WASHINGTON - Syria’s new leaders, who are on the United States terror list, need to show the world that they “have changed… and demonstrate through their behavior that they're ready to play the role of responsible actors,” a former US State Department official told Rudaw in an interview on Thursday.
Ethan Goldrich served as deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs from September 2021 until his retirement in September 2024.
He said that during his time in office, he was not aware that the US had any contact with Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the former al-Qaeda affiliate that led the rebel groups that toppled the regime of Bashar al-Assad earlier this month.
Goldrich’s former boss, Barbara Leaf, met with HTS officials in Damascus on Friday.
“I'm sure they are assessing the behavior of the group right now and its current actions,” said Goldrich.
The retired diplomat thinks that the people of Syria now have a great opportunity to build the country they want.
“The opportunity that exists now won't be around forever… they should take advantage of the time that they have now and work through a process that is going to give them the future that they want,” he said.
“I think it's very important for a political process to include all the ethnic groups, religious minorities and communities in Syria, including the Kurds and all the people who live in northeast Syria, should be a part of this process,” he added.
The following is a transcript of the full interview.
Rudaw: Now joining me is the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Syrian Affairs Ethan Goldrich. Thank you so much Ethan for sitting down here with me.
Ethan Goldrich: Thanks, Diyar, it's good to be here.
Just days ahead of the events in Syria, the collapse of the Assad regime, you left the State Department and retired. By the way, congratulations.
Thank you very much.
Were you aware of those events?
So, as you just noted, my last day as the deputy assistant secretary was September 13 and the acceleration of the Israeli operation in Lebanon started on September 17. So, everything that's happened since then, I couldn't really give you an insight into how the State Department was looking at it. But in the time that I was there, I think we were aware that if there was a degradation of Hezbollah's capabilities, it would have a repercussion in Syria. So that's what I was aware of in the time I was there, that if there was a degradation in Hezbollah's capabilities, that would have an effect in Syria.
You were monitoring Syria because of the degradation of Hezbollah. So, was it surprising to you? Was it surprising to you that the collapse of the Assad regime happened in just a couple of days?
So, what was surprising to me was how quickly Russia and Iran abandoned Bashar al-Assad. We always knew that they were propping up his regime and without them it would be hard for him to stay in power, but the rapidity and the decisiveness of their decisions to abandon him was surprising.
You have covered Syria for a long time and you had the file of Syria on your table when you were at the State Department. So, from your point of view, who is the winner of the situation? We heard President-elect Donald Trump said Turkey is the winner of this situation. Are you on the same page?
So, I'm an optimist and I think that the Syrian people are the winners in this situation and that there is enormous opportunity right now for change to take place in Syria and for the country to be put back together, and for the people to have the opportunities that they've been denied for so long. But it's important for all countries, including the United States, Turkey, European countries, the EU, the Arab League, the regional countries, everyone to be working to help the Syrian people succeed at this moment.
We are talking about the future of Syrians, but we know that now a group is controlling Syria that still is on the terror list of the US and other countries. At the same time, we heard from Secretary Blinken a couple days ago, when he was in the region, he said the US has direct connections with HTS. So, is that a new connection, or were there any direct or indirect connections with these groups before they went to Damascus?
I think he is referring to recent events. In the time that I was in my position, I'm not aware that we had any contacts with this group and I think you know that they have a complicated history and that they are on terrorism lists right now. But I think the most important thing for this group is to demonstrate that they have changed over time and demonstrate through their behavior that they're ready to play the role of responsible actors. So, the whole world, I think, is watching to see what this group is about right now.
You mentioned that this group is still on the terror list and the US has not removed them from the list. Could you explain how the US government is talking and connecting with a group that is still on the terror list and there's still a $10 million bounty on the head of its leader?
So again, right now, I am not in the US government, not speaking for the US government, but I'm sure they are assessing the behavior of the group right now and its current actions. And it would be very important, I think, for the group Hay’at Tahrir al-sham, to be demonstrating that it's a different kind of group at the moment. What I can say is that in the course of my career, there were moments when other groups and governments that were on terrorism lists did change their behavior, and that resulted in the change in the relationship with the United States.
In Syria?
