By Matt Underwood The removal of the $10 million terror bounty on the new Syrian leader is a significant development, particularly given the recent US meeting in Damascus. Initially, the headline’s phrasing suggested a new bounty, an act that would have been incredibly undiplomatic following a meeting. This suggests that the meeting, while perhaps not overtly hostile, may not have been entirely smooth.
This Syrian leader, active in Idlib for years, has cultivated a surprisingly pragmatic image. He’s overseen book fairs, mall openings, and listening tours, showcasing a political persona uncommon in the region. He even collaborated with Western NGOs, while simultaneously combating ISIS and Al-Qaeda. This presents a striking contrast to his previous reputation.
The US decision to drop the bounty, however, appears to stem from a pragmatic reassessment of the situation rather than any sudden shift in ideology. Keeping the bounty active seems to have been more out of inertia than genuine threat assessment. The leader’s willingness to back-channel with the US on counter-terrorism efforts certainly played a significant role.
The move seems a calculated gamble. While there are numerous ways this could backfire, leading to further conflict or authoritarianism, the potential for positive outcomes warrants taking the chance. The current situation differs greatly from the chaos of Afghanistan, making the decision to engage appear far more logical.
Many believe the US dropped the designation primarily to facilitate funding for the new regime and allow for more direct engagement in reconstruction efforts, a very lucrative opportunity. The EU might also get involved in the reconstruction. This perspective makes the meeting in Damascus seem even more crucial and potentially positive.
However, there’s a lot of skepticism surrounding the decision. Some viewed the bounty as more of a tool to pressure the Syrian leadership into working with the US, rather than as a genuine attempt to capture a terrorist. This leader also previously enjoyed the protection of Turkey and Qatar while in Idlib.
Others believe that the headline was misleading. The phrase “dropped the bounty” could be misinterpreted. It might imply the existence of a pre-existing bounty that has been rescinded, or the announcement of a new bounty instead.
The US’s stated support for an “inclusive and representative government” rings rather hollow to some, considering the past support for Assad despite his actions. It’s possible that the previous bounty was merely a tool, a way to exert pressure and influence events without outright war. The timing of its removal, coinciding with a clear shift in Syrian politics, is not accidental.
It is worth considering, too, that the US may have been aware of the leader’s location for some time. The bounty might have served more as a signal of intent rather than a genuine pursuit. The focus shifted from actively pursuing this leader to cooperating with him, aligning with broader US counter-terrorism strategies. This is not unheard of and speaks more to the nuances of real-world geopolitics than simplistic interpretations.
The US dropping the bounty is more of an optical change than an operational one. It seems a calculated risk, but one not without merits. Ultimately, the success of this approach will depend on this leader’s continued cooperation, his commitment to stability, and the absence of further terrorist activities. The removal of the bounty is not a declaration of complete trust, but rather a pragmatic acknowledgment that engaging with him might yield better results than continued conflict.