BEIRUT: A US envoy doubled down on Washington’s support for the new government in Syria, saying Monday there is “no Plan B” to working with the current authorities to unite the country still reeling from a nearly 14-year civil war and now wracked by a new outbreak of sectarian violence.
He took a critical tone toward Israel’s recent intervention in Syria, calling it poorly timed and saying that it complicated efforts to stabilize the region.
Tom Barrack, who is ambassador to Turkiye and special envoy to Syria and also has a short-term mandate in Lebanon, made the comments in an exclusive interview with The Associated Press during a visit to Beirut. He spoke following more than a week of clashes in the southern province of Sweida between militias of the Druze religious minority and local Sunni Muslim Bedouin tribes.
Syrian government forces intervened before withdrawing under a ceasefire agreement with Druze factions. Hundreds have been killed in the fighting.
In the meantime, Israel intervened last week on behalf of the Druze, who are seen as a loyal minority within Israel and often serve in its military. Israel launched dozens of strikes on convoys of government forces in Sweida and also struck the Syrian Ministry of Defense headquarters in central Damascus.
Over the weekend, Barrack announced a ceasefire between Syria and Israel, without giving details. Syrian government forces have redeployed in Sweida to halt renewed clashes between the Druze and Bedouins, and civilians from both sides were set to be evacuated Monday.
US envoy says Israeli intervention ‘came at a very bad time’
Barrack told the AP that “the killing, the revenge, the massacres on both sides” are “intolerable,” but that “the current government of Syria, in my opinion, has conducted themselves as best they can as a nascent government with very few resources to address the multiplicity of issues that arise in trying to bring a diverse society together.”
Regarding Israel’s strikes on Syria, Barrack said: “The United States was not asked, nor did they participate in that decision, nor was it the United States responsibility in matters that Israel feels is for its own self-defense.”
However, he said that Israel’s intervention “creates another very confusing chapter” and “came at a very bad time.”
Prior to the conflict in Sweida, Israel and Syria had been engaging in talks over security matters, while the Trump administration had been pushing them to move toward a full normalization of diplomatic relations.
When the latest fighting erupted, “Israel’s view was that south of Damascus was this questionable zone, so that whatever happened militarily in that zone needed to be agreed upon and discussed with them,” Barrack said. “The new government (in Syria) coming in was not exactly of that belief.”
The ceasefire announced Saturday between Syria and Israel is a limited agreement addressing only the conflict in Sweida, he said. It does not address the broader issues between the two countries, including Israel’s contention that the area south of Damascus should be a demilitarized zone.
In the discussions leading up to the ceasefire, Barrack said “both sides did the best they can” to came to an agreement on specific questions related to the movement of Syrian forces and equipment from Damascus to Sweida.
“Whether you accept that Israel can intervene in a sovereign state is a different question,” he said.
He suggested that Israel would prefer to see Syria fragmented and divided rather than a strong central state in control of the country.
“Strong nation states are a threat — especially Arab states are viewed as a threat to Israel,” he said. But in Syria, he said, “I think all of the the minority communities are smart enough to say, we’re better off together, centralized.”