Geostrategic experts analyze
If Kamala Harris ascends to the U.S. presidency, she will face a range of challenges in foreign policy, with the Syrian issue and the Turkish-Kurdish conflict among the most complex. These issues are marked by the interwoven interests of regional and international actors, making them highly intricate files that require nuanced handling. We can attempt to predict her stance by analyzing her past positions and statements as a senator and vice president, and by examining the general direction of the Democratic Party regarding these issues.
Assessing the U.S. Position on the Syrian Conflict under the Biden-Harris Administration
While Kamala Harris has not taken extensive public positions on specific U.S. policies in Syria during her tenure as vice president, the Democratic Party generally leans toward managing the Syrian file with a strategic approach focused on "conflict management" and seeking a political solution without direct intervention. This approach reflects a decentralized, non-direct form of involvement, aimed at minimizing military engagement and avoiding the exhaustion of U.S. resources in Middle Eastern conflicts. Nevertheless, the Biden administration has pursued a clear policy to maintain U.S. influence in Syria, especially in the northeast, where U.S. forces continue to support the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) as allies against ISIS, while balancing Russian and Iranian influence in the region.
If Harris were to assume the presidency, it is likely she would continue this approach, perhaps with a heightened focus on achieving U.S. goals without engaging in open-ended conflicts. This reflects the Democrats' emphasis on minimizing military interventions and achieving a diplomatic balance that serves U.S. interests without costly entanglements. Thus, she may lean towards bolstering political and diplomatic solutions with limited military support.
The Turkish-Kurdish Conflict: Balancing Strategic Alliances and Regional Interests
One of the critical challenges Kamala Harris could face within the Syrian file is the ongoing tension between Turkey, a NATO ally, and the Syrian Kurdish forces, whom Ankara considers an extension of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), designated as a terrorist organization. Although the U.S. has relied on the Kurdish YPG (People’s Protection Units) as a central partner in the fight against ISIS, Turkey views U.S. support for the Kurds as a direct threat to its national security. This complex situation presents a diplomatic dilemma between two important allies, and Harris will need to find a balanced approach that maintains U.S. relations with Turkey while addressing obligations to Kurdish allies in Syria.
As a Democrat, Harris may likely pursue policies that support diplomatic efforts to de-escalate tensions, attempting to maintain a minimum level of cooperation with Turkey, given its strategic role within NATO. Harris may apply pressure on Turkey to restrain its military operations in northern Syria, while providing security assurances to both sides. This policy would hinge on diplomatic efforts to allay Turkish concerns without fully abandoning the Kurds, as Harris recognizes the SDF as a necessary ally for preventing the resurgence of ISIS.
Domestic Pressures on Harris's Policy in the Syrian File
As a progressive Democrat, Kamala Harris faces pressures from her party’s base, which leans towards avoiding foreign wars and focusing on domestic issues like healthcare, education, and social justice. These pressures may influence her ability to allocate significant resources to the Syrian issue, potentially limiting the scope of direct American involvement on the ground. Consequently, Harris may adopt an approach that relies more on alliances and regional partnerships, directing U.S. resources to support reconstruction and humanitarian aid in areas controlled by allied forces, rather than direct engagement.
Humanitarian Policy and the Refugee Issue
The Democratic Party has long advocated for a strong commitment to humanitarian assistance and human rights, which may push Kamala Harris to increase humanitarian support for Syrians, both within the country and for refugees in neighboring countries. She may also adopt a more open policy towards accepting more Syrian refugees in the United States, aligning with the Democratic agenda, though this would require a delicate balance with security and political considerations at home.
Expanding Cooperation with European and Regional Allies
Another potential path for Harris is to strengthen relationships with European allies and regional countries to address the Syrian crisis, especially in areas related to reconstruction and containing the growing Iranian and Russian influence in Syria. European allies view stability in Syria as a strategic interest, and Harris may therefore support joint initiatives aimed at addressing challenges in Syria, such as facilitating negotiations with Russia, Turkey, and Iran to stabilize conflict-ridden areas.
The Limits of Harris's Options and the Influence of External Factors
Harris may face considerable challenges in her capacity to influence the Syrian file, especially given Russia’s and Iran’s significant presence in the region. Moscow plays a crucial role in supporting the Syrian regime, while Tehran has deep strategic interests in the area. Harris will likely aim to reduce tensions with Russia and Iran in Syria, while striving to uphold U.S. interests without escalation. At the same time, global developments, such as tensions with China, could impact the level of attention her administration can dedicate to this file.
Conclusion
In summary, if Kamala Harris were to assume the presidency, she would likely adopt a policy that emphasizes diplomacy and a cautious balance on the Syrian issue and the Turkish-Kurdish conflict, avoiding direct intervention. Her approach would likely revolve around supporting political solutions, providing humanitarian aid, and striving for a balance between U.S. relations with Turkey and supporting Kurdish forces. However, Harris’s options would remain constrained by domestic and external complexities, making it challenging to foresee any major shift in the U.S. stance on this intricate issue.
