Comments
ABE WON’T BE SILENT - Breaking news out of Damascus confirms that Ahmed al-Sharaa, a former rebel leader, has taken over the presidency of Syria. Along with dissolving the country’s parliament, he has pledged to form a temporary legislative council until a new constitution is in place—though no timeline has been given. His leadership marks the most dramatic shift in Syrian governance since the start of the country’s civil war over a decade ago.
What does this mean for American policymakers—and more specifically, Tulsi Gabbard, who is now a contender for Secretary of National Security and previously engaged with Assad under the guise of diplomatic dialogue? Gabbard’s foreign policy views—particularly on Syria—have often put her at odds with both parties. Now, in the face of this political upheaval, Ahmed al-Sharaa’s rise poses a direct threat to Gabbard’s chances of getting sworn into Trump’s cabinet because of her past engagement with the Assad regime. It also further complicates her credibility on national security issues at a time when the region remains highly unstable, with the Israel-Hamas war still raging.
For years, the Syrian conflict was defined by Bashar al-Assad’s brutal regime, backed by Russia and Iran, and opposed by U.S.-supported rebels. Now, with Assad seemingly out of power, the world is left wondering what this transition means for Syria’s future—and U.S. policy in the Middle East.
Speaking of new presidents, Donald Trump, who has made it clear that he aims to be a dominant power broker in the region, may not look favorably upon Gabbard's past engagement with Assad. While he has expressed skepticism about endless U.S. intervention, his transactional approach to foreign policy means he may see her previous alignment with a now-ousted leader as a strategic misstep rather than a diplomatic win.
Is she still the best candidate for engaging in diplomatic dialogue with a not-necessarily-reformed terrorist, or has she become a liability? These are high-stakes questions that cannot be taken lightly.
One of the biggest criticisms of Gabbard has always been her unapologetic engagement with controversial world leaders. While she has framed it as a pragmatic approach to diplomacy, her opponents argue that it has often put her in alignment with authoritarian regimes.
One thing is certain: As Syria enters a new political phase, Gabbard’s history with the country will remain a major point of contention. She defended her 2017 visit to Syria, where she met with al-Assad, claiming it was an effort to promote peace. Yet critics saw it as an endorsement of a dictator accused of war crimes, including chemical attacks on civilians. The trip was not authorized by the U.S. government and was arranged with the help of pro-Assad political figures, raising serious questions about her judgment on foreign affairs.
She has frequently criticized U.S. interventionism and warned against "regime change wars," a stance that gained her support from both anti-war progressives and libertarians. However, as Syria shifts into a post-Assad era, her previous justification for engaging with Assad may now appear ill-advised—or even politically damaging.
More importantly, will her past actions anger the new guy in town—err, Damascus? If Ahmed al-Sharaa sees Gabbard as an Assad loyalist, she could quickly become a liability rather than an asset in U.S. foreign policy.
(ABE GURKO is the executive producer of a documentary “LOUDER: The Soundtrack of Change,” about the extraordinary Women of Protest Music streaming on MAX. He's an Opinionator who hosts a podcast, "Won't Be Silent," engaging in conversations from the edge of democracy. Abe is a contributor to CityWatchLA.com. [email protected].)
