expect the post-revolutionary regime in the Middle East to avoid sectarian violence and revenge killings, but the new Syrian government has overseen events that can only be described as atrocities. 

The debate in Washington over whether to deal with or isolate a new Syria carries significant risks. The Levant is home to some of the most conflicted territories in human history. U.S. forces maintained a presence in oil-rich western Syria for a decade after the rise of  the Islamic State.

The strategic imperative to prevent Syria from becoming a vassal state of Iran and a network of military activities is as much an Israeli goal as it is an American goal. The United States does not want Syria to become an incubator for terrorist elements, but it cannot cede this geography to Russian or Chinese interests, which are struggling to establish or maintain their presence in Syria. 

For now, the Trump administration seems to be gradually leaning toward dialogue. 

In a statement issued by the Syrian government in recent weeks, the administration threatened to take a "tough stance" toward it if it did not crack down on extremists and take steps to verifyably secure Assad-era chemical weapons stockpiles. As the Wall Street Journal reported, the Trump administration's lack of objection to the continued presence of Russian naval vessels in Syrian ports does not indicate that it sees the possibility of replacing the influence of a U.S. adversary over Damascus. But the memo can be interpreted as an olive branch as long as Damascus is willing to meet Washington's demands. At least when it comes to arresting Palestinian terrorists, for example, it has done exactly that. 

Debate continues over whether Middle East envoy Steve Whitkoff is right that the Syrian leader is "a different person than he once was." Those who rely on dialogue hope to steer the new regime toward a Western orientation, which would undoubtedly represent an improvement over a regime that sided with Iran and sponsored terrorist attacks on the United States. 

Those who oppose this path believe it is an absurd endeavor. They fear that America will squander its influence and capital on a lost cause. The dominant faction could set the course of U.S. foreign policy in the region for decades.