Rebuilding Syria: What Sharaa wants from Trump - and what’s at stake for Israel - analysis

Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa’s visit to the United States on Sunday marks the first time a Syrian leader has made an official visit to Washington, DC in the modern history of the country.

Since the fall of Damascus on December 7, 2024, Sharaa has worked to bring Syria out of isolation. In his bid to rebuild the country from years of civil war, he will likely ask US President Donald Trump for assistance in reconstruction, which the World Bank Group estimates will have a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars.

After over a decade of war, Islamist groups led by Sharaa’s Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) gained prominence. Following a surprise 2024 offensive, HTS captured Damascus, and then-president Bashar al-Assad fled to Russia. Currently, Sharaa still struggles to unify rival factions, such as the SDF and Druze separatists, who doubt the new president’s true intentions.

Until his fall, Assad had maintained relative calm with neighboring Israel, despite the state of war.

Since the change of government, Israel has clearly been skeptical of the new Syrian leadership, as evidenced by the IDF taking control of the buffer zone between the two countries and the Israeli Air Force carrying out hundreds of strikes on Syrian military assets to prevent them from falling into the hands of terrorist groups, as per the IDF.

In August, Defense Minister Israel Katz said the IDF would hold key positions in the Golan Heights indefinitely for security reasons. The announcement followed months of attacks by Syrian government-allied forces, including Islamist groups, against the Druze minority population of southern Syria.

Israel also struck Syrian forces after violence against Druze communities. Attacks included strikes on government forces as well as on the Syrian presidential palace.

Since Sharaa’s takeover, reports have circulated of Syria potentially joining the Abraham Accords, and in September, he said that he was hoping for “an agreement that will keep the sovereignty of Syria and also resolve some of the security fears of Israel.”

The question is: How far will Washington go in backing Syria’s rehabilitation?

The United States, until recently, was one of the biggest state opponents of Syria. America viewed the Assad regime, allied with Russia and Iran, as a threat to regional stability.

Following the outbreak of the civil war in 2011, the US placed sanctions on Syria, including an embargo on its oil. The Obama administration went as far as to personally sanction Assad himself, along with senior members of his government.

While opposed to the Syrian government of the time, the US refused to support Islamist opposition groups such as HTS. Sharaa, who led the group, even had a bounty of 10 million dollars for information leading to his capture.

Soon after his inauguration as president, however, Sharaa gave a speech calling for unity in rebuilding Syria, in a bid to change the outside world’s perception of Syrian domestic affairs.

Throughout the year, US restrictions on Sharaa and Syria have gradually been lifted, beginning with the bounty and culminating in the UN Security Council lifting sanctions in a US-led initiative before Sharaa’s visit.

Joe Truzman, senior research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), told The Jerusalem Post that skepticism of Sharaa’s modified look was justified, saying, “It’s very difficult for someone who joins an organization like al-Qaeda or the Islamic State to shed their ideology.”

“Israel and others have every right to be suspicious of al-Sharaa right now,” he said. “His foundation was built on being the leader of a jihadist group.” The analyst also questioned whether Sharaa could return to his “old ways” over time.

Still, Truzman expressed hope for the future, conceding that “[Syria] is a country that is just beginning to start a new life post Assad,” and that Sharaa “has made all the right moves… to show that he’s not the old al-Qaeda leader.”

As the most pressing sanctions issues have been resolved, Sharaa’s focus in this week's visit to Washington is expected to be on rebuilding. It is well within the US’s reach to sponsor the reconstruction of Syria, and likely in its interest.

Until now, the US has had little influence in Syria. Having military bases within the country would mean being a step ahead of Russia and Iran, both regional powers that have had control over Syria for decades. Establishing a presence in Syria as a means to counter these countries would be invaluable for the US.

American reconstruction aid has also brought military aid in previous scenarios, such as when the Iraqi Air Force was essentially rebuilt by the US following the Iraq War. Notably, Israel, Egypt, and Turkey fly American fighter jets. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that the White House would be inclined to supply Sharaa with the same caliber weaponry as provided to other Middle Eastern countries.

However, some Israelis warn of the risks of rebuilding Syria’s military. Alma Research and Education Center founder Lt.-Col. (ret.) Sarit Zehavi described the potential rearmament of Syria as "extremely problematic.”

Many of the senior officers appointed by Sharaa, including his most senior defense adviser, have jihadi backgrounds, she said. In several cases, civil war militias were “not truly dismantled,” but absorbed into the regular army.

“This isn’t like the building of the IDF, where Lehi and Etzel were spread across the army,” she explained. “Here, you have centers of power within the army-sometimes even jihadi forces within the army.”

She also pointed out that Sharaa had granted citizenship to foreigners coming from Chechnya, Afghanistan, and Pakistan to Syria to join ISIS.

The makeup of Syria’s Armed Forces is also a controversial topic. Zehavi explained that old militias from the civil war partially make up the SAF, and this patchwork structure leads to instability.

A US base in Syria would allow for increased cooperation and training with Syrian forces, and in parallel, curb Russian and Iranian influence. It could also help disrupt the Iranian supply network, with Tehran using Syria to distribute arms to its proxies, such as Hezbollah.

According to Truzman, while a permanent American presence in Syria would be useful for Israel, he is pessimistic about the chances of immediate Syrian military rebuilding. “It’s always possible,” he said, “but it’s not something that’s likely to happen. Right now, the US is more focused on rehabilitating Syria’s economy, not its military.”

Nevertheless, he said, an American presence on the ground could help “alleviate Israeli security concerns,” making Israel more receptive to a Syrian rearmament.

Should Sharaa and Trump agree, this week in Washington could give Syria’s president the chance to rebuild while ensuring the US’s advantage against Iran in the region. An agreement between the two could also be favorable for Israel, as the Jewish state could well favor increased US involvement in Syria – a neighbor not easily trusted.

Whether this visit will lead to peace or continued war depends on how much the White House is willing to risk, and what Jerusalem is willing to tolerate.