U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

25–261PDF 2017

SYRIA AFTER THE MISSILE STRIKES:

POLICY OPTIONS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

APRIL 27, 2017

Serial No. 115–27

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ or

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

DANIEL M. DONOVAN, JR., New York 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

ANN WAGNER, Missouri 

BRIAN J. MAST, Florida 

FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida 

BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

THOMAS A. GARRETT, JR., Virginia 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

AMI BERA, California 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

NORMA J. TORRES, California 

BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York 

ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York 

TED LIEU, California

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Mr. Michael Singh, Lane-Swig senior fellow, managing director, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy ................................................................. 4

Mr. Charles Lister, senior fellow, Middle East Institute ..................................... 15

Dafna H. Rand, Ph.D., adjunct professor, National Defense University ............ 28

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Mr. Michael Singh: Prepared statement ................................................................ 7

Mr. Charles Lister: Prepared statement ................................................................ 18

Dafna H. Rand, Ph.D.: Prepared statement .......................................................... 31

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 78

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 79

The Honorable Eliot L. Engel, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York: 

Statement of Raed al-Saleh, head, Syria Civil Defense or White Helmets ..... 81

Statement of Church World Service (CWS) ....................................................... 82

The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress from the 

Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement .............................................. 83

(1)

SYRIA AFTER THE MISSILE STRIKES:

POLICY OPTIONS 

THURSDAY, APRIL 27, 2017

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., in room 

2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward Royce (chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Chairman ROYCE. This hearing will come to order. 

The title of this hearing, colleagues, is Syria After the Missile 

Strikes: Policy Options. 

Some of us had the opportunity over the last week with what are 

called the White Helmets and these are Syrian volunteers. These 

are civil society people. I think one who I talked to was an accountant. She was an accountant. Another one was a firefighter. But 

they come from all ethnic, and religious, and political factions inside Syria. What these civil society people all have in common is 

that they are the ones that you see on television who are rushing 

in to collapsing buildings to rescue people, a stranger or a friend, 

and then try to take them to the hospital and many of these hospitals are under bombardment. They have saved some 70,000 people. And if you have an opportunity, you should hear their stories 

and hear their plea that we all try to use whatever political leverage we have to try to get Assad and the other factions to the table. 

But this morning we consider options for Syria in the wake of 

this month’s renewed chemical attacks by Bashar al-Assad and the 

bold response we saw from the administration. 

On April 4th, facing an opposition offensive against key infrastructure, the regime in Syria launched a sarin gas attack in southern Idlib Province. Eighty-five people—including many children—

died from that attack. The effects of sarin gas are immediate: The 

nose runs, eyes water, the mouth drools and this progresses to convulsions, paralysis, and in many cases death in less than 10 minutes. There is a reason indiscriminate killing of chemicals and 

chemical attacks cross a ‘‘red line.’’ There is a reason for that. And 

the reason is it is abhorrent. 

Assad was sending a demoralizing message to the civilian population there. It was: ‘‘I can kill with impunity—with some of the 

worst weapons of war—and no one will help you.’’

But in a matter of days, the Syrian regime did pay a price. Two 

days later, nearly 60 Tomahawk missiles—fired from U.S. Navy 

ships operating in international waters—targeted the Syrian airVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:39 Jun 07, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Z:\WORK\_FULL\042717\25261 SHIRL
2

field from which the sarin attacks had launched. In a limited and 

targeted response, U.S. forces destroyed 23 Syrian warplanes and 

supporting infrastructure. 

This use of force was proportional, legitimate, and welcomed by 

our allies in the region and around the world. For after 6 years of 

unrestrained murder of Syrians, Assad was finally on the receiving 

end. Finally, ‘‘red lines’’ mattered. Finally, the United States was 

leading. And this week, the Treasury Department sanctioned 270 

individuals involved in Syria’s production of chemical weapons. 

Now, having taken military action, the United States has a 

chance to take Syria policy on a different path. As one witness will 

testify today, ‘‘Determined U.S. leadership backed up by the credible and now proven threat of force presents the best opportunity 

in years to strong-arm actors on the ground into a phase of meaningful de-escalation, out of which eventually a durable negotiation 

process may result.’’

A good place to start this forceful diplomacy would be to make 

Russia and Iran pay a price for supporting Assad. So far, they have 

had no incentive to negotiate an end to the conflict in Syria, as 

they have been able to pursue their goals with little cost. That calculus would surely change if Mr. Engel’s Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act was passed by the Congress, signed into law, and vigorously enforced. This sweeping sanctions bill is guaranteed to get attention in Moscow and Tehran, and give the U.N.-backed process 

aimed at finding a political solution a chance. 

And while the administration sticks to an ‘‘ISIS first’’ strategy, 

this, too, can push the political process along. As U.S.-backed forces 

gain ground in the east, Assad could be confined to the west, opening up sanctuaries in which Syrians might find refuge and establish basic governance. From there, the United States and their allies must work together to advance a plausible vision of a postAssad Syria. 

This won’t be easy but Syria cannot keep going on and on like 

this. That is not in our humanitarian interest, not in the interest 

of the region, or America’s national security interest. This has to 

change. 

I know turn to the ranking member, who has long been focused 

on this conflict, for his opening statement. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And let me 

also thank our witnesses and welcome you all to the Foreign Affairs Committee. 

This morning, the committee will continue its examination of a 

challenge that for more than 6 years global powers have been unable or unwilling to resolve: The brutal war that Bashar al-Assad 

and his enablers have waged against the people of Syria. Hundreds 

of thousands are dead at the hands of this butcher. Millions more 

have been driven from their homes and every time the potential for 

a resolution has been in sight, Assad has been granted another lifeline. 

The missile strike earlier this month escalated American involvement against Assad to a new level. I think the response was appropriate. But a few weeks down the road, we are left asking, where 

do we go from here? What are our objectives in Syria? What is the 

strategy? And the short answer is this: At this point, there seems 

3

to be no strategy. A pinpoint missile strike is not a strategy. That 

is a problem for the people of Syria and it is part of a troubling 

pattern from the White House. 

In 100 short days, the administration has escalated tensions with 

North Korea with reckless saber-rattling, gone hot and cold on 

China, cozied up to Putin, and caused diplomatic embarrassment 

for some of our closest allies. At the same time, most top State Department posts remain vacant and the expertise of our diplomats 

is clearly being ignored. You cannot fly by the seat of your pants 

when it comes to foreign policy. 

On the global stage, policy by improvisation confuses our friends 

and tees up opportunities for our adversaries. For example, I am 

convinced that the administration’s reversal on a long-held policy 

of removing Assad emboldened him to carry out the sarin gas attack in the first place. 

If indeed there is a strategy, Congress has been kept in the dark. 

We were told that the administration would soon present us with 

its plan. That has not happened. 

I think back to the 2011 strike in Libya, which also took place 

during a recess, and there was a lot of criticism for that, but the 

week Congress returned, Secretary Clinton, Secretary Gates, Chair 

of the Joint Chiefs Mullen, and DNI Clapper were all here on Capitol Hill telling lawmakers about the path forward. Whether we 

agreed with it or didn’t agree with it, we at least learned about it. 

So far, no such briefing has been scheduled on Syria. And of course, 

no administration witnesses are testifying before us today because 

so few senior State Department officials are in place. 

So while we wait for the administration to draw up a strategy, 

there are a few things that the President and his team should bear 

in mind. First, military action alone will not solve the crisis in 

Syria. Only a political transition, one that removes Assad from 

power, will put the Syrian people on the path toward rebuilding 

and re-charting the course for their country’s future. We need the 

means to help push that process forward. 

My bill that I introduced with Chairman Royce, the Caesar Syria 

Civilian Protection Act, would provide some of those tools to pressure Assad and his patrons in Moscow and Tehran. The House 

passed the bill unanimously last year and I am grateful to Chairman Royce for planning to mark up this legislation again next 

week. 

We also need senior diplomats in place who can drive the policies 

that will lead to a solution. It is nearly May. The President has 

only just announced his pick for Deputy Secretary of State and he 

hasn’t even nominated an Under Secretary for Political Affairs, or 

Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs. And rather than 

working to fill these vacancies as quickly as possible, the administration, instead, seems intent on slashing the resources needed to 

conduct effective diplomacy. We learned about that at the last 

hearing we had. 

Second, there must be no further American military action in 

Syria without congressional say-so. The 60-day War Powers Resolution clock started ticking when President Trump notified Congress 

of the missile strike. The President must come to Congress if the 

Syria strategy includes military involvement. No matter anyone’s 

4

view of how we should grapple with this problem, Congress’ voice 

must be heard and we will not simply give this administration or 

any administration a blank check. 

For now, I will keep pushing the administration for answers and 

pressing for a strategy that will advance a political solution, get 

Assad out of power, and end the suffering of the Syrian people. 

I am grateful to our witnesses for sharing their views on what 

such a strategy looks like and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Engel. We did pass our bill 

out of this committee and out of the House last year. We are going 

to have an opportunity, in light of events—we couldn’t get it out 

of the Senate last year but we are going to try to get it out of the 

Senate this year. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and, as usual, your help 

was invaluable. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Engel. 

And now this morning we are pleased to be joined by a distinguished panel. Mr. Mike Singh is the managing director of the 

Washington Institute for Near East Policy and previously he served 

at the White House, where he oversaw the Middle East policy from 

2005 to 2008. 

And we have Mr. Charles Lister. He is a Senior Fellow at the 

Middle East Initiative. Previously, Mr. Lister was a visiting fellow 

at the Brookings Institution. He has been deeply focused on Syria 

policy for some time. 

Dr. Dafna Rand is an adjunct professor at the National Defense 

University. Previously, she served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in the Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights, and 

Labor. 

So without objection, our witnesses’ full prepared statements are 

going to be made part of the record and members here will have 

5 calendar days to submit any statements as well, or any questions 

of you, or any extraneous materials for the record. 

And so, Mr. Singh, this always works best if you could summarize your remarks and we will begin with you. 

STATEMENT OF MR. MICHAEL SINGH, LANE-SWIG SENIOR FELLOW, MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE WASHINGTON INSTITUTE 

FOR NEAR EAST POLICY 

Mr. SINGH. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Engel, members of 

the committee, thank you for having me here and thank you for 

your hard work on this issue. 

Our past efforts to resolve or contain the conflict in Syria did not 

succeed; far from it. It is not now a civil war but a regional conflict 

that has drawn in Syria’s neighbors and has had broad geopolitical 

ramifications beyond, including terrorism, and a refugee crisis in 

Europe, and political turbulence throughout the West. 

Our problem in Syria is not simply an ISIS problem but runs 

much deeper and I want to talk about those broader ramifications. 

The Trump administration’s start, I agree with both of you, has 

been promising. The April 7th strike was decisive and it served a 

clear, if narrow, interest in deterring the use of chemical weapons 

and enhancing our military credibility in Syria. But devising our 

broader Syria policy will be much more complicated and will reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:39 Jun 07, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Z:\WORK\_FULL\042717\25261 SHIRL
5

quire a similarly clear understanding of our interests and objectives and the development of options to advance them. And I think 

we need to begin with a quick assessment of the situation, which 

will reveal just how much the conflict has broiled the regional politics. 

This is not, in fact, a single conflict but it is playing out over I 

would say four distinct zones. Each one of those zones has different 

internal and external actors involved. So for example, in western 

Syria, both Iran and Russia are defending the Assad regime’s remaining territory, which is stronger, but for different reasons. Iran 

seeks to preserve Syria as a channel for the projection of power 

into the Levant; whereas, Russia I think wants to reassert a global 

role, thwart American aims in Syria, and preserve and expand its 

influence in the Middle East. 

Turkey, for its part, has long advocated that the Assad regime—

that Assad, himself, should step aside. But increasingly, Ankara is 

focused on preventing the aggrandizement of the Kurds. And its 

chief aims now seem to be preventing the establishment of a continuous Kurdish territory along the Syrian side of the Turkish border and preventing the United States from providing heavy weapons and training to the Kurds and their Arab partners in the SDF, 

the Syrian Democratic Forces. 

If we look at Israel, Israel, for its part, is alarmed at the possibility of Iran and Hezbollah establishing a presence along the 

Golan Heights and very wary about what seems to be an emerging 

Russia-Iran-Hezbollah axis. 

And then finally, Jordan, our other good partner in this region, 

worries about new refugee flows. It is already dealing with almost 

a million refugees, as well as the ISIS and Iranian presence on its 

northwestern border. 

