After decades of sanctions, isolation, and mutual hostility, Washington and Damascus have found themselves drawn toward an unlikely pragmatic alignment — not through grand ceremony, but through the quiet gravity of shared security concerns. Syria's new leadership, focused on consolidating a functioning state and containing armed groups, has discovered that its immediate priorities overlap with American strategic interests in ways the Assad era never permitted. A former State Department advisor, speaking to Al Jazeera, called the shift 'surreal' — a word that captures how history can move faste
Former US official says improved Syria ties 'make sense' amid shared interests
Both sides now share concrete interests that override historical animosity
Mark
When you say 'surreal,' what exactly do you mean? Is it the speed of the shift, or something deeper?
Mimi
It's both. We spent so long viewing Syria as an adversary—sanctions, isolation, the whole apparatus of opposition. Now we're talking to them about shared security concerns. The intellectual case for it is clear, but emotionally it's disorienting.
Mark
So the new Syrian leadership is genuinely interested in stability? That's not just diplomatic theater?
Mimi
They have to be. A state that can't control its territory, that becomes a haven for armed groups—that's a failed state. They want to consolidate power and rebuild. That happens to align with what we want: no ungoverned spaces, no sanctuaries for extremists.
Mark
Does this mean the US is abandoning its concerns about how Syria's government treats its own people?
Mimi
Not abandoning them, but deprioritizing them. Realpolitik says you work with the interests you have in common first. Whether that's sustainable long-term is the real question.
Mark
What could break this alignment?
Mimi
A lot. If Iran expands its influence in Syria, if the new government can't actually contain armed groups, if there's a shift in who's in power in Washington or Damascus. Right now it works because both sides need something from each other. That can change.
O Pulso
- A diplomatic relationship once defined by sanctions and civil war atrocities has reversed so quickly that veteran officials struggle to reconcile the logic with the lived memory.
- Both Washington and Damascus now face a common threat landscape — jihadist networks, destabilizing militias, and the risk of state collapse — that makes cooperation feel not just possible but necessary.
- No formal reconciliation was announced; instead, quiet convergence on counterterrorism and regional stability has created a working relationship where none seemed conceivable just years ago.
- The normalization reflects a broader American shift away from confrontational nation-building toward selective engagement with power structures that share baseline security objectives.
- Beneath the pragmatic surface, unresolved tensions over governance, human rights, and Syria's ties to Iran and Russia keep the relationship fragile and contingent on sustained political will from both sides.
After decades of sanctions, isolation, and mutual hostility, Washington and Damascus have found themselves drawn toward an unlikely pragmatic alignment — not through grand ceremony, but through the quiet gravity of shared security concerns. Syria's new leadership, focused on consolidating a functioning state and containing armed groups, has discovered that its immediate priorities overlap with American strategic interests in ways the Assad era never permitted. A former State Department advisor, speaking to Al Jazeera, called the shift 'surreal' — a word that captures how history can move faster than the human capacity to absorb it. The opening is real, but its depth and durability remain the defining questions of this fragile new chapter.
The relationship between Washington and Damascus has shifted so dramatically that even seasoned diplomats find it difficult to process. A former State Department advisor on Syrian affairs, speaking with Al Jazeera, reached for the word 'surreal' to describe what improved US-Syria ties feel like to those who spent years navigating the old hostilities — and the word carries real weight.
For decades, the two countries existed in a state of deep freeze. The Assad regime's brutality, its alliances with Iran and Russia, and its support for groups hostile to American interests made any warming seem impossible. But Syria's government has changed hands, and with it, the strategic calculus has begun to shift. The new Damascus leadership is focused on rebuilding a functioning state and preventing the country from becoming a haven for armed groups — goals that do not inherently conflict with American security priorities.
The former official described the logic as straightforward: when both sides share concrete concerns about regional stability and the proliferation of non-state armed actors, diplomacy becomes not just possible but rational. There was no grand bargain, no formal ceremony — only a quiet recognition that immediate shared interests create space for cooperation.
This also reflects a broader American recalibration in the Middle East. After years of intervention with mixed results, Washington has shown a growing willingness to work with existing power structures when those structures align on core security objectives. Syria's new government, whatever its other characteristics, appears willing to cooperate on counterterrorism — the issue that matters most to American policymakers right now.
Yet the pragmatism does not erase the strangeness. Those who documented atrocities, advocated for sanctions, or watched the civil war unfold now inhabit a world where the United States is quietly normalizing relations with Damascus. The alignment of interests is real, but it is also narrow — broader questions about governance, human rights, and Syria's relationships with Iran and Russia remain unresolved, leaving this diplomatic opening as fragile as it is historically remarkable.
The relationship between Washington and Damascus has shifted so dramatically that even those who spent years navigating the old tensions find it difficult to process. A former advisor to the State Department on Syrian affairs sat down with Al Jazeera's 'This is America' program to discuss what he called the surreal nature of improved ties between the United States and Syria's new leadership.
For decades, US-Syria relations existed in a state of deep freeze. Sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and fundamental disagreements over regional power and human rights created a chasm that seemed unbridgeable. The Assad regime's brutality during the civil war, its alliance with Iran and Russia, and its support for armed groups hostile to American interests made any warming of ties seem impossible. Yet something has shifted. Syria's government has changed hands, and with it, the calculus of what each side wants from the region has begun to align in unexpected ways.
The former official explained that the logic behind this diplomatic opening is straightforward: both Washington and Damascus now share concrete interests that override the historical animosity. Regional stability matters to both capitals. The proliferation of armed groups—whether jihadist organizations, Kurdish militias, or other non-state actors—threatens Syria's ability to consolidate control and threatens American security interests across the Middle East. When those priorities overlap, diplomacy becomes possible, even rational.
What makes this moment feel surreal to those who lived through the worst of the US-Syria conflict is the speed and the completeness of the reversal. There was no grand bargain announced, no formal reconciliation ceremony. Instead, the two sides have begun to recognize that their immediate concerns—preventing state collapse, containing extremism, maintaining regional balance—create space for cooperation. The new Syrian leadership appears focused on rebuilding a functioning state and preventing the country from becoming a haven for armed groups that could destabilize the broader region. Those goals do not inherently conflict with American security strategy.
The warming of relations also reflects a broader recalibration of American priorities in the Middle East. After years of military intervention and nation-building efforts that produced mixed results, there is a recognition in Washington that sometimes the most effective approach is to work with existing power structures rather than against them, provided those structures share basic security objectives. Syria's new government, whatever its other characteristics, appears willing to cooperate on counterterrorism and regional stability—the two issues that matter most to American policymakers at this moment.
Yet the former official's use of the word 'surreal' carries weight. It suggests that while the logic of improved relations is sound, the emotional and historical reality of the shift remains jarring. Those who watched the Syrian civil war unfold, who documented atrocities, who advocated for intervention or sanctions, now find themselves in a world where the United States is quietly normalizing relations with Damascus. The pragmatism makes sense. The reality of it still feels strange.
What remains to be seen is whether this alignment of interests will prove durable. Shared concerns about armed groups and regional stability are real, but they are also narrow. Broader questions about governance, human rights, and Syria's relationship with Iran and Russia remain unresolved. The diplomatic opening is real, but it is also fragile—dependent on continued alignment of immediate security interests and on both sides maintaining the political will to move past years of hostility.
Citações Notáveis
The improved relationship between Washington and Damascus makes sense given overlapping priorities in regional stability and counterterrorism— Former US State Department advisor on Syria
Quer a matéria completa?
Leia o original em Al Jazeera ↗
War & Conflict