Deeper Calculations Than Israel's... Why Did Trump Reject Keeping Sanctions on Syria?

Amid escalating regional interactions regarding the Syrian file, the debate over the US sanctions imposed on Damascus has returned to the forefront of political discussion, following reports that Israel requested the administration of US President Donald Trump to maintain these sanctions as a pressure tool in any potential negotiation process.

However, the US rejection of this request, coupled with an unannounced promise to compensate Israel, has opened the door to broader questions about the nature of the shift in the US approach toward Syria, the limits of this shift, and its actual objectives.

In this context, Samir Taqi, senior researcher at the Atlantic Council in Washington, offers an in-depth analytical reading of this position, considering that what is happening is not a temporary political maneuver but reflects a long-term strategic trend.

He also highlights the American pressures and Israeli demands of a sovereign nature, as well as the complexities surrounding the possibility of reaching security understandings, in a regional scene still open to varying possibilities.

A Long-Term American Shift

Samir Taqi sees the shift in US policy toward Syria as clear and systematic, reflecting a genuine will in Washington to give Damascus a chance to move forward.

He points out that the final signature of President Donald Trump makes the return of sanctions unlikely, which constitutes a decisive factor enabling Syria to embark on a recovery path.

However, according to Taqi, this path is not without complications, as efforts within Congress to reconsider pressure mechanisms accompany it, forcing the US administration to manage a delicate balance between its political decision and internal pressures.

Israeli Pressures and Sovereignty Risks

In contrast to easing sanctions, Taqi notes significant American pressures exerted on the Syrian administration to accept Israeli demands he describes as dangerous.

The danger of these demands, according to his analysis, lies in their direct impact on Syrian sovereignty, reaching the point of making Damascus strategically exposed.

He confirms that implementing a buffer zone or other Israeli conditions could turn the capital into a "strategically fallen" city, allowing Israel to intervene at any moment, whether through drones or various security pretexts, which weakens Syria's ability to defend its capital.

Internal Resistance and Limits of American Pressure

Taqi excludes the ability of American pressure to impose these conditions, considering that such concessions would face widespread Syrian rejection.

He believes the political climate is not prepared to move toward agreements of this kind, especially since Israeli demands go beyond security frameworks to something resembling long-term dominance over Syrian decision-making, which is difficult to pass internally.

Israeli Intervention and the Financial File

Taqi points out that Israel is not content with security demands but seeks to intervene in financial matters, money movements, and even the movements of individuals within Syrian territory.

He considers that this grants Israel the ability to intervene daily in Syrian internal affairs, similar to what happens in Lebanon, where various pretexts are used to justify bombing and assassination operations.

From this standpoint, Taqi doubts Israel's seriousness in committing to any agreement, even if reached.

Mount Hermon: A Strategic Knot

The Mount Hermon file occupies a prominent place in Taqi's analysis, describing it as a major conflict with no horizon for resolution in the current Israeli and military mood.

He rules out Israel's withdrawal from the mountain, favoring its resort to alternative solutions, such as maintaining listening and monitoring devices capable of observing the airspace up to Iran's borders and spying on Syrian communications, reflecting the site's importance in Israeli security calculations.

Syria as a Platform for the American Role

Taqi confirms during his talk that Washington seeks to make Syria a main platform for its role in the region, including the Eastern Mediterranean, Iraq, and balancing powers in the Middle East.

He points out that the United States, not Israel alone, exerts its influence through building military bases and restructuring its forces within the framework of "CENTCOM," which enhances this role.

Washington also places combating jihadist organizations at the core of its priorities, in addition to cutting off Iranian arms smuggling routes and preventing Syria from being used as a bridge to strengthen Hezbollah.

Betting on Internal Consensus

Taqi believes the easiest path for the Syrian government lies in reaching consensus with internal components, especially the Kurds and the people of Jabal al-Arab, rather than engaging in costly agreements with Israel.

He considers that strengthening national unity constitutes a fundamental pillar to confront Israeli ambitions.

He also notes the accelerating Turkish role and attempts to resolve the Kurdish Workers' Party issue, pointing to the ongoing competition among major powers on the Syrian arena, especially regarding the Jabal al-Arab file, where Israel continuously seeks pretexts to intervene, versus a less costly and more sustainable internal option for Syria.