The president of the Syrian Future Movement (SFM) attends a dialogue seminar organized by the Omran Center for Studies.

Last Friday, February 23, 2024, the Omran Center for Contemporary Studies held a dialogue seminar titled “American Policy Towards Syria, Gaza, and the Region,” in which Samir Taqi, a researcher at the Middle East Institute in Washington and an expert on American affairs, participated.
The seminar was moderated by Asma Saeb Afandi, the director of the Omran Cultural Forum, and was attended by the president of the Syrian Future Movement (SFM), Dr. Zaher Baadarani.

Dr. Taqi discussed the law against normalization with the Assad regime, its impact on the Syrian regime and its allies, and America’s policy towards the world, the region, and Syria. He analyzed America’s policy after October 7th, highlighting that the law against normalization covered everything related to the Assad regime’s shadow economy, which has shifted to an Iranian cover.
Taqi emphasized America’s tendency to pressure the Syrian regime and the beginning of the end of the American-Russian agreement to extend Russia’s influence over the region, starting with the war in Ukraine.
He considered the refusal to float the Syrian regime as a concluded matter for America. In response to a question about the impact of sanctions, Taqi mentioned that sanctions are a powerful tool, having previously brought down the Soviet Union.
He stated that sanctions serve a functional purpose for America, acting as pressure for negotiation and fulfilling its interests without military force.

He pointed to America’s interest in the radical change in the structure of social alliances in Syria, especially in Damascus, due to sanctions, indicating the impact of sanctions on the core structure of the Syrian regime’s alliances.
Dr. Taqi explained that the American administration is shifting leftward, focusing on human rights among other issues, preferring not to be on the ground and keeping the embers burning lightly until matters conclude in a way that does not harm its interests.
He mentioned that America has taken steps to dismantle globalization, citing Biden’s economic decisions, and emphasized America’s shift in focus from resources to controlling waterways, implying market control and the end of the unipolar era, with America focusing on itself and leaving the world alone except for matters affecting its national security.

Taqi considered that the Gaza war changed all balances before it, in terms of deals with Iran through Russia, where Washington, according to his viewpoint, recognized the existential threat to Israel and the failure of the mow the grass policy and managing disengagement in Lebanon.
He saw that Arab normalization with the Syrian regime did not succeed and would be further hindered due to American sanctions, leading to efforts for Turkish-Arab alliances, evident in Erdogan’s visit to Egypt.
Taqi viewed Turkey as the main pillar in the region and the alternative to the Russians in managing it, which would entail agreements in the east of the Euphrates due to the collapse of the Astana agreement.

Regarding Iranian presence, Dr. Taqi believed that Israel would no longer accept Iranian presence in Lebanon, seeing the Lebanese file on the table for resolution after the Gaza file, meaning the status quo in Syria would not remain, considering Syria as Iran’s backyard. Thus, he saw the Iranian positioning moving to a defensive phase today.

In response to the possibility of Turkey normalizing with the Syrian regime, Taqi downplayed the significance of diplomatic relations, considering them not influential on the strategic positions towards the Syrian regime, since control over the land is tied to international recognition. Therefore, Taqi did not see Turkey reaching a stage of real normalization with the Assad regime, but rather the necessity of new regional alliances imposing new ways of communication.

Taqi envisioned three Syrian scenarios: military rule, cantons that agree later, or a Syrian-Syrian consensus based on national reconciliation between the regime and the opposition, where he did not see transitional justice being realized, and thus leaned towards the option of national reconciliation.

In response to a question about the presence of American forces and the end of ISIS, Taqi rejected the idea of ISIS’s end, affirming that it would return in the future.

Dr. Zaher Baadarani, the president of the Syrian Future Movement, personally attended and held a contrary opinion to Dr. Samir Taqi regarding the issue that the Syrian regime would collapse if Iran’s influence in the Middle East and the region, especially in Syria and Lebanon, was curbed.
Dr. Baadarani believed that the coming phase would witness a strengthening of the global system for Bashar al-Assad’s authority and regime to truly control the situation in Syria (without the need for Iran and its support). If Damascus today claims to be too weak to maintain its security and stability of its institutions without Russian and Iranian presence, then this excuse would end if a policy of strengthening the Assad regime is adopted through rehabilitation, linking it to specific axes in its environment, and turning a blind eye to opening channels that benefit its economic, political, and even security support.