By Dr. Adnan Bozan

The results of the U.S. midterm elections were not merely a temporary electoral setback for the Republican Party, nor simply a routine transfer of the legislative majority from one party to another. Rather, they represent a political shift whose repercussions may extend to highly complex international and regional issues, foremost among them the Syrian question. The Republicans’ loss of control over both chambers of Congress places the administration of Donald Trump before a new political and institutional reality. The implications of this shift go beyond the administration’s ability to advance legislation and implement its policies; they also concern its capacity to defend its foreign policy choices and justify its decisions before institutions responsible for oversight and accountability. From this perspective, the significance of this development should not be assessed solely through the lens of partisan competition in the United States, but also in terms of the opportunities it may create to reassess the policies pursued by the administration during the preceding period, particularly in regions affected by conflict and international power struggles.

The significance of this shift lies in the fact that Congress is not limited to its legislative and budgetary functions. It also possesses oversight powers and investigative tools, including the authority to conduct inquiries, issue subpoenas, and summon officials for questioning. When backed by sufficient political will, these powers can be used to scrutinize the performance of the executive branch and shed light on the nature of the understandings and communications that accompanied the management of foreign policy files. Consequently, U.S. policy toward Syria is unlikely to remain insulated from the repercussions of this transformation, particularly given that Washington has recently taken strategic decisions that have helped reshape its relationship with the transitional authorities in Damascus, opening political and diplomatic channels that had previously remained closed. Yet these developments have done little to resolve fundamental questions concerning security guarantees, the nature of the political system, the protection of Syria’s diverse communities, the future of armed groups, and the fate of issues related to extremism and terrorism.

In this context, the role played by U.S. envoy Tom Barrack deserves particular attention. He has emerged as one of the most prominent figures responsible for managing political engagement with Damascus and advocating the Trump administration’s approach toward the transitional authorities led by Ahmed al-Sharaa. Nevertheless, shifts in diplomatic rhetoric, particularly the increased attention given to violations and massacres targeting civilians, especially in Syria’s coastal region, cannot be understood in isolation from the broader political and institutional climate in Washington. Diplomatic positions do not necessarily reflect a change in convictions or an ethical reassessment of previous stances. They may also represent a response to shifting power dynamics, mounting political and oversight pressures, and changing calculations of interest within American institutions. That said, any attempt to establish a direct link between changes in diplomatic rhetoric and electoral outcomes remains a political hypothesis requiring evidence and supporting information. It should not be presented as an established fact.

The more consequential question, however, is not simply whether Washington will change its policy toward Syria, but whether the coming period will witness a serious institutional review of the foundations upon which that policy was built, the parties involved in formulating and implementing it, and the political, security, and humanitarian consequences that have followed. Within the framework of its constitutional and oversight responsibilities, Congress has every right to examine the nature of the understandings that paved the way for political engagement with the transitional authorities, the criteria underlying decisions to ease sanctions and restructure diplomatic relations, and the extent to which those decisions are consistent with Washington’s publicly declared commitments to protecting civilians and Syria’s diverse communities, combating extremist organizations, and ensuring that Syria does not once again become a haven for transnational armed groups. The files concerning massacres and violations, the responsibility of security institutions, the fate of foreign fighters, and the management of prisons and detention facilities are equally fundamental issues that cannot legitimately be excluded from any serious review of U.S. policy toward Syria.

Perhaps the most serious challenge facing the U.S. administration in this context is not merely the political criticism directed at it by its Democratic opponents, but the possibility that foreign policy matters may move beyond the sphere of executive decisions and diplomatic understandings into the realm of public institutional scrutiny. If that happens, many of the questions previously set aside during the period of political engagement may become subjects requiring clarification, investigation, and accountability. What guarantees did Washington obtain in exchange for restructuring its relations with Damascus? On what grounds were the groups granted renewed political and diplomatic legitimacy assessed? Was the protection of civilians and the rights of Syria’s diverse communities a fundamental condition of those understandings, or did it remain confined to political statements and commitments accompanying the realignment of interests? More importantly, who bears political responsibility for decisions if it is established that they contributed to the escalation of violations or provided political cover for parties implicated in them?

Syria is not merely a bargaining chip in the rivalry between Republicans and Democrats, nor should its future remain hostage to American electoral calculations or the competing interests of regional and international powers. Nevertheless, the ongoing shifts in Washington may compel all parties involved in the Syrian file to reconsider their political and diplomatic calculations. What was previously conducted through closed-door understandings may, amid changing balances of power, become subject to public debate, institutional review, and accountability. In international politics, the gravity of decisions lies not only in the moment they are made, but also in their consequences and repercussions, and in the ability of those responsible to defend them when circumstances change, files are reopened, and long-deferred questions are finally raised.

The coming period may therefore prove to be more than a phase of shifting positions or realigning alliances. It could become a genuine test of political decisions and policies, exposing the nature of understandings reached behind closed doors and bringing political accountability to those who believed that diplomatic influence or international political backing could provide permanent immunity from the rights of peoples and the realities unfolding on the ground.