No, in other parts of the region. So if you look at the late 1980s and early 90s, we changed our approach to the PLO [Palestine Liberation Organization], which was considered a terror group on the terrorism list. Later, in the early 2000s we changed our approach to the Libyan government of Muammar Qaddafi that had been listed as government designated on terrorism lists. So there are moments where, if there's a change in behavior by a group or a government, our country may reassess and see needs and benefits in talking to them. So, but what would be under consideration right now by people who are currently in our government? They can't say, but what I can say is how important it is for the organization to be demonstrating that it no longer fits the definition of being on terrorist lists.
In your point of view, you have worked for the US government and you covered the region, so how do you see the future of Syria with a group like HTS, as they are still not open to talk with the other groups in Syria, at least it's not happening right now. How do you see the future of Syria with the current situation that we do have in the country?
So, I think it's extremely important right now to keep in mind the goals of Security Council Resolution 2254, which lays out the need for a Syrian-owned, Syrian-led inclusive political process that would guide toward a better future for Syria and that the UN and the UN special envoy are designated under that Security Council resolution to facilitate the success of a political process. So I think again, very important now for HTS to be looking at what's in Security Council Resolution 2254, and showing that as the current transitional authority that they can move the country toward the goals under 2254.
What makes the US build hope on the future of Syria with this group. Is there any light at the end of the tunnel? Do you think that Syria will be a better Syria having these groups in charge in Damascus?
So I think there's an enormous opportunity right now for change in Syria, but it is going to be very important to create the process that will be inclusive of all the different groups, ethnic groups, religious minorities, political trends, for everyone in Syria to be part of an inclusive process, and for Syrians themselves to be leading the process and owning the process and owning the results.
Having a government inclusive of all the Syrian ethnic groups and religion groups and everyone in the country. So, in the north, we do have different groups. We have Kurds, we have SDF. With the current situation in Syria, with having a different government in Damascus, how do you see the future of SDF, the Syrian Democratic Forces led by the Kurds and backed by the US? How do you see them in the future of Syria?
So again, I think it's very important for a political process to include all the ethnic groups, religious minorities and communities in Syria, including the Kurds and all the people who live in northeast Syria, should be a part of this process. And I think also that the SDF played an important role as a partner in the counter-ISIS effort, and that we should also be looking at how that effort can continue and how that mission can be completed. So the political process needs to include everybody, including the Kurds, and the political process should lead to the future arrangements where everyone will be part of a Syrian-owned, Syrian-created political future.
You know, the Kurdish issue in Syria is not something new. You've dealt with it, you've visited Rojava, you visited northeast Syria. I had the privilege to have an interview with you when you were in office at the State Department. I asked that question and I would love to ask it again. Does the US have any policy towards the Kurds in Syria, or there is one single policy for Syria and they see the Kurds as a part of the whole Syrian region?
Right, so again, I'm not currently in our government and so can't speak to how they're assessing the current situation. But certainly, I think our policy is to support the goals of Resolution 2254, which was to include all the different communities and groups in a future for Syria, including the Kurds. So I think Resolution 2254 expressed the international community's views on how all should be included.
I totally understand that you are not at the State Department now, but do you think the US has any policy towards Kurds in Syria? A single policy, the Kurdish policy in Syria, not the Syrian policy? Is there any policy like that?
So, our, my understanding of US policy, and I'm now, you know, a private citizen, but again, based on Resolution 2254 and everything moving forward in the Syrian-owned, Syrian-led process should be determining what structures will exist to protect all the communities inside of Syria. All the ethnic groups, the communities, the religious minorities, should all be protected and part of a structure in Syria.
So in north Syria, there's still a lot of issues going on between the Kurds and Turkey and we heard President-elect Donald Trump said that Turkey is the winner and did an unfriendly takeover of Syria. And he said the US has no interests there, the US should not be interfering much in Syria. Do you agree with President-elect Donald Trump that the US does not have much interest in Syria?
So I think the US has an interest in a secure, stable and peaceful Middle East, and that the recent developments in Syria help move the region. If the recent developments in Syria are moving the region toward a secure, peaceful and stable Middle East without a malign Iranian influence, then that's in the US interest.
This is for the whole Middle East. What about Syria? What's the US interest in Syria?
I think Syria is a part of the region and if the recent developments in Syria are helping to move the region toward being more secure and stable and not under the malign influence of Iran, those are positive developments for the US.