It is an enormously complex situation and I think we need to 

avoid framing our policy as an effort to sort of solve Syria, as it 

were, in one fell swoop or one neat package. Instead, we need to 

focus on setting discrete objectives that will protect our interests 

and I recommend three in particular. 

First, I think we need to seek to prevent the Syrian conflict from 

further destabilizing the region. It could get worse, as bad as it is 

now in this region. So in western Syria, including the Idlib region, 

where the fight is increasingly between the Assad regime and its 

backers on the one hand and a jihadist-dominated opposition on 

the other, I think our chief concern needs to be for the millions of 

civilians who are caught in the middle of that fight. 

So, we should continue providing humanitarian relief—we have 

provided more than any other country so far—providing escape 

routes for those civilians. But I think we also need to make clear, 

building on the April 7th strike, that further atrocities against civilians by Assad, and by his backers, could prompt a further use 

of force. I think that credible military threat needs to be there. 

In southern Syria, we need to support our allies Israel and Jordan as they seek to prevent the conflict from spilling over their borders and as they seek to push ISIS back from their borders. 

And then in northern Syria, where we have recently had this 

Turkish bombing of Kurdish positions, I think our chief aim needs 

to be to calm those Turkish-Kurdish tensions, urging Ankara to not 

6

engage in any more uncoordinated bombing but also urging the 

Syrian Kurds, the YPG, to sever their ties with the PKK, which is 

a terrorist group and where Turkey has a legitimate concern. 

And as we plan Raqqa’s liberation, I think we need to aim, ideally, to keep local Arab forces up front and to involve both the Turks 

and Kurds to the extent we can in the operation, rather than 

choosing one or the other in a way that will unbalance the politics 

there. 

I think we also need to consider modestly increasing our own 

troop commitment, as we have in northern Iraq, so that we can 

play an effective coordinating role between those various forces. 

Our second objective, I think, should be to push back on Iran and 

prevent it from using the Syrian conflict to expand its power. Iran 

is deeply entrenched in western Syria but it shouldn’t get a free 

pass for its use of foreign fighters and its support for the Assad regime. And we need to keep up the pressure on Iran and Iranian 

entities that are involved in this effort. And now is the time also 

to ramp up the pressure on Hezbollah and to renew our support 

for the Government of Lebanon, which is deeply involved in this 

issue as well. 

And then finally, we need to work with Israel and Jordan to ensure that Iran and its proxies don’t establish a new front along the 

Golan Heights that I think would inflame tensions in this region 

for years to come. 

Finally, thirdly, and quickly, our third objective needs to be to 

ensure that ISIS and al-Qaeda are denied safe haven after Raqqa’s 

liberation so they can’t return, so we are not dealing with this 

problem yet again in the coming years. 

So the training and equipment we provide those local partners 

I think needs to be oriented not just toward defeating ISIS, not just 

that near-term goal, but also providing security for the local population afterwards. And we shouldn’t just support security forces. 

We need to support local civil society who can help with the governance and rebuilding of eastern Syria. 

I think both of these efforts will require international assistance 

and I think, to the extent we can, we should push our Arab allies 

to get involved in that effort, rather than having this be a U.S.-only 

effort. 

Just in closing, members of the committee, it is critical that we 

defeat ISIS but how we go about defeating ISIS and how we pursue 

our other aims in Syria are going to have lasting ramifications for 

the geopolitics of the Middle East and for our own security. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Singh follows:]

7


25261a-1.eps

Syria After the Missile Strikes: Policy Options 

Michael Singh 

Lane-Swig Senior Fellow and Managing Director, 

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy 

Testimony submitted to the House Foreign Affairs Committee 

April 27, 2017 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Engel, and members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify on American policy in Syria. This is rightly a topic of renewed attention in the 

aftem1ath of the April 7 cruise missile strike on Sha)-Tat airfield, which came in response to the 

horrific usc of chemical weapons by the Assad regime against the population of Khan Sheikhoun. 

At first glance, there seems to be a tragic repetitiveness to the conflict in Syria-a drumbeat of 

bombings, battles. and refugee flows punctuated now and then by some new, more extreme outrage perpetrated by the Assad regime. ISIS, or another group. The unrelenting nature of this conflict not only threatens to desensitize us to the tragedies unfolding daily in Syria. but to mask the 

war's fundamental transfonuation from 20 II to today. 

The S)Tia conflict began as a peaceful protest that was brutally suppressed, vvith an increasingly 

illegitimate regime fighting its people vvhile creating the conditions for the development of an 

extremist opposition, albeit one which served as a useful foil for the regime. The United States 

and others long hoped to contain this con±1ict, but failed utterly: it is now a regional contlagration 

whose geopolitical ramifications have been felt far beyond the Middle East. One can draw a 

straight line from the con±1ict in Syria to the rise of ISIS, which prospered in the vacmnn left by 

the Syrian state's decay: to Russia's reassertion of its power in the Middle East: to the refugee 

crisis in Europe and the Middle East; to the political turbulence which played a role in the British 

decision to leave the EU and continues to roil European politics today. 

Our relative neglect of the Syria conflict has thus not served our interests, but has set them back 

in the Middle East and beyond. Nor has it spared us the expenditure of resources-the U.S. has 

provided at least $6.5 billion in htnnanitarian aid to Syrians (more than any other country). provided at least $400 million in aid to the Syrian opposition, and spent billions of dollars more on 

the campaign against ISIS in Syria. 1 

Those who defend American policv in Syria over the last eight years must depend on the nonfalsifiable claim that whatever the costs of inaction, a more assertive policy would have been 

worse. The Trump administration has started out on the right foot by rejecting this approach and 

acting decisively in service of a clear U.S. interest. I believe the April 7 cruise missile strikes in 

response to the Assad regime· s use of chemical weapons stand a good chance of deterring the 

1 These figures are drawn from '"Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response," Congressional 

Research Service, April 7, 2017, hllps://fas.orglsgp/crs/mideas1!RL33487.pdf. 
8


25261a-2.eps

further use of CW in Syria and reinforcing more broadly the international norm against the use of 

such weapons_ which appears to have been the administration's narrow intent. 

Devising and executing our broader policy in Syria will be more complex, but will benefit from a 

similarly clear assessment of U.S. interests and objectives and the development of options to advance them. In doing so, we cannot afford to focus narrowly on one or another aspect of the conflict, such as defeating TSTS. Tnstead, we will need to consider how the policy choices we and others make in Syria will impact the geopolitical landscape in the Middle East and beyond in the future_ That will be the focus of my testimony. 

BACKGROUND 

The war in S}Tia today is not a single conflict, but comprises multiple arenas, which are not wholly distinct but overlap vvith one another: 

First, wcstem Syria, where the regime, supported by Russia, Iran, and Iranian proxies like 

Hezbollah, are fighting an opposition dominated by jihadist groups. primarily Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (which includes the fanner Jabhat al-Nusra). This fighting is currently most 

intense around Idlib. Millions of Syrian civilians_ including internally displaced persons 

from other areas such as Aleppo, are caught in it. It is this region that includes Khan 

Sheikhoun, which was the target of Assad-s chemical attack. 

Second, northern Syria, where Turkish-backed and Kurdish forces have both clashed with 

TSTS. in close proximity to Syrian regime and Russian forces. as they jostle for position. 

Turkish-backed forces maintain a triangle of territory including the towns of Jarabulus 

and al-Bab, in large part to prevent S}Tian Kurdish (YPG) forces from linking territory 

they control in northwestem Syria around Afrin with the territory they control in the 

country's northeast stretching from Manbij to Qamishli, and thereby consolidating control of the entire Syrian-Turkish border area. This has in turn strengthened the incentive 

for the YPG to cooperate with regime and Russian forces, which control the area south of 

al-Bab and east of Aleppo, which fom1s an altemate land route between the Kurdish areas. 

Third, southem Syria. This area is contested by the Syrian regime, opposition groups. and 

ISIS_ While it has generally been quieter oflate than other areas, it is of particular strategic importance to two of our closest regional allies, Israel and Jordan_ 

Fourth, castcm Syria, which along with a swath of central Syria around Palmyra remains 

in the hands ofiSIS. ISIS' territory has slowly eroded thanks to coalition air strikes in 

conjunction with a ground campaign being waged largely by the Syrian Democratic 

Forces (SDF), which includes both the Kurdish YPG militia and local Arab elements_ 

Each of these conflicts has drawn in various actors from inside and outside Syria. These include 

the following (NB-Because this testimony focuses on the regional geopolitics of the conflict, 

only cxtcmal actors arc listed: this is not intended to downplay the central role of Syrian actors in 

the conflict and its resolution): 

fran-Arguably the most significant outside actor in Syria, fran has reportedly provided 

the Assad regime with tens ofthousands2 of fighters, am1s, training. and other forrns of 

support. While most of the Iranian-backed forces in Syria are proxies-most notably 

2 Majid Raided as quoted in Melissa Dalton, Testimony Before the House Foreign Affairs Conunittee, February 14,2017. 
9


25261a-3.eps

Hezbollah but also lraq, Afghan, and Pakistani Shia militants-numerous IRGC personnel, including high-ranking officers, have been killed in Syria and other Iranian security 

agencies have reportedly been involved. 

Iran· s involvement has been focused not on fighting ISIS, but on fighting opposition 

forces in western Syria, leading one to sunnise that its objective is to defend the Assad 

regime. Ensuring Assad· s survival is vital to Iran-s effort to project power into the Levant 

against U S allies_ primarily Israel. Were Assad to fall, Iran· s channels to Hezbollah and 

other terrorist groups could be dismpted, and Iranian forces would not likely enjoy the 

freedom of action they long have had in Syria. 

Iran·s involvement in Syria has led to several concerning developments. While the IRGC 

and its proxies such as Hczbollal1 had typically engaged in insurgency in the past, their 

defense of the Assad regime has forced a shift to counter-insurgency. Whether this leads 

to overextension or aggrandizement is an open question, but there is evidence that their 

experience in Syria has increased their capacity for conventional operations.' 

In addition, the Syria conflict appears to have cemented the Russia-Iran alliance_ as v~vidly demonstrated by Russia's usc of an Iranian airbasc. It should be noted that sanctions 

bamng the sale of conventional arms systems to Irar1 will lapse in 2020 as a result of the 

nuclear deal or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). opening further possibilities for conventional military cooperation between Russia, Iran, and Iran's proxies. 

Finally, while Iran has thus far been focused on western Syria, one cannot dismiss the 

possibility that after the liberation of Mosul. Iraqi Shia militias beholden to Iran will seek 

to become involved in eastern Syria. 

Russia-While Russia's footprint in Syria has been smaller than Iran's, it has played no 

less decisive a role in safeguarding the Assad regime. With a relatively small (and thus 

perhaps sustainable) intervention, Russia arguably saved the Assad regime from severe 

contraction or destruction in late 2015 and enabled it to reverse some temtoriallosses. 

providing the air power to complement Iran's efforts on the ground. 

Russia, which like Iran has operated chiefly in westem S}Tia rather than against ISIS, also aims to defend the Assad regime but for reasons which are di±Ierent from Tehran's. It 

is perhaps the clearest case of what seems to be a global effort by Russian President Putin 

to restore Russia's status as a great power, in a place that was the last bastion of Russian 

influence in the region. Moscow likely also aims simply to thwart U.S. ambitions, in response to what it sees as U.S. efforts at regime change in Iraq, Libya, and elsewhere. 

Russiar1 officials routinely claim that their purpose is to fight ISIS and that they have no 

special attaclnnent to Assad himself, but neither assertion is borne out by Russian actions. 

Russia's intervention has had implications for the freedom of action of other forces. The 

U.S. cannot contemplate military action in Syria or the surrounding region without taking 

Russian air defenses into account, though their impact should not be exaggerated. And 

any action Israel contemplates in Lebanon or Syria also depends to some extent on Russian forbearance. 

Turkey-Ankara is a partner in U.S. efforts in Syria_ providing access to the h1cirlik air 

base and taking in millions of Syrian refugees. T nrkcy has long insisted that Assad 

3 See Genevieve Casagrande_ "How Irarlls Learning from Russia in Syria" Institute for the Study of War 

(http://www .understanding\var.org/backgrolmder/how-lran-leanling-ntssi3-syria) for more on Uris topic. 
10


25261a-4.eps

should step aside, but in recent months its chief concern in Syria appears to have been the 

territorial expansion of the Syrian Kurds, whom Turkey considers to be in league with the 

PKK terrorist group. As noted above, in 2016 (and continuing into 2017), Turkish-backed 

forces seized a swath of territory along the Syrian-Turkish border to prevent the YPG 

from linking its territories around Afrin with the area it holds in the cast between Manbij 

and Qamishli. Turkey is likely to remain in control of this territory for the foreseeable future. While much was made of a softening of Russian-Turkish relations last year, the tensions between Moscow and Ankara over Syria are likely to persist, especially if links between Russia and the YPG deepen. 

