Staff Reports
The geopolitical chessboard has taken another turn, as Russia has now provided asylum to the embattled Syrian President Bashar Assad. This maneuver not only cements the already cozy relationship between Moscow and Damascus but raises eyebrows worldwide, especially among those who enjoy watching U.S. foreign policy play out like a never-ending soap opera. With Assad fleeing his own country alongside his family amid threats from rebel forces claiming they’ve toppled his regime, it’s a scene that seems ripped from the pages of a bad action movie.
Syria’s civil war, which has dragged on for nearly 14 years, has become a perfect example of how international interventions, particularly by the U.S., often resemble a misguided game of Jenga. Each attempt to stabilize the situation has led to the collapse of yet another supposed solution, leaving the region in a state of chaos that would give even the most seasoned politician a migraine. The rise of ISIS and the ongoing foreign meddling in Syria have only fanned the flames of unrest further, leading some to wonder if there is any point left in trying to play peacemaker when any action tends to make things worse.
BREAKING: Biden pledges to send aid to the new regime to rebuild Syria pic.twitter.com/89ecNbcIoW
— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) December 8, 2024
On a dramatic note, outgoing President Joe Biden has decided to throw the U.S. hat into this already drama-filled ring, pledging assistance to the up-and-coming regime post-Assad. He confidently claimed this shift in power could be a step towards “fundamental justice” after years of Assad’s governance—though to many conservatives, it seems more like throwing good money after bad at a regime that has no intention of playing nice. The prospect of American taxpayer dollars going to rebuild a country known for its relentless civil strife is far from the definition of savvy diplomacy.
Meanwhile, President-elect Donald Trump has jumped into the fray, firmly asserting that the U.S. has no business getting further entangled in Syria’s multi-layered mess. His social media comment aptly captures the sentiment among many conservative Americans who believe, quite rightly, that this is not a fight worth taking on. Why send in more resources when it’s clear that U.S. involvement has only led to deeper divisions and enhanced anti-American sentiment?
Biden, however, appears unfazed, with notions of keeping about 900 U.S. troops on the ground in Syria while claiming to conduct “precision air strikes.” The irony would be comical if it weren’t so alarming. While he warns about the dangers posed by some of the very same rebel factions that claimed victory over Assad, he seems to forget that supporting groups with dubious human rights records is just kicking the can down the road. As it stands, America’s strategy in the Middle East resembles a game of whack-a-mole—each time one problem is addressed, several new ones pop up to take its place. If the recent history of the region has taught anything, it is that sometimes staying out of other nations’ affairs is the most prudent course of action.