The US has about 900 troops in Syria. They're there to fight against ISIS. Do you think the next administration will look at their presence in Syria or withdraw the forces from Syria in the future?
So I think the importance of the troops in Syria is to counter ISIS and that the mission to counter ISIS is what will determine the future of the troops in Syria. So we've had the strong partnership with the SDF, and we have the ongoing concerns about threats from ISIS and whoever is the administration would need to look through the lens of when, how that mission is being accomplished, and when, when that mission would be accomplished.
ISIS has not been defeated. Do you think ISIS will be defeated once and for all? I know, not ideologically, but you know, we do have a lot of ISIS elements there. We have ISIS prisoners inside SDF detention facilities. Do you think that will require the US to stay there for a longer time than expected? For example, beyond September 2026?
Yeah. I think there are ongoing missions, as you're pointing out, to both secure the detention facilities and the IDP camps and to prevent resurgence of ISIS, and those missions and threats need to be assessed. And I think we've appreciated the role that the SDF has played as our partner in carrying out those missions and that would just have to be looked at by any administration.
What's the best solution for the ISIS militants that have been held in the SDF prisons in Rojava, north Syria? Do you think with the change in Damascus, this issue will be solved or do we need an international solution for the ISIS prisoners inside Syria?
So this is an issue that going forward I think that needs to be addressed. And then the international community has been struggling to address it for many, many years, but it's a key issue. There's a lot of people who are still in the IDP camps and there's a lot of people who are still in detention, and certainly there needs to be a solution going forward.
I will ask a question on Resolution 2254. Where should we start now with this resolution? We have heard some people in the region saying it should be amended, or we should implement it as it is. What's your thoughts on this?
So right now, it's an existing security council resolution, and…
Because we had this resolution when Assad was in Damascus. Now we don't have Assad. We have different elements and groups in the region. Do you think that this resolution is still a good solution for Syria, or there should be some amendments within that resolution?
I think there are clear goals in there that still remain relevant and people who are still in government right now can take a look and see what should be done, if anything needs to be updated about the current situation in Syria. People at the UN and the Security Council, all those questions are out there, but right now, there is an existing Security Council resolution that includes the basic goals that remain relevant for Syria, and anything beyond that I would think would be up to people who are in government right now to determine if there's, there's any further updates, it's necessary.
So you're not in office, but I will ask this question. From your point of view, as a private citizen and as a former US diplomat, how does the US want the Kurds to participate in this future Syrian government? Are you supporting having a federal government like we do have in Iraq, or having a Taif treaty as we do have in Lebanon? How do you want the Kurds to go to Damascus?
So I believe strongly in the concept of the Syrian-owned, the Syrian-led political process to determine the future of Syria. So I think the questions that you're asking are exactly the questions that, as this process is being created, Syrians will have to address. Syrians will have to determine what the structure is for the future governance of their country.
And do you think the Syrians can do this? Do you have any sort of feeling that there are other countries interfering in their affairs and will not let them do what they want to do? Or are they totally free and they will make their decision about their future, and everyone will say, okay, you decided that, and we respect it?
So I think the Security Council Resolution 2254 contains that mechanism of the UN special envoy as a facilitator for the process that needs to take place. So there will be that mechanism available to Syrians as they go through the Syrian-led, Syrian-owned process. And I think there are certainly many others around the world who want to see Syria succeed, and the expertise to help is out there if people need it. But I also think that there are many very impressive Syrians who have spent a very long time, maybe 13 years, maybe more than 13 years, thinking about this moment and how things are going to work when the process goes into play to shape the future, their country. So I have great confidence in the Syrian people and in their ability to look at the challenge and to meet the challenge of determining what the future of their country is going to look like.
My last question, will they meet the challenges? What's the main challenge they are now facing?
So, I think there's a great opportunity right now and I think the challenge is to take advantage of the opportunity, to work together for the sake of their country, and to move forward, that the opportunity that exists now won't be around forever, that they should take advantage of the time that they have now and work through a process that is going to give them the future that they want.
Thank you so much Ethan for being with us and I’m looking forward to having you on Rudaw again and again.
Thank you very much. It was a pleasure to talk with you today.
Sure, thank you so much.