Turkey ·s concerns about the aggrandizement of the YPG has complicated the US-led 

campaign to oust ISIS from Raqqa, as the YPG-dominated SDF was seen as the likeliest 

candidate to lead that effort. The SDF-Ied '·Euphrates Wrath-' operation has been clearing 

territories around Raqqa in anticipation of the city's eventual liberation, while at the same 

time Turkish-backed opposition forces have stated their intention to roll back both ISIS 

and the YPG in the same area. Maintaining good relations with Turkey while mounting 

an effective campaign against ISIS in Raqqa has thus proven a conundrum for the U.S. 

and its coalition aBies. 

Jordan-Amman's chief concerns in Syria are fourfold. First is the flow of refugees from 

Syria into Jordan, which already hosts nearly a million of them. Coalition operations in 

Raqqa and western Iraq, or renewed fighting in southern Syria, could trigger another outflow ofrefugees to Jordan. Second is the possibility of further ISIS attacks against Jordan, beyond the border (although until now a11 the major terrorist attacks that have occurred in the kingdom have been perpetrated by radicalized Jordanian nationals). Third is 

the outbreak of renewed fighting near Jordan's borders, whether between the Syrian regime and opposition or Israel and Iranian-backed forces, which could have dire consequences for Jordan's own security. Finally. Jordan seeks to prevent Iran and Hezbollal1 

from establishing a base of operations along its northem border, which could be a destabilizing factor after the war eventua11y ends. To safeguard these interests, Jordan has been 

practical, seeking to maintain constructive relations with the Assad regime and Russia in 

recent months. Jordan has also reportedly been conducting, along with other anti -ISIS coalition forces, air and ground operations in southwest Syria, targeting ISIS and Al-Qaida 

militants. 

Israel-Israel's concerns in Syria appear to be threefold. The first is deterring any attacks 

from Syria into Israeli territory, regardless of the source. To this end, Israel has responded proportionately to projectiles originating in Syria and striking Israel, and these exchanges have thus far not escalated. Second, Israel is concerned about the possibility of 

Iranian and Iranian-backed forces, such as the IRGC and Hezbollall, establishing a nevv 

front with Israel on the Golan Heights. In fact, the Institute for the Study of War indicates 

that these groups have already established positions close to the northern edge of the Golan4 Third, Israel is concerned about the emerging a11iance between Iran. Hezbo11ah, and 

Russia, which if it advances could severely undermine Israel's qualitative military edge 

and security broadly. Israel also has a longstanding interest in preventing the transfer of 

advanced weaponry to Hezbollal1 via Syrian territory, and has reportedly conducted 

strikes inside both Syria and Lebanon to halt such transfers. 

4 Sec "Posture ofSyrim1 Regime and ABies: March 2 I_ 2017_'- Institute fort he Study of War. 

http://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/Regime%20-

%20lranian%20Posture%20MAR%202017 _2.pdf. 
11


25261a-5.eps

Others-Many other outside actors have interests and limited involvement in the Syrian 

conflict. The Gulf states have provided support to Syrian opposition groups in an effort to 

counter Iranian regional influence, but over time their focus has largely shifted to the 

Yemen conflict, which poses a more direct threat to the Arabian peninsula. Iraq is closer 

to Syria than other Gulf Arab states, and the U.S. should usc its leverage with Baghdadwhich presumably is stronger now than it will be in the future-to ensure that Iraqi Shia 

militias do not enter the ±ray with fellow Iranian-backed forces in Syria after Mosul's liberation. 

Europe is arguably more threatened by the Syrian conflict than is the U.S .. given the far 

larger number of refugees who have fled to Europe and the more significant ISIS presence there. However. the involvement of European states in the Syria conflict has been 

limited so far. Finally, China has had a small role in the conflict, reportedly cooperating 

with the Syrian regime on intelligence matters as a result of Chinese nationals traveling to 

fight with ISIS, and supporting Russian efforts to block UN Security Council action on 

Syria until Beijing's recent absention on a draft resolution condemning the Khan 

Sheikhoun attack. All of these actors are to some extent possible partners for the United 

States in Syria 

IMPLICATIONS FOR U.S. POLICY 

As the Trump administration crafts its policy toward Syria, it will need to take as a starting point 

today· s reality. This might seem obvious, but there is a temptation in policymaking to use current 

policy to correct for past errors. But whatever one's criticisms of President Obama· s approach to 

Syria, the mistakes of 20 II, 2013. and 2015 cannot be revisited, and the policy recommendations 

made then must be put aside in favor of ones suited to the present situation. 

Today 's realities are stark. As noted above. Syria is fragmented. Reunifying Syria does not, for 

the time being. appear to be within the power of any Syrian or outside actor. whether the Assad 

regime or the opposition. While it is still right to insist that Assad is illegitimate and should step 

aside, it is important to recognize that in reality his govcmmcnt no longer rules the majority of 

Syria. 

Russia and Iran are deeply entrenched in we stem Syria, and entangled with one another. Wl1ile 

their interests are not the same, as noted above. they depend operationally on one another to advance their respective interests, and thus will be di±licult to split In addition, Russia's presence 

constricts American freedom of action not just against Assad, but also to a large extent against 

Iranian and Iranian-backed forces, given their close coordination. However. this docs not mean 

splitting Russia and Iran, or at least limiting the extent of their alliance, should not remain a longterm U.S. objective in Syria. Nor do the constraints on our freedom of action render us impotent: 

demonstrating this was one of the most important consequences of the U.S. cruise missile strike 

on April 7. 

In addition, the m1ti-ISIS cmnpaign has already accomplished much of what it ultimately will. 

The group's territory has been steadily shrinking, and while it may break out in minor ways, it is 

unlikely a serious threat to seize territory on a significm1t scale in Syria or Iraq given our current 

policy. The coalition must still finish the job, but we should be realistic about the extent of the 

impact Raqqa's liberation will have on the Syria conflict at this stage. and we should already be 

planning for the next phase of that conflict 

Finally, in designing a S}Tia policy, the Trump administration should resist ''solutionism." The 

roots of the con±licts in Syria nm very deep: the United States will not and should not ''solve" 
12


25261a-6.eps

Syria, even if we expend vast resources in the attempt. Instead, the U.S. should determine what 

objectives are necessary to advance our vital interests. and devise strategies and policies to accomplish them. 

These objectives should include the following: 

1. Prevent the Syria conf/ictfrom fi~rther destabilizing the region. While the fighting in S}Tia has already drawn in numerous regional actors and had a serious economic and security impact on the region, it could get worse yet. The U.S. should consider steps that independently stabilize each of the conflict's areas of fighting, and be modest about any grand 

diplomatic effort to settle them all at once. 

a. Around Idlib, American options arc limited given that both sides-the Assad regime and its Russian and Iranian partners on the one hand, andjihadist groups 

such as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham on the other-are anathema to the U.S. Rather than 

involving ourselves in the fighting, the U.S. should, in conjunction with our European allies, focus on the protection of civilians and the provision of humanitarian relief Following up on the April 7 strike and to deter Assad and Russia primarily. the U.S. should warn that we and our allies reserve the right to respond 

with force to atrocities committed against civilians. 

b. In southern Syria, the U.S. should urge Russia to refrain from large-scale bombing in order to prevent the region's further destabilization. T11e U.S. should continue to aid Jordan, Israel, and/or non-jihadist opposition forces as needed with 

any operations to push ISIS, other jihadist groups, or Iranian-backed groups away 

from their borders. Preparation for Rai]qa's liberation should include provision 

for refi.tgees within Syria, lest they ±1ee for Jordan. 

c. h1 northcm and castcm Syria, the U.S. should lead a diplomatic effort to calm 

tensions between Turkey and the Syrian Kurds. Washington should seek Kurdish 

guarantees that they will not seck to extend their territory further, and Turkish 

pledges to respect core Kurdish territory in Syria. Because of Turkey's concerns 

about the U.S. prov~sion of heavy weapons and training to the SDF, and local 

Arab concems about Kurdish in±1uence, the U.S. should seek to involve both 

Turkish-backed and SDF forces in any Rai]qa operation. In addition, we should 

consider greater involvement by U.S., European, and Arab forces to minimize the 

roles of both Turkey and the Syrian Kurds 5 Assad. Iranian and Iranian-backed 

forces, and Russia should be excluded from any effort to liberate Raqqa. 

d. Rather than pursuing a diplomatic settlement in the manner ofthe Obama Administration, the Trump administration should withhold U.S. endorsement from 

any diplomatic process that does not require Assad to step aside and hold him to 

account. U.S. acquiescence is valuable to Russia and Iran. and it should not be 

given away freely, especially because they have demonstrated little ability or will 

to guarantee Assad's adherence to agreements. This should not rule out local 

ccasefircs, however. 

c. The U.S. should create, as CSIS' Melissa Dalton has suggested. a '·U.S.-lcd multilateral fomm in which tensions and con±1icting objectives can be addressed with 

'For a fuller treatment of this issue, see testimony by Ambassador James F. Jeffrey to the Senate Foreign 

Relations Connnillee. February 7. 2017. 
13


25261a-7.eps

key allies and partners on the Syria problem set (including Turkey, Israel, Jordan_ 

and the Gulfpartners)_-'6 

2. Umit Iran's projection ofpower and the aggrandizement of1ranian-backedfi>rces. One 

of the most dangerous flash points in the Middle East remains southern Lebanon. as aresult of the massive armaments and ex1ensive training that Iran has provided to Hezbollah 

for the purpose of threatening IsraeL It should be our objective not only to prevent the 

gro\\1h of this threat, but to counter Iran across the Levant through the following actions_ 

a. The U.S. should treat Iranian-backed forces as any other foreign fighters. and insist that others do so as well; any internationally recognized settlement to the 

contlict in Syria should require Iran to withdraw its forces and its proxies from 

the country. Similarly, any discussion of terrorist groups in Syria should address 

not only Smmi, but Shia terrorist groups such as Hezbollah as well. 

b. The U.S. should warn Iran that it reserves the right to use force, or back Israel's 

use offorce, against any IRGC or Hezbollah positions established in proximity to 

the Israeli or Jordanian borders. 

c. The U.S. should aggressively target Iranian entities that violate sanctions on S}Tia. and block any aircraft sales to Iran unless the recipient airlines can positively 

demonstrate that they are not involved in ferrying fighters or materiel to Syria. In 

addition. the U.S. should ramp np sanctions and other pressure on Hezbollah and 

its supporters in Lebanon and elsewhere. 

d. The Trump administration should work with the Iraqi government to prevent the 

travel of Shia militias from Iraq to Syria following the liberation of Mosul. 

e_ The U.S. should reinvigorate eftarts, largely dropped by the Obama administration, to support Lebanon's sovereignty, to ensure that it is not subsumed into 

westcm Syria should Syria· s fragmentation persist. 

3. Deny safe haven to jihadist groups including ISIS and A l-Qaida and prevent the return of 

iSiS after Raqqa ·s liberation_ Perhaps the most significant challenge surrounding 

6 Dalton. 

Raqqa 's liberation is what ±allows afterward_ Unlike in Iraq, there is no established authority to whom the U.S. can pass the baton; one must instead be fostered. 

a. Any intemational train-and-equip mission for local Arab forces in eastem Syria 

should emphasize not only the urban warfare that will be required to oust ISIS 

from R.1.qqa, but the tallow-on operations that will be required to provide security 

for the local population and prevent ISIS' return or the emerge of Al-Qaida. 

b. Security assistance should be paired with aid to civil society organizations- not 

only those providing humanitarian relief but also ones which can help restore 

law, order, and services in liberated areas_ 

c. The role of both the Kurds and the Turks in eastern Syria should be limited, and 

Arab states, and to a lesser extent European forces. should instead be encouraged 

to play a role, especially in counter-terrorism. 
14


25261a-8.eps

OUTCOMES 

The ideal outcome in Syria from the point of view of American interests is a unitied Syria with a 

pro-Western, pluralistic government. T11is is perhaps the least likely outcome in the foreseeable 

future, however, given the country's increasing fragmentation and demographic polarization and 

the failure of diplomatic efforts to date. Equally unrealistic is an outcome in which the Assad regime reasserts control over all of Syria; it lacks the capacity to do so. and even if it had those capabilities. its mle would trigger continued violent resistance ±rom Syrians who reject Assad· s legitimacy. More realistic. perhaps, is a federal Syria comprised of semi-autonomous regions. But 

few actors in Syria or the region favor such an outcome, and they could be expected to resist it 

long after it had become a reality. The best approach for the United States is to pursue our interests while promoting stability in each of the conflict" s disparate arenas. gradually expanding our 

zone of influence with an eye toward a broader diplomatic settlement down the road. 
15

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. 

