On Tuesday, the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee discussed developments in Syria during a hearing that marked the first public test of Washington’s engagement with Damascus, which began several months ago. The discussion came at a moment that combined improved political communications and some easing of restrictions with rising tensions in northeastern Syria and congressional objections to how the administration has handled former U.S. allies.

Legislative oversight

The session was not a routine review but a clear step toward moving the issue from a quiet executive branch to direct legislative oversight. Instead of asking the traditional question about whether U.S. policy was right or wrong, the committee focused on more specific questions: How far can this engagement continue? Under what conditions? And through which oversight tools? This reflects that Washington now views its Syria policy as something open to review, rather than a settled decision.

Committee Chairman Brian Mast emphasized that U.S. engagement does not imply an open-ended mandate. Any easing of sanctions or expansion of support must be tied to clear actions from Damascus, particularly regarding the protection of minorities and security partnerships.

During the discussion, Representative Scott Perry presented a video he said documented abuses against civilians. He used it to hold witnesses accountable for the new authority’s responsibility in preventing such practices. This shifted the session from a general political debate to direct ethical and legal accountability.

The need for U.S. engagement

Following this, four witnesses—James F. Jeffrey, Andrew J. Tabler, Mara Karlin, and Nadine Maenza—offered their assessments of the situation in Syria. Despite differing perspectives, their testimonies revealed clear points of agreement.

All four agreed on the necessity of continued U.S. engagement. None called for a complete break or withdrawal, warning that alternatives could open the door to wider chaos or greater influence by Washington’s adversaries.

They also agreed that the existing stability is fragile. No witness described Syria as structurally stable. Jeffrey argued that the current approach is practical compared to riskier alternatives. Tabler warned that excessive centralization or superficial integration of factions could delay a legitimacy crisis rather than resolve it. Karlin highlighted the fragility of the security and economic environment, while Maenza stressed that ignoring violations or weak accountability undermines any long-term stability.

In this context, the witnesses distinguished between stability, understood as the absence of chaos, and legitimacy, understood as political and social acceptance. Authorities can enforce stability through security arrangements, but legitimacy requires broader partnerships and clear accountability.

The witnesses also linked continued U.S. support to tangible progress on specific issues: integrating forces, reforming the security sector, developing governance institutions, and protecting rights. The debate was not over whether conditions should exist, but over the prioritization of issues and mechanisms to verify implementation. They also emphasized that the U.S. role remains crucial in managing balances within Syria and the surrounding region, whether in countering Iranian influence or controlling regional friction.

Two children wave at a U.S. armored vehicle in al-Hasakah province, northeastern Syria. (AFP)

Local governance

However, this consensus did not erase significant differences in approach.

In his testimony, Jeffrey noted that indirect communication with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham dates back to 2016, in the context of managing the Idlib file and containing risks. He presented a specific model for local governance, citing Articles 122 and 123 of the 2005 Iraqi Constitution as an example of administrative decentralization within a unified state. He offered this as a practical approach that could reduce local tensions and enhance stability.

Tabler, for his part, focused on the structure of emerging authorities, warning that reproducing excessive centralization or merely raising flags without genuinely integrating armed groups could weaken legitimacy in the medium term. His testimony intersected with a broader discussion on regional management and local community representation, without explicitly proposing a specific constitutional model.

Maenza returned the focus to the rights dimension, arguing that stability not grounded in equal legal protection and effective accountability will remain fragile, and that ignoring violations could pave the way for future cycles of violence.

A competitive environment

Karlin broadened the perspective to the regional environment, noting that Syria exists within a context of intense competition among regional powers, and that mismanaging these balances could exacerbate risks. Jeffrey addressed the potential for friction between Turkey and Israel on Syrian territory, warning of the consequences of any uncontrolled escalation.

He also emphasized that reducing Iranian influence remains a U.S. priority, while removing Russia is not considered an immediate objective in itself.

Against this backdrop, Congress did not propose a comprehensive alternative policy but sought to steer the current course. The message to the administration was clear: engagement can continue, but under legislative oversight and with funding and sanctions relief tied to specific conditions. The message to Damascus was equally clear: security stability alone is not enough to secure long-term support; tangible progress is required in areas such as integration, local governance, and rights protection.

In conclusion, the session is unlikely to produce an immediate change in U.S. policy toward Damascus, but it raised the level of accountability. The issue has shifted from executive management to public institutional oversight, making the continuation of the engagement contingent on measurable results, rather than mere commitments or promises.