Mr. Lister. 

STATEMENT OF MR. CHARLES LISTER, SENIOR FELLOW, 

MIDDLE EAST INSTITUTE 

Mr. LISTER. Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Engel, members 

of the committee, thank you for inviting me here today to testify 

on this very important subject. 

Today, the Assad regime has sat more comfortably in Damascus 

than at any point since the start of the crisis in early 2011. Its recent use of chemical weapons is almost certainly a result of that 

confidence. However, if anyone believes that Assad is now the key 

to stabilizing Syria, they are sorely mistaken. Assad will never be 

capable of putting Syria back together again. Not only does his continued survival represent radicalization gold dust but it also fuels 

the continued exodus of his own population. 

So what now? Clearly, the status quo is not working. Determined 

U.S. leadership backed up by a credible threat of force and a holistic underpinning strategy represents the best opportunity to 

strong-arm actors into a phase of meaningful de-escalation, out of 

which a durable negotiation process may eventually result. 

Punitive strikes and other assertive acts of diplomacy will be inevitable but if anything is now clear, it is that we have far more 

freedom of action in Syria than the previous administration was 

ever willing to admit. Opponents of limited U.S. intervention, who 

long and confidently pronounced the inevitability of conflict of Russia, are now faced with the reality that Russia failed to lift a finger 

when American missiles careened toward Assad regime targets. 

The first step to developing a more effective Syria policy is to acknowledge that Syria can be divided into dozens of unique semicontained conflicts and that countering terrorism isn’t enough to 

protect our interests. We need a holistic strategy that treats all of 

Syria’s various symptoms as interlinked components of one big root 

cause. 

The fight against ISIS in Syria has made significant progress but 

we must acknowledge the challenges ahead and the disadvantageous effects of certain aspects of our strategy. The big looming 

challenge is the fight for Raqqa and the issue at hand is who our 

local partners are for that battle. The favored status given thus far 

to the Kurdish YPG has created serious issues with our NATO ally 

Turkey, which claims the YPG is affiliated to the PKK, a movement that we, ourselves, consider a terrorist organization. In fact, 

the YPG’s direct affiliation with the PKK was publicly acknowledge 

repeatedly by our very own National Counterterrorism Center, 

until we began working with the group in 2014. 

We need Turkey as a constructive partner. Laudable efforts have 

been undertaken to recruit Arabs to fight alongside the YPG but 

the YPG retains overwhelming influence over tactics, strategy, and 

outcomes. The YPG also maintains ambiguous relations with the 

Assad regime. Already, territory captured from ISIS thanks to intensive U.S. assistance has been handed back to the Assad regime 

and to Russia. A YPG-led victory in Raqqa would almost certainly 

lead to a similar result, which would embolden extremists and create the conditions for new conflict. 

16

We do not need to rush Raqqa and it is not at all clear that our 

existing partners are capable of taking the city. Instead, we should 

use our influence with Turkey to push for a ceasefire with the 

PKK, which may help ease tensions with the YPG in Syria. As part 

of a package deal, we could then offer to include a portion of Turkey’s anti-Assad forces, most of which are already vetted by the 

CIA and CENTCOM, into a broader Raqqa offensive. This would be 

a similar arrangement to that which we worked out for Mosul in 

Iraq. 

While our eyes have been firmly fixed on ISIS, al-Qaeda has 

thrived in Syria. It sought to deeply embed itself into Syria’s broad 

opposition movement. It has adapted its narrative to fit that of 

much of the opposition and it studiously avoided many of the extremist practices typically associated with al-Qaeda. This use of 

what I call controlled pragmatism is in marked difference from 

ISIS and means that countering al-Qaeda in Syria necessitates the 

use of a very different toolkit. This is a struggle defined by a competition for narrative victory. Six years of violence and no determined international action to stop it has provided al-Qaeda with an 

increasingly pliable population and an opportunity to exploit its 

principle advantage, its power in battle. Determined action to protect civilians and deter regime war crimes, paired with a substantial reduction in conflict would represent a serious threat to alQaeda. 

However, greater pressure is needed on its most important area 

of operations, the Province of Idlib. This is a problem that only 

Turkey is well-placed to tackle, though it would require substantial 

U.S. support. Here, we would seek to replicate Turkey’s actions 

against ISIS and the YPG north of Aleppo to create a reality on 

the ground of steadily expanding ink spots. In Aleppo, those ink 

spots have since turned into de facto safe zones from which adversaries were defeated, al-Qaeda fled, reconstruction has now rebegun, refugees are returning, moderate rebel groups are being 

trained, and police are taking over from armed groups. The opposition interim government now plans to establish offices in this area. 

Beyond countering terrorism, there is no immediate opening for 

a nationwide settlement. As such, we should pursue an interim solution, imposing calm to distinct geographic zones. Creating zones 

of calm along Syria’s borders will assist an eventual process of refugee resettlement and constrain or even stop the flow of weapons 

and money intended for armed activities. It would give opposition 

territories the opportunity to begin governance and service provision free from aerial bombing and it will allow some level of interim reconstruction to begin. 

Creating multiple facts on the ground will also represent a considerable source of pressure on Assad and may eventually allow for 

a meaningful initiation of negotiations. For this reason, the United 

States would need to pursue an intensive track of bilateral negotiations with Russia throughout the lead-up to and as these zones of 

calm take form. 

For this reason, America and its allies must be prepared for enforcement. Credible threats of punitive force can create meaningful 

diplomatic leverage but only when part of a clearly defined strategy. 

17

Finally, this deterrence should encompass more than the use of 

internationally banned weapons. It is important for us to establish 

a moral equivalency. Conventional weapons are far more deadly 

than sarin gas. In fact, Assad’s aerial bombing of his own population has killed at least 57 times as many people as the use of 

chemicals and banned chemical weapons. It should not be a matter 

of the murder weapon that defines whether murder is acceptable 

or not. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lister follows:]

18


25261b-1.eps

Written Testimony of Charles Lister 

Senior Fellow, Middle East Institute 

To the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

April27, 2017 

Hearing on "Syria After the Missile Strikes: Policy Options" 

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, Members of the Committee: 

First, thank you for providing me with this opportunity to speak to you today, and to address 

the situation in Syria and what policy options the United States might consider going forward. 

Three weeks ago, the United States military fired 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at Syria's AIShayrat airbase as a punitive response for the Syrian government's use of a Sarin-like nerve 

agent against a residential area of the town of Khan Sheikhoun three days earlier. This was a 

justified, proportionate and necessary response to a flagrant war crime, committed in full view 

ofthe world. Images and video footage showing men, women and children losing control of 

their muscles, succumbing to uncontrollable convulsions and then foaming from the mouth and 

nose shocked the world. 

Whereas the United States' decision not to act in response to a similar attack in August 2013 

that killed fifteen times as many people drew ire amongst allies and adversaries, the decision to 

act this time around was widely praised by U.S. partners near and far. Whereas the U.S. 

decision not to act in August 2013 was justified at the time by a Russian-facilitated deal to 

remove and destroy Syria's chemical weapons stockpile, events in l<han Sheikhoun 

demonstrated starkly that that deal had been a ruse. Israeli intelligence now assesses that 

Bashar ai-Assad has secretly retained at least three tons of Sarin nerve agent, enough to kill 

many thousands more people, should he choose to do so. This was not much of a secret. 

Officials in the U.S. government and all of our principal allies have known as much for years. 

For six years, U.S. policy on Syria has been characterized by lots of talk and very little action. For 

six years, U.S. policy on Syria has sought to convince our adversaries to behave through 

dialogue, hoping to facilitate some semblance of stability in Syria based on trust, when no such 

trust has existed. The results of pursuing dialogue with no muscle behind it are clear and 

horrifying: half a million Syrians dead and 11.5 million more either internally displaced or 

refugees. Syria's collapse into chaos assisted ISIS in its dramatic recovery, out of which it has 

declared a Caliphate and forced the international community to form one of the broadest 

military coalitions in history. Meanwhile, a globally weakened AI-Qaeda has used Syria to adapt 

and evolve its self-presentation and strategic objectives, so much so that many people in the 

region now see it as a credible resistance movement fighting the 'good fight.' As a result, 

America and its allies now face an AI-Qaeda with sources of genuine popularity, something ISIS 

never acquired. 
19


25261b-2.eps

The consistent deterioration of the situation in Syria has also brought us a huge refugee crisis, 

which itself is the result of the Assad regime's scorched earth tactics. The unprecedented 

refugee flows out of Syria witnessed in recent years have crippled America's strategic partners 

in the region and sparked countless social, economic and political crises throughout European 

NATO allies. Iran is also now more powerful than ever; its Revolutionary Guard Corps has 

evolved into a professional and capable expeditionary force exerting influence across all 

corners of the Middle East; Hezbollah is now more powerful than some small Eastern European 

militaries; and dozens of transnational Shia militias now roam across established state borders, 

acting expressly against our own interests. 

The Syrian crisis is immensely complicated -I have spent virtually every single day since March 

2011 trying my best to understand it. Despite this very clear complexity, one thing ought to be 

simple: the continued presence of Bashar ai-Assad in Damascus as Syria's self-proclaimed 

President does not promise any semblance of hope for the country's future. In fact, his stalwart 

refusal to consider even basic political reform in 2011 and his embracing of an escalatory set of 

military measures to, in his words, "cleanse" his population of the enemy, now represents the 

root cause of virtually every terrible consequence of the conflict in Syria. Considering our 

preeminent fixation on the threat of terrorism since 9/11, we must acknowledge that the single 

biggest push and pull factor for both AI-Qaeda and ISIS in Syria, is the Assad regime's continued 

survival and the brutal violence it unleashes upon its people. 

At no point in the last six years has the United States truly sought to address this root cause. 

Instead, we have switched from all talk and no action, to lots of talk and action to address 

symptoms. This is a containment strategy, not a solution. Nothing at all has got better in Syria 

through our pursuit ofthis approach and it is not unreasonable to suggest that nothing is likely 

to get better if we continue. Widespread perceptions of U.S. weakness and risk aversion have 

borne out clear consequences. But it is not too late. 

Today, we meet in the seventh year of the conflict in Syria. Much has changed, particularly 

since Russia's military intervention in September 2015- an act itself that was only possible 

because nobody believed the United States would prevent it. In April 2017, the Assad regime 

finds itself sat more comfortably in Damascus than at any point since the start of the crisis in 

the Spring of 2011. Its use of banned chemical weapons a few weeks ago is almost certainly a 

result of that confidence. 

However, if anyone believes that Bashar ai-Assad is now the key to stabilizing Syria, they have 

learned nothing from the country's recent history. Assad cannot and will never be capable of 

putting Syria back together again. Six years of mass murder, sectarian massacres, the 

industrialized use of torture and execution, the repeated use of chemical weapons, barrel 

bombs, ballistic missiles and more does not just represent extremist radicalization gold-dust, it 

is also clear and incontrovertible evidence that Bashar ai-Assad has little to offer in terms of 

popular credibility or a promise of stability in Syria. 
20


25261b-3.eps

It is also important not to forget history. To claim that Bashar ai-Assad was never our enemy 

would be to brush over his extraordinary and widely documented role in empowering ISIS's 

predecessor movements in Iraq, who fought against and killed American soldiers for years on 

end. As U.S. troops entered Iraq in March 2003, Assad's personally appointed Grand Mufti 

issued a fatwa declaring it religiously obligatory for all Muslims- male and female- to resist 

the invasion using any available means, including suicide bombing. Iraq's then foreign minister 

claimed 5,000 foreign fighters crossed into the country from Syria in the first 11 days of the 

invasion. Most of these were driven to the border on Syrian government buses, as Syrian 

border guards waved them across unchecked. According to captured Islamic State documents, 

more than 700 foreign jihadists crossed into Iraq from Syria through one town alone in a 12-

month period between 2006-2007. Later in 2007, U.S. intelligence estimated that as much as 

90% of Islamic State suicide bombers in Iraq had come through Syria- many flying into Aleppo 

or Damascus airports and then given free access to the Iraqi border. In mid-2009, the Syrian 

government's military intelligence service convened a meeting in the Syrian mountain town of 

Zabadani, in which Assad regime officials sat alongside leaders from the Islamic State and from 

Iraq's deposed Baath Party and planned a series of debilitating bombings aimed at crippling 

Prime Minister No uri ai-Maliki's standing in Baghdad. We know about this meeting only 

because Iraqi intelligence had a mole in the room, wearing a wire. Those attacks took place in 

August 2009 and left over 700 killed and wounded. It is quite possible that hundreds of 

American troops would still be alive today had it not been for Assad's explicit support for what 

was then known as the Islamic State in Iraq. 

That tacit support for jihadists as a means of furthering Assad regime interests did not end in 

2010, however. As men, women and children were taking to the streets in protest against 

Assad's dictatorial rule in the first half of 2011, Assad ordered the release of hundreds of 

imprisoned jihadists from jail. This was a cynical move to justify Assad's description of the 

opposition as radicals from Day One. While pro-democracy activists were being disappeared at 

night and arrested in the day, AI-Qaeda jihadists were being let out on amnesty. Two of the aiNusra Front's seven founding members were amongst those released, as were at least 10 of its 

other senior leaders. Three of ISIS's most important leaders in Syria were also released, 

including the Emirs of Aleppo and Raqqa, the de facto capital of the Caliphate. As Syria's 

opposition movement gained steam later in 2011, Assad's personally appointed Grand Mufti 

threatened to unleash "martyrdom seekers" to Europe, should external powers intervene. Two 

Congress people have since met with this Grand Mufti. 

In short, Bashar ai-Assad- in both everything he has done and everything he represents- does 

not and should never represent what we consider to be an acceptable future for Syria and its 

people. It should also go without saying that the choice we face today is not and has never been 

a binary one between Assad and ISIS, as some have tried to claim. Syria remains a country of 

many communities and many perspectives. Of a population of roughly 23 million people, no 

more than 20,000 (0.09 percent) have chosen today to be members of AI Qaeda or ISIS. 

Therefore, U.S. policy is best served by securing a future for the remaining 99.91 percent. This is 

also not merely a matter of attending to resident Syrians inside Syria. Over 5 million Syrian 

citizens (roughly 22% of the population) are currently registered as refugees, residing outside of 
21


25261b-4.eps

Syria, while a further 6.3 million (roughly 27% of the population) are homeless and displaced 

inside the country. Those people require a voice too, in determining their country's future. 

So what now? Clearly the status quo is not working. To call for a continuation of existing policy 

is to accept that Syria will be unstable for a decade or more, and the terrorist threat regionally 

and internationally will undoubtedly grow. Major foreign intervention in search of regime 

change, however, carries far too many risks and promises only further chaos. What is needed is 

a policy that sits in-between. Determined U.S. leadership backed up by the credible and now 

proven threat of force presents the best opportunity in years to strong-arm actors on the 

ground into a phase of meaningful de-escalation, out of which eventually, a durable negotiation 

process may result. This is, sadly, something the previous administration refused to accept. 

Repeated, well-meaning efforts to broker peace failed because that administration refused 

even to consider threatening the use of force. Every rhetorical threat given from an Obama 

podium effectively amounted to a further emboldening of the Assad regime's sense of impunity 

and its free hand to murder its people en masse. 

Any path forward in Syria will be a long one. There are no quick fixes and there are unlikely to 

be quick interim results either. Setting Syria on a path towards stability will undoubtedly 

necessitate a further strengthening of the U.S. posture. More punitive military strikes and other 

assertive acts of diplomacy will be inevitable, but if anything is now clear, it is that the U.S. has 

more freedom of action in Syria than the Obama administration was ever willing to admit. 

Opponents of limited U.S. intervention who have long and confidently pronounced the 

inevitability of conflict with Russia are now faced with the reality that Moscow failed to lift a 

finger when American missiles careered toward Assad regime targets. 

This is not to suggest that Russia plans to sit back and watch the United States threaten or 

undermine its proxy, Assad. Russia's seat on the U.N. Security Council and its conventional 

military assets make it appear to be the key obstacle to progress, but it may well end up being 

the key to movingforword in a better direction. For Russia, the Syrian issue remains something 

to be negotiated, though naturally it wants such negotiations to occur within a dynamic that 

better suits its negotiating position. In the past, we have come to the table with little leverage, 

because we refused to seek any. That is reversible, to an extent. 

Beyond Russia though, Iran is arguably a far greater challenge and obstacle to progress. For 

Iran, the fate of Assad appears to be non-negotiable, at least within today's dynamics. 

Sustaining a friendly regime in Damascus is of existential importance to Tehran's regional 

strategy, particularly considering Hezbollah's near-total reliance on Iranian arms supplies 

through Syria, and Damascus in particular. Keeping Assad in place also secures Iranian 

hegemony through Tehran-Baghdad-Damascus-Beirut and into the Palestinian Territories. 

Beyond being a great victory for Iran, that also represents a major defeat to American interests 

and influence in the region. It also risks inflaming further, existing great power competition 

involving Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. 
22


25261b-5.eps

Russia's intervention in Syria saved Assad from possible defeat, that is clear. However, the more 

secure Assad feels, the less he appears restrained by Russian instruction. In other words, 

Russia's leverage over Assad may be declining. This is also an issue of manpower. Russians 

closely acquainted with Syria decision-making and assessments in Moscow assess that Russia's 

key partner in Syria, the national Army, retains no more than 20,000 personnel who it believes 

to be sufficiently trained, offensively deployable and loyal for use in key operations. Iran on the 

other hand has key hands in Syrian paramilitary and foreign Shia militia forces that may now 

number 150,000 men at arms. Some ofthose groups are designated terrorist organizations, 

legally no different from al Qaeda or ISIS; others have become intrinsic components of the 

Assad regime's state apparatus. As one prominent Russian in Moscow recently told me in 

Europe, even Russia's own Spetsnaz special forces have come to respect one such Iran-backed 

terrorist group- Hezbollah- more than the Syrian Army itself. 

Given this force imbalance, Russia has taken to deploying what it calls "military police" units to 

Syria, to hold important territory and to train new Syrian army conscripts. These "military 

police" forces have come from across Russia's North Caucasus region and reliable Russian 

sources inform me they are elite, counter-terrorism specialists. Russia is also coordinating the 

formation of new Syrian volunteer auxiliary forces, known as the 4'h and s'h Legions. Gathering 

from recent publicity photographs, a sizeable majority of these volunteers are aged men, far 

from their fighting prime. Combined, these efforts and others appear to be Russian attempts at 

force multiplication, to shore up additional sources of leverage in Damascus. 

As things stand today, Syria can be divided up into dozens of semi-contained conflicts, every 

one of which is individually unique. Assad may be more secure than ever, but he is a very long 

way from a full territorial re-conquest of his country. That objective may take a decade, or not 

even be possible at all. Despite this dissolution into multiple conflicts, the solution to Syria is 

not to be found in partition. In fact, that is one of the only issues that the opposition and the 

regime currently agree on. Despite the intensity and complexity of conflict, Syrians on both 

sides of the conflict still share a shared sense of Syrian identity. Although hard to see through 

the bullets and gas, this is a crucially important realization. Syria's non-jihadist opposition, as 

varied, complicated and imperfect as it is, remains a force of 80,000-100,000 heavily-armed 

men. A substantial majority of these men, and their sons, are not considering giving up their 

struggle anytime soon. That is also a crucially important realization. It will only be by addressing 

these kinds of realities that we will begin to define a meaningful policy. 

The first step to developing a more effective Syria policy is to acknowledge that countering 

terrorism is not enough to protect our interests in the short or long-term. A holistic strategy is 

required that treats all the various symptoms as inter-linked components of a very big problem. 

The United States can choose to make big decisions and spend substantial amounts of 

resources now, or we can continue today's strategy and face virtual certainty of having to come 

back and do even more to try to fix an even greater problem several years from now. The word 

"unprecedented" is frequently used to describe problems emanating from Syria today. That is 

for a reason. We cannot hope to fix such issues by dipping our toes in the quagmire. 
23


25261b-6.eps

Counter-Terrorism: ISIS 

The fight against ISIS in Syria has made significant progress, but it is important to acknowledge 

the challenges ahead and the disadvantageous knock-on effects of certain aspects of our 

strategy. The big challenge looming ahead is the fight for Raqqa and the major issue at hand is 

who our local partners are for that battle. Until now, the United States has demonstrated a 

clear preference for the Kurdish People's Protection Units (the YPG) and allied militias and 

tribes, collectively known as the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). 

The favored status given to the YPG and its political wing, the Democratic Union Party (the PYD) 

has created serious issues with NATO ally Turkey, as it claims the PYD and YPG are affiliated to 

the l<urdistan Workers Party (the Pl<l<), with whom it has fought a sustained war since the late1970s. The United States has recognized the PKK as a designated terrorist organization since 

1997. Turkey does have a point here. After all, the YPG was established by the brother of the 

PKK's God-like leader, Abdullah Ocalan, and the majority of the YPG's most senior and impactful 

leaders in Syria today owe their allegiance to the PKK's transnational leadership structure, 

known as the KCK. In fact, the United States government's very own National CounterTerrorism Center accepted this much in its annual profiles of designated terrorist organizations, 

stating clearly in 2014 that the PYD was the "Syrian affiliate" of the PI< I<. Upon beginning our 

relationship with the PYD and YPG, however, that paragraph was removed from the NCTC 

profile in 2015 and 2016. 

The United States needs Turkey to be a constructive partner on Syria's northern border, if we 

are to ever successfully defeat the terrorist threats emanating from there. As such, laudable 

efforts have been undertaken to recruit Arab tribes into the SDF, but contrary to much of the 

reporting on the issue, the YPG retains overwhelming influence over the SDF's tactics, strategy 

and outcomes. Moreover, for Arabs to join the SDF, the YPG precludes their inclusion by 

providing them with ideological training, in which certain revolutionary Marxist ideals are fused 

with the unique ideology developed by PKK leader Ocalan himself. Those who insufficiently buy 

into the Pl<l<'s ideology are said to receive little responsibility on the battlefield. The YPG does 

nothing to hide its hostility to Turkey either, including in the presence of American soldiers. The 

YPG also maintains ambiguous relations with the Assad regime. One strategically important 

town, Manbij, which was captured with U.S. military support, has since been effectively handed 

over to the Assad regime by the YPG. A YPG-Ied victory in Raqqa would almost certainly lead to 

a similar result, which itself would embolden ISIS and AI-Qaeda in a very big way and create the 

conditions for a further zone of complex conflict. 

The United States does not need to rush our push to Raqqa. Doing so risks achieving the shortterm objective- the city's capture- but securing groups like ISIS with an invaluable narrative 

victory. The United States should use its significant diplomatic leverage with Turkey to push for 

consideration of a ceasefire with the PKK inside Turkey, which may help ease tensions with the 

YPG across the border in Syria. As part of a package deal with Turkey, the United States could 

offer to include a select portion of its anti-Assad forces- the majority of which have already 

been vetted either by the CIA or by CENTCOM- into a broader offensive on Raqqa. This would 
24


25261b-7.eps

be a similar arrangement to that worked out for Mosul, where zones of responsibility were prearranged between rival or competing factions. 

Counter-Terrorism: AI-Qaeda 

While our eyes have been fixed firmly on the threat posed by ISIS, AI-Qaeda's presence in Syria 

has thrived. Whereas ISIS has consistently sought to act alone and has aggressively avoided 

working with others, AI-Qaeda has sought to deeply embed itself into Syria's broad, opposition 

movement. It has constantly adapted its narrative to fit those of much of the opposition and it 

has studiously avoided many of the extremist practices typically associated with AI-Qaeda. This 

use of what I call "controlled pragmatism" has allowed it to methodically socialize more and 

more people into first accepting its presence within their midst, and then to supporting it. That 

many opposition Syrians- and indeed many people across the Middle East- see it in a different 

way than AI-Qaeda of the past, means that it has attracted a significant number of Syrian 

recruits who do not yet buy into the transnational jihadist ideal. Instead, they have merely 

chosen to join a popular group with a very successful track record on the battlefield. 

This very marked difference from how ISIS has operated means that countering AI-Qaeda in 

Syria necessitates the use of a very different tool kit. In a sense, this is a struggle defined by a 

competition for narrative victory. Six years of brutal violence in Syria, paired with a total lack of 

determined international action to put a stop to it, has provided AI-Qaeda with an increasingly 

pliable population seemingly devoid of alternatives. Sustained levels of conflict have also given 

AI-Qaeda the opportunity to consistently exploit its principal advantage: its power in battle. 

Stronger international action aimed at protecting civilians and punishing regime war crimes, 

paired with a substantial reduction in conflict represents a very serious threat to AI-Qaeda. It 

was not a coincidence that the entirety of Syria's opposition welcomed and praised the recent 

cruise missile strikes and only AI-Qaeda issued a rebuke. 

Taking away AI-Qaeda's narrative dominance can help deal with its popularity, which by 

extension, may give many desperate Syrians the confidence to embrace alternatives other than 

AI-Qaeda. Pursuing the abovementioned actions will also set into motion a chain of events that 

would likely lead to AI-Qaeda isolating itself as it acted in ways to protect its base. We have 

seen this happen before, on a much smaller scale. 

Greater pressure, however, is needed on its most powerful area of operations: the province of 

ldlib. This is a problem that only Turkey is well placed to tackle, though it would require 

substantial U.S. support and protection. In August 2016, the Turkish military crossed into 

northern Aleppo's countryside alongside allied opposition groups to seek two objectives: the 

localized defeat of ISIS and the establishment of a buffer zone, preventing the YPG from sealing 

a contiguous swathe of territory. In so doing, Turkey catalyzed a total withdrawal of AI-Qaeda 

forces from northern Aleppo, as the group openly refused to cooperate with any foreign 

government or to align itself with U.S.-backed opposition forces, which Turkey was using. 
25


25261b-8.eps

As that zone of territory steadily expanded, it also grew into a de facto safe zone, as neither 

Russia nor the Assad regime dared fly over it and risk targeting Turkish troops. In the time since, 

this swathe of territory that now measures 110km by 60km, has received substantial sums of 

financial support for re-development and re-building. Tens of thousands of refugees have 

crossed from Turkey back into Syria and with Turkish pressure, populated areas are now being 

vacated by armed opposition groups and law and order is being assumed by Turkish trained 

Syrian civilian police forces. The area has also become home to at least 14 separate opposition 

military facilities, in which Turkish special forces are training Free Syrian Army affiliated groups 

for future operations. The U.S. recognized Syrian opposition Interim Government now plans to 

establish in-country offices in this area. 

The evacuation of AI-Qaeda from northern Aleppo has since proven permanent and I believe it 

could be replicated on a smaller scale in ldlib territory positioned along Turkey's border. With 

U.S. assistance and a resumption of military support to U.S. vetted opposition groups active in 

the area, we have an opportunity to create a reality on the ground that is both safe and 

moderate. This would be an ink spot strategy with risks, but the potential benefits could be 

significant. This too would set into motion a chain of events that would likely lead to AI-Qaeda 

further isolating itself, as it acted in ways to protect its base. Only then would the United States 

have a clearer idea of who the genuinely committed transnational jihadists were, and where to 

target them. 

Counter-Terrorism: Shia militants 

Finally, the United States must also more clearly acknowledge the presence of other, non-Sunni 

terrorist organizations in Syria, and to work more determinedly to constrain their freedom of 

operation. Hezbollah is the most notable terrorist group in this case, but there are others too. 

Throughout the last administration's diplomatic attempts alongside Russia to introduce 

cessations of hostilities in Syria, Hezbollah and other designated organizations like Kataib 

Hezbollah were treated as legitimate actors, while AI-Qaeda and ISIS were excluded. Beyond 

the issue of the PKK, this inconsistency in policy weakens our hand enormously. 

Enforced Zones of Calm 

There is no perceivable opening for a grand, nationwide settlement to the conflict in Syria. As 

such, the best available interim solution is to introduce calm to geographically distinct zones in 

Syria, in which local Syrian actors and external actors with influence in the area can agree to 

freeze existing lines of conflict. This would be pursued alongside the above detailed counterterrorism actions and would mean aiming to establish, and most importantly, to enforce, 

multiple zones of calm across Syria, in which conflict effectively ends, frontlines are frozen, and 

minimal reconstruction can begin. 

In today's dynamics, five such zones come to mind: (1) the existing zone under Turkish 

influence in northern Aleppo; (2) a new zone under Turkish influence in northern ldlib; (3) the 

formalization of a zone of stability under SDF influence in northeastern Syria; (4) a new zone of 
26


25261b-9.eps

stability in southern and southwestern Syria, under the influence of Jordan and Israel; and (5) a 

new, future zone of stability in eastern Syria, divided between the Assad regime and newly 

formed, local U.S.-backed anti-ISIS forces. 

Creating these zones of calm along Syria's borders will assist in an eventual managed process of 

refugee resettlement, easing the burden placed on Syria's neighbors. It would also help slow or 

even stop the flow of weapons and money intended for armed activities from flowing across 

these border areas, while the stability itself will give opposition territories the opportunity to 

demonstrate their latent capabilities in local governance and service provision. Until now, those 

latent capabilities have been sharply limited by sustained aerial bombing, a challenge that 

neither the Assad regime nor the YPG have faced. 

Creating multiple facts on the ground in this case would make it impossible for Bashar ai-Assad 

to credibly claim an intent to recapture every inch of his territory. It would in and of itself 

represent a considerable source of pressure on Assad's claim of unending leadership in Syria 

and may eventually allow for conditions in which a determined move by the international 

community to initiate meaningful negotiations could actually make progress. Forth is reason, 

the United States would need to pursue an intensive track of bilateral negotiations with Russia 

throughout the lead-up to, and during the formative stage of these zones of stability. That 

dialogue would be exclusively focused on determining a shared understanding of what kind of 

political future in Syria was acceptable to both parties. 

These zones of calm would face multiple determined spoilers, particularly Assad himself. This is 

why the United States and allied countries must be prepared to enforce these zones of stability 

through a credible threat of punitive action for violators. AI-Qaeda, ISIS and other militant 

actors would pose similarly significant spoiling threats, and should face similar punitive actions. 

Regarding the enforcement aspect specifically, the threat of force can create meaningful 

diplomatic leverage, but only when it is credible and part of a clearly defined strategy. The 

recent cruise missile strikes on Syria did have an effect on the behavior of certain states, but 

the lack of a strategic foundation meant that our adversaries have now returned to business as 

usual. While it is indeed important, even necessary, to enforce established international norms 

such as that that forbids the use of chemical weapons, it is also important to establish moral 

equivalency and to recognize that other conventional means of killing are often far more 

effective and used with impunity. For example, monitoring data suggests that chemical 

weapons have been responsible for under 1% of all civilian casualties in Syria, while the Assad 

regime's use of air-dropped bombs has been responsible for 57% of all civilian fatalities. It 

should not be a matter oft he murder weapon that defines whether murder is acceptable or 

not. 

Pursuing this 'zones of stability' strategy would be far from easy and success may seem hard to 

come by at first. But treating Syria as a multitude of different mini conflict zones makes more 

sense than treating it as one whole. Moreover, the power of calm and the threat of serious 

consequences for violating that calm has a good chance of eventually establishing a deterrence 
27


25261b-10.eps

dynamic. The additional pressure that it would place upon terrorist groups and on Assad 

himself, should provide the United States with more options and more leverage than exist 

today. 

Iran 

The United States must urgently acknowledge and act to confront the malign activities of Iran in 

exploiting pre-existing instability in the Middle East to undermine its rivals and to establish 

hegemonic influence for itself. While constructive relations with Iran are arguably in the 

interest of all members of the international community, the revolutionary nature of its regional 

policy and its impressive success in utilizing unconventional means to assert strong levels of 

influence against the United States represents a sustained threat to the United States' position 

of influence in the Middle East. It also represents a serious threat to Israel. Increased Iranian 

confidence in Syria has recently transitioned into increasingly bold threats against Israel- from 

the creation of Shia militia groups with the proclaimed objective of liberating territory 

controlled by Israel, stationing Shia militants in Syria near Israeli territory with anti-aircraft 

weapons, or in providing further strategic weaponry to Hezbollah. 

The United States' best method of pressure on Iran and its use of militant groups in Syria is the 

use of targeted sanctions, especially against airlines used to fly weaponry and militiamen daily 

from Iran to Damascus. The United States may also choose to further strengthen economic 

sanctions and other measures against Hezbollah and to seek some extent of an understanding 

with Russia, in order to test the theory that Russia may diverge from Iran in terms of their 

respective visions for Syria's future. 
28

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. 

Dr. Dafna Rand. 

STATEMENT OF DAFNA H. RAND, PH.D., ADJUNCT PROFESSOR, 

NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIVERSITY 

Ms. RAND. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman 

Royce, Ranking Member Engel, members of the committee. Thank 

you for inviting me to testify. 

Mr. Chairman, you mentioned the White Helmets and I would 

like to start there because I agree that it is a remarkable story. I 

would note that 140 or so of these White Helmets, these civilian 

protection forces, have been directly targeted when they go out to 

rescue. So there have been 140 casualties in the past 2 years alone. 

That is just one statistic of the suffering, displacement, and stateled atrocities that have occurred in Syria. Eighty percent of the 

population is now in need of humanitarian assistance, 12 million 

Syrians are displaced inside and outside the country. In short, this 

is the greatest humanitarian tragedy and crisis in our current 

world today. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Engel, and 

members of the committee for making and keep the Syrian people 

at the center of your policymaking work here. 

The strikes on April 6th may have been a justifiable appropriate 

response to the use of sarin gas against Khan Sheikhoun. Yet, 

these strikes appear to be divorced from a larger strategy for U.S. 

engagement. It is particularly alarming that the administration 

comments on Syria policy after these strikes continue to be so disjointed and unclear. Americans, our allies, and the Syrian people 

would benefit from understanding what these strikes signify and 

where they fit within the larger policy goals. 

I see at least four objectives for the U.S. in Syria and each will 

require a sustained strategy that combines public and private diplomacy. None of these will succeed without a fully staffed and empowered State Department serving as a coequal in the interagency 

and none of them can be sustained without adequate foreign assistance. 

First, as my colleagues have mentioned, a negotiated agreement 

in the de-escalation of the fighting should be the most immediate 

and most important objective. Fighting ISIS, countering WMD, 

helping civilians, these goals are very critical but they will all be 

enabled by conflict resolution. Because this is a foundational objective, it is alarming to read public statements from the administration flippantly suggesting that whether Assad stays or goes is irrelevant. Defining the end game as a negotiated settlement between 

the regime and the opposition is the critical first task. 

Secretary Tillerson will have to use these strikes and the leverage they have generated to push Moscow back to a position where 

it will be able and willing to be a genuine partner. That means 

holding Moscow accountable publicly and privately when ceasefires 

promised by the regime never materialize and when aid convoys 

promised by Damascus and organized by the U.N. never reach the 

besieged areas. 

It is true that pushing Moscow and Tehran to make Damascus 

concede will be very, very tough but we have leverage. For examVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:39 Jun 07, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Z:\WORK\_FULL\042717\25261 SHIRL
29

ple, let’s refuse CT cooperation to Moscow if it doesn’t comply with 

the next round of de-escalation or humanitarian talks. 

Second, defeating ISIS is an obvious priority but the administration needs to be smart about the diplomacy and foreign assistance 

that will sustain any military offensive. Pushing Daesh out of 

Raqqa will be the easy part. What will be hard will be working 

with Turkey to negotiate YPG influence, as has been mentioned, or 

to ensure that the SAC, the Syrian Arab Coalition, and the SDF, 

the combination of Kurdish and Arab liberators, can effectively govern this very vast area of Syria. 

What we know about global terrorism is this: They prey on 

ungoverned spaces remote from central control, where citizens are 

disaffected and angry. We cannot let these territories of Syria fall 

into this trap again. And that is why I am particularly concerned 

about rumored and alleged reductions in things like food aid or reductions in support for governance to local councils that will be 

formed in the wake of the Daesh liberation in these areas of Syria. 

And because a sustainable defeat of ISIS requires regional consideration, I am concerned about reports that ESF to Jordan, to 

Tunisia, to Lebanon are reportedly going to be cut. 

Third, the chemical weapons deterrence is a key objective. The 

strikes may deter Assad from using CW again. We don’t really 

know because he has been using CW as a weapon of desperation. 

Still, we need to also continue the really hard multilateral diplomatic work. 

I would note Russia’s relative cooperation with the 2013 U.N. 

Resolutions on the U.N. regarding Syria’s gas attack and what generally the 2013 to 2014 U.N. Organization for the Prohibition of 

Chemical Weapons, the OPCW’s efforts to destroy 1300 tons of 

weapons. Clearly, this was imperfect. Clearly, there was cheating 

and hidden weapons but for Syria’s neighbors and for the citizens 

and for U.S. troops on the ground, certainly destroying something 

was better than nothing. And that is why today multilateral diplomacy is critical. That is why we need to continue to support the 

OPCW and U.N. investigatory bodies and we will need to do this 

through diplomacy by pushing the Russians and other members of 

the international community. 

Fourth, protecting the Syrian people must remain at the heart 

of U.S. policy in Syria. This effort includes humanitarian assistance, support for civil society, and support for local governance in 

liberated and opposition-controlled areas, and it includes accountability measure for the ongoing human rights violations and atrocities that have been committed, including accountability for the 

Khan Sheikhoun attack. 

Since the start of this conflict, the U.S. has been the largest single bilateral donor of humanitarian assistance to the Syrian people 

but in the past months, the aid that is flowing from the U.S. and 

other donor nations has not been reaching most of the Syrians in 

need. Some organizations on the ground are estimating that only 

10 percent of international aid is arriving into opposition-controlled 

areas of Syria. That is over five million people. So this crisis of access will require continued American leadership. 

In conclusion, absent a clear and consistent articulation of U.S. 

strategy toward Syria, these limited strikes earlier this month will 

30

have little to no material impact. In fact, there is a danger that our 

friends may feel, over time, even more betrayed, as many within 

Syria and the region cheered the strikes on the premise that they 

signaled a significant shift in policy. 

A clear strategy will help us mobilize our partners. For example, 

at this particular moment, we need our Gulf partners to help us 

play a moderating role with the armed opposition. So pushing for 

the resumption of negotiations will be hard but a strategy that focuses on diplomacy and U.S. leadership is the only option. 

Finally, I thank this committee for understanding how a fully 

funded, empowered State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development will be critical to pursue all of the objectives 

that I have outlined. 

I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Rand follows:]

31


25261c-1.eps

Syria After the Missile Strikes: Policy Options 

Testimony before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

Dr. Dafna H. Rand 

National Defense University 

April 27, 2017 

Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Engel, Committee members, thank you for inviting me to 

testify today on an issue with direct implications for American values, interests, and global 

leadership. Six years after the Syria crisis began, it has become the twenty-first century's most 

severe humanitarian tragedy and one of its thorniest international security dilemmas. Nearly 

500,000 Syrians have been killed, with the Bashar ai-Assad regime directly responsible for the 

majority of these deaths. The displacement of 12 million Syrians has created a refugee crisis, 

challenging many of Syria's generous neighbors who are struggling to absorb those fleeing for 

their lives. In perpetuating the conflict, Assad and his Russian and Iranian allies have 

undermined the U.S.-Ied international liberal order, including global norms regarding the 

protection of civilians during conflict. 

The April 6 U.S. missile strikes on the AI Shayrat air base were an arguably justified response to 

the Syrian regime's unconscionable sarin gas attack on Khan Sheikhoun days earlier, but they 

appear to be entirely divorced from any strategy for U.S. engagement to resolve the Syrian 

crisis. For targeted strikes such as these to have an impact on the overall arc of the conflict, 

they cannot be launched in a vacuum. They must represent one aspect of a broader diplomatic 

strategy utilizing economic, political, and other security levers. 

Any short-term benefits conferred by the strikes will erode, absent a multi-prolonged 

diplomatic strategy. Syrian civilians who cheered the strikes will see them as a momentary 

engagement by an Administration that otherwise has shown little interest in addressing Syrian 

suffering. In the aftermath of these strikes, the Administration must identify key policy 

objectives and design strategies to achieve them. These objectives include: a negotiated 

agreement to de-escalate the fighting; defeating ISIS in Syria in a way that is sustainable; 

continued counter-proliferation efforts to stop the Assad regime from using chemical weapons; 

and renewed efforts to protect Syrian civilians and to deliver lifesaving humanitarian aid. To 

achieve these policies will require a fully funded State Department; diplomats and civilian aid 

experts will be responsible for a strategy that combines non-military coercion with public and 

private diplomacy. 

Ending the Syrian Civil War, through a Transition to a New Governing Body 

Three weeks after the AI Shayrat air base attacks, it is still unclear whether U.S. policy toward 

the Syrian regime and the Syrian civil conflict has shifted. As a candidate, President Trump 

1 
32


25261c-2.eps

espoused an isolationist approach, even specifically warning in 2013 against military 

intervention in Syria. 1 Indeed, during the week before the strikes, the Administration publicly 

rolled out what appeared to be a coordinated, significant policy shift, with multiple public 

statements by both Secretary Tillerson and Ambassador Haley that a transition away from 

Assad was no longer a U.S. policy priority? These statements likely encouraged Assad to use 

chemical weapons in Khan Sheikhoun. Yet in the wake of the AI Shayrat strikes, these same 

Cabinet members and other senior Administration officials reversed course and issued public 

statements remarkably consistent with those issued by the Obama administration, making it 

clear that Assad's departure would be necessary to end the Syrian civil war. 3 

It is urgent that the White House clarify U.S. policy and stand behind the need for Assad to step 

down, in line with the 2012 Geneva Communique. This document called for the establishment 

of a transitional governing body with full executive powers, to include members of the Syrian 

government and opposition. This Communique was endorsed by the UN Security Councilincluding Russia- and endures as the most practical basis for an eventual negotiated political 

settlement. Any movement away from this policy would embolden Assad and his backers, 

including Iran and Hezbollah. This not only would perpetuate the Syrian conflict and endanger 

countless more Syrian civilians; it also would expand the grave threat posed by Hezbollah to 

Syria's neighbors, particularly Israel. 

In pushing for a negotiated end to the civil war, the Administration should seek to leverage the 

AI Shayrat strikes to help further multilateral and unilateral diplomatic efforts. Coercive 

diplomacy must be used to push Russia to resume negotiations on military de-escalation (i.e. 

meaningful ceasefires) and humanitarian access. Despite many efforts, both tracks failed in 

2016 because Russia believed it had the upper hand and was unwilling or incapable of pushing 

its proxy in Damascus to comply. Hopefully, Secretary Tillerson used his recent trip to Moscow 

to make clear that continued Russian support for Assad will be met with additional U.S. 

sanctions on Russian entities. (And to use whatever threat of further military force may indeed 

worry Moscow.) The strikes also offer an opportunity to warn Iran regarding its support for the 

regime in Damascus, and to push both Russia and Iran to make commitments to rein in 

Damascus ahead of the next Astana meeting that they are hosting in early May. 

There are other tools available in the Administration's tool kit to accelerate pressure against 

Damascus, including the new sanctions authorities offered in the Caesar Syrian Civilian 

1 Nicholas Fandos, "Trump's View of Syria: How it Evolved in 19 Tweets/' The New York Times, April7, 2017, 

https:f /www. nyti mes. com/20 17/04/07 /u s/po lilies/ donald-trump-syria-twitter. htm 17 _r=O 2 Elise Lab bot, Nicole Gaouette, and Richard Roth, "US Signals Openness to Assad Staying Put," CNN Politics, March 

30, 2017, htt p:j /www .en n .co m/20 17 /03/30/politics/ti llerson-ha ley-syria-assad-tu rkey /in dex.html. 3 Angela Dewan, "U.S. Envoy Nikki Haley Says Syrian Regime Change is Inevitable," CNN Politics, AprillO, 2017, 

http: I /www. en n. com /2017 /04/09/mid d lee a st/syria- m issile-stri ke-ch em i ca 1-attack-aftermath/ind ex. htm I. 

2 
33


25261c-3.eps

Protection Act. However, leveraging the strikes into a comprehensive pressure strategy must 

be done quickly, because whatever new momentum offered by the strikes will dissipate. 

Defeating the ISIS Caliphate in Syria 

Since January, the Trump Administration has talked repeatedly about increasing its efforts to 

defeat ISIS, but it remains unclear how the strategy for countering ISIS relates to the 

Administration's overall Syria policy goals. In less than three months, the While House has 

nearly doubled the number of ground troops in Syria to support U.S. partners engaged in the 

ISIS fight 4 A liberation offensive to rout ISIS from Raqqa is imminent.5 Yet while the policy goal 

of eliminating ISIS' safe haven and command center in Syria is clear, the strategic conundrums 

inherent in this proposition remain unresolved. 

First, the Administration has not explained to the American people why it is increasing U.S. 

boots on the ground in Syria. Americans deserve to know the extent to which ground forces 

will participate in the dangerous fight against ISIS in Syria's northern and eastern regions and 

for how long U.S. forces will remain in Syria training their partners. 

Second, the post-conflict stabilization strategy remains murky: Will the Kurdish YPG (the 

People's Protection Units) and other Syrian Democratic Forces who represent the key ground 

forces in the liberation operation govern this mostly Arab territory? Has this plan been precoordinated with Turkey? Will the YPG and other Kurdish forces tacitly cooperate with the 

Assad regime, once ISIS has been defeated, thus complicating U.S. policy even further? How 

will the United States ensure that the YPG liberators will protect the rights of the local Syrian 

population, thereby preventing another cycle of grievance that could yield yet another 

generation of future terrorists? Planning for the actual Raqqa operation is relatively 

straightforward, but figuring out what to do when the U.S.-backed forces succeed is not. 

Neighbors such as Turkey are keenly interested in the question of who will rule large swaths of 

Syrian territory in ISIS' wake, particularly if the YPG fighting force prevails. The planning for the 

post-liberation stabilization period in Syria is a significant diplomatic effort. It will have to be 

carefully integrated into the overall policy planning for the resumption of diplomacy between 

the regime and the opposition discussed above. 

4 In March, President Trump deployed 400 more troops to Syria, bringing the number of ground troops to 1,000. 

See Lucas Tomlinson, "Turkish Jets Bomb U.S.-backed Forces," Fox News World, April 25, 2017, 

http: I /www. foxn ews. co m/world/2017 /04/25 /turkish-jets-bomb-us-ba eked-forces-in-iraq-syria-us-officialssay.html. 

5 Aaron Stein, "Raqqa: A Very Long and Nasty Fight," The Cipher Brie/, March 17, 2017, 

https:j /www. th eci ph erbrief. com/a rticl e/m id d le-eastfvery-long-a nd-na sty-fight -1089. 

3 
34


25261c-4.eps

Reports that the Administration plans to cut Fiscal Year 2018 regional stabilization funds and 

economic support funds to neighbors such as Jordan are deeply problematic, as these types of 

cuts will undermine the sustainability of any near-term win against ISIS. Within Syria itself, 

cutting humanitarian and governance assistance to the people liberated from ISIS will be selfdefeating. International assistance is necessary to ensure that those who once lived under ISIS 

rule are now offered basic services and humanitarian assistance. This type of assistance 

represents a relatively modest investment with a potentially significant return- sustainable 

stabilization can protect these territories from ever again becoming a safe haven for radical 

terrorist groups. 

Preventing the Proliferation of Chemical Weapons 

Explaining the strikes on April 6, President Trump referred directly to a counter-proliferation 

policy goal, saying: "It is in this vital national security interest of the United States to prevent 

and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons." Secretary Mattis' public remarks 

since the AI Shayrat strikes suggest that, at least from a Department of Defense perspective, 

preventing the use of chemical weapons (CW) was the key policy objective of the strikes." In a 

public statement issued this week while visiting Israel, Secretary Mattis again warned Assad 

against using chemical weapons. 7 

Yet if the urgent policy goal from the U.S. military's perspective is to prevent the Syrian regime 

from using sarin gas and other CW in the future, the deterrent effect of the limited strikes may 

prove to be insufficient. Deterrence should be accompanied by the physical destruction of 

chemical weapons caches- an effort requiring difficult multilateral diplomacy. While the 

agreement had many flaws, overall the 2013 U.S.-Russian mechanism to work with the United 

Nations and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to destroy 

Syria's declared CW stockpiles severely limited Assad's ability to use these weapons against U.S. 

troops, allies such as Israel, or Syrian civilians. Assad's illegal secret retention of CW stocks or 

capacity to regenerate them violated international law, but the CW threat to Syrian civilians 

and to the United States and our allies would have been far worse in the absence of the 2013 

agreement. On balance, OPCW's post-2013 presence in Syria, with Russian support, has 

advanced U.S. counter-proliferation goals, making it harder for the Syrian regime to use these 

horrific weapons. 

6 Secretary Mattis told reporters that "the purpose of this attack was singularly against chemical weapons use," on 

Aprilll, 2017. Ryan Browne, "Mattis on Syria: ISIS Remains the Priority but Chemical Weapons Will Not Be 

Tolerated," CNN Politics, Aprilll, 2017, http:/ /www.cnn.com/2017 /04/11/politics/mattis-syria-isischemical/index.html. 

7 "Defense Secretary Mattis Warns Syria Still has Chemical Weapons," CBS NEWS, April21, 2017, 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/defense-secretary-james-mattis-warns-syria-still-has-chemical-weapons/ 

4 
35


25261c-5.eps

In addition to continuing to use further strikes should Assad again use CW, a new round of 

multilateral diplomacy will be necessary to protect earlier counter-proliferation efforts. Last 

week, the Russians vetoed a UN Security Council Resolution calling for an investigation into the 

Khan Sheikhoun attacks. Russia's intransigence and disinformation campaign on the Khan 

Sheikhoun attacks contrasts starkly with its relatively cooperative approach in 2013. This 

regression is worrisome. 

Russia may be at odds with the United States in terms of its overall policy goals in Syria, but we 

need Russian cooperation and support on limited issues such as counter-proliferation. Strong, 

multilateral diplomacy will be required to push Russia toward, at a minimum, returning to the 

moderate levels of cooperation on CW issues that occurred from 2013-2017. 

Finally, as part of the effort to deter Assad from any further CW use, the U.S. must lead 

multilateral efforts to maintain the international opprobrium focused on Syria in the wake of 

the Khan Sheikhoun attacks. The Administration should coordinate with European allies and 

other partners to set the record straight in the face of Russian disinformation campaigns, 

continuing to declassify and make public U.S. information that demonstrates the Assad 

regime's culpability for this gruesome use of sarin gas against Syrian civilians. It should press 

European and other partners to do the same. 

Protecting Syrian Civilians, Providing Humanitarian Relief, and Promoting Accountability 

Protecting the Syrian people must remain at the heart of U.S. policy in Syria. This effort 

includes humanitarian assistance; support for civil society in liberated, opposition-controlled 

areas; and accountability for ongoing human rights violations, including the Khan Sheikhoun 

attack. Since the start ofthe conflict, the United States has been the largest single bilateral 

donor of humanitarian assistance to the Syrian people. In the past months, however, the aid 

flowing from the United States and other donors has not been reaching most of the Syrians in 

need. Some organizations on the ground are estimating that only 10 percent of international 

aid is arriving into opposition-controlled areas of Syria (where over 5 million Syrians reside), 

because the Assad regime is deliberately holding up cross-border aid in violation of UN Security 

Council Resolution 2254. 

The Administration has yet to explain how the AI Shayrat strikes fit into any strategy to ensure 

civilian protection, or how the United States will respond to other equally horrific, non-CW 

attacks against Syrian civilians. Almost immediately after the U.S. strikes, the Syrian regime 

used AI Shayrat as the base for additional bombing campaigns against Syrian civilians. The 

Syrian Air Force has already resumed aerial bombings of Khan Sheikhoun using conventional 

5 
36


25261c-6.eps

weapons 8 There are a number of levers available to the U.S. government to deter and punish 

Syrian officials- and their Russian and Iranian champions- who are involved in deliberately 

targeting civilians. The Trump Administration should focus on sanctioning individual 

perpetrators, as authorized in the Caesar Syrian Civilian Protection Act. 

Finally, even though immediate justice for these crimes sadly is improbable, the Administration 

has opportunities to maintain U.S. leadership on longer-term accountability efforts by the 

international community. Ensuring appropriate documentation of these human rights 

violations is vital. The United States has been a leading donor in the arena of international 

accountability efforts in the past, and opportunities exist to demonstrate that U.S. statements 

on accountability for Khan Sheikhoun and other violations of international law are more than 

just empty words. Continued U.S. leadership at the United Nations will ensure that the highly 

effective UN Commission of Inquiry on Syria can continue its work to gather evidence and to 

document violations. 

Conclusion: The Risks of Foregoing a Mature Strategy in Favor of Inchoate Tactics 

Absent a clear and consistent articulation of U.S. strategy toward Syria, the limited strikes 

earlier this month will have little to no material impact. Many of our allies cheered on these 

strikes, yet these friends may have done so assuming a major U.S. strategic shift toward greater 

military intervention where none exists. An articulation of a strategy will also help our allies 

contribute to the diplomatic efforts that should follow the strikes- such as pushing Gulf 

partners to deliver some of the armed opposition groups to the Astana talks in May or urging 

European partners to join the United States in sanctioning Russian, Iranian, and Syrian military 

officials who have perpetrated crimes against the Syrian people. 

The April6 strikes only offer leverage if they can jump-start a new strategy combining economic 

sanctions, multilateral counter-proliferation efforts, and new investments in diplomatic 

negotiations. Following the strikes, U.S. diplomats must push the regime and its Russian and 

Iranian backers toward a de-escalation plan that may allow for opposition-regime talks. 

European allies should offer their own set of new sanctions against Syrian, Iranian, and Russian 

officials. Driving ISIS out of Syria will require a careful assistance plan to support local 

governance and humanitarian assistance for the mostly Arab Syrians who have been living 

under ISIS rule. None of these strategies can be executed without a fully funded, empowered 

State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development- mobilized to advance U.S. 

leadership and influence in pursuit of these objectives. 

8 Louisa Loveluck and Zakaria Zakaria, "Despite U.S. Missile Barrage Syria Continues Airstrikes Against Rebels," The 

Washington Post, AprilS, 2017, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/warplanes-return-to-syrian-towndevastated-by-che mica l-attack/2017/04/08/38a5d8cc-lbd c-lle 7 -8598-9a99da5 59f9e _story. htm I. 

6 
37

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. 

You know it seems that Russia and Iran have very different 

goals here for Syria and some of you have commented on that. In 

terms of trying to figure out next steps, it looks as through the goal 

on the part of the Iranians is a land bridge that would stretch to 

Hezbollah-controlled southern Lebanon, where for some time now 

the Islamic Republic of Iran has been trying to move these larger 

and larger missiles or longer range missiles. I guess this morning 

there are reports that the IDF put a strike in against a shipment 

that had landed of these missiles, right? 

So, as Iran’s obsession with their stated policy of wiping Israel 

off the map continues, you have Moscow with a very different goal. 

Their goal is not to wipe out Israel. Their goal seems to be to increase Russia’s leverage. And I wonder if that suggests that the 

two could be split here in terms of the long-term interest of trying 

to get some stability, because as long as the Iranians remain on the 

ground, the problem there is going to be the recruitment of training 

for additional Hezbollah units that you are now seeing, as well as 

the in-migration of the Revolutionary Guard Corps on the ground, 

and these other entities, they are not seeking to calm the situation. 

I mean all across the Middle East they are creating additional, 

whether it is Yemen or Bahrain, they are involved in conflict. 

And I would just ask our panelists for their opinion on a strategy 

that would allow some kind of a direct negotiation on that concept 

and whether you think it would be possible because that might 

allow us then to move Assad out of the equation and bring in someone else on the Alawite side that would have an interest in the 

long-term survivability of Syria as a state. 

Mr. Singh. 

Mr. SINGH. Sure. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think you are absolutely 

right about differing Russian and Iranian interests, as I mentioned 

in my testimony. 

I think the challenge is in the short-term I think there is a sort 

of co-dependency between Russia, and Iran, and Syria. They need 

each other. Russia is providing actually quite a small military force 

but a decisive one, providing air cover, for example, for the ground 

forces which are largely provided by the Iranians. The Iranians 

have contributed, from the numbers I have seen, upwards of 

100,000 fighters, not Iranians all but Iranian-backed fighters. So 

theirs is sort of complementary to Russian and Iranian activities 

there and I think either would be hard-pressed to succeed without 

the other. 

But I do think that Iran is committed to the Assad regime in a 

way that, perhaps over the long-run, Russia isn’t because I think 

that Iran could not be guaranteed its position in Syria with any 

ruler other than Bashar al-Assad, even if it were someone else from 

his sector, someone else from his sort of territory. 

And it does, over the long-run, perhaps open up the possibility 

of splitting the two. But I think it is very much over the long-run. 

I think it is not something that it is there in the short-term. 

Perhaps the Russians will come to see that they are embroiled 

in a counterinsurgency that there is very little easy escape from. 

No one is going to come and rescue the Russians from the insurgency which they are facing around Idlib, and Aleppo, and so on 

38

and so forth. We are certainly not going to. We certainly shouldn’t 

and I don’t think anyone else is prepared to do so either. And hopefully, that will prompt the Russians, at some point, to recognize, 

especially if there is a credible threat of American military force. 

Chairman ROYCE. Well, maybe Mr. Lister can comment on this 

but it seems to me that the Russian objective here is partly to 

maintain access to the Mediterranean. Their goal is not necessarily 

to see this thing deepen and yet, for the Iranians, they are gaining 

battlefield experience for their forces. They are honing their skills. 

They are replacing Sunni populations with Lebanese Hezbollah 

families that they are bringing in to Old Damascus and areas like 

this. This is the exact opposite, it would seem to me, of Russia’s 

long-term interest. 

And so Mr. Lister, what is your observations? 

Mr. LISTER. Thank you for the question. 

For me, this is essentially about differing goals and differing 

needs between Iran and Russia. These are two countries playing 

extremely different, though as my colleague says, complementary 

roles in Syria. 

For Russia, the objective is to compete and outplay the United 

States and to show that we aren’t the power that we think we are, 

that we are not capable of exerting the kind of influence in the region that we used to, and also, of course, immediately to shore up 

what was in 2011 Russia’s most reliable and most intensive relationship in the region, which was the Assad regime. Since the Soviet Union times, Russia has relied on the Syrian Army——

Chairman ROYCE. Right. 

Mr. LISTER [continuing]. Intensively for a relationship in the region, almost exclusively. And so for Russia, this is a strategic or 

geostrategic calculous, largely as a reflection of its rivalry with the 

United States. 

And for Iran, this is a zero-sum issue. There is, as of now, in today’s dynamics, no negotiation for Iran. It is Assad, or nothing, or 

we carry on fighting. 

And the key issue, the key worry we should all have in our 

minds, is that we have invested so much energy over the last 2 or 

3 years based on an assumption that Russia has the leverage necessary to result in the kind of policy result that we want, which 

is a negotiation process that means something and that results in 

a conclusion that we all want, which is an end to conflict and some 

extent of political transition in Damascus. 

Unfortunately, as my colleague said, Russia is actually operating 

in Syria on a shoe string with very little ground influence, beyond 

Special Forces dotted around in a few specific areas. 

You know I have spent the last 18 months meeting periodically 

with Russian officials who work on the Syrian issue. And one of the 

things they revealed to me, which is very interesting, is that as of 

2 or 3 months ago, the assessment within Moscow was that the 

Syrian Army had no more than 20,000 offensively deployable, sufficiently trained, and loyal soldiers that the Russian Government 

was willing to work alongside—20,000 for all of Syria. It is a pittance. 

In comparison, the Iranian Government has successfully established what I would estimate to be at least 150,000 militiamen, 

39

Syrians, predominately, but also Iraqis, Lebanese, Syrians, Afghans, Pakistanis, and possibly some Yemenis. Twenty thousand 

Syrian forces as compared to 150,000 militiamen who are there potentially to die for a religious cause, rather than for a strategic 

cause, is an issue we need to worry about in terms of how we invest our resources, in terms of pushing things to create the possible 

conditions for the result that we want. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. Mr. Engel. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I ask my questions, I ask unanimous consent to enter two statements into the 

record. One is a statement by Raed al-Saleh, head of the Syria 

Civil Defense, as you mentioned before, known as the White Helmets, on behalf of Nobel Peace Prize-nominated rescue organization 

that has rescued over 90,000 Syrian lives. 

Chairman ROYCE. Without objection. 

Mr. ENGEL. And the second statement is from Church World 

Service. 

Chairman ROYCE. Again, without objection. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said in a press 

briefing, shortly after the U.S. airstrikes, if you gas a baby, if you 

put a barrel bomb into innocent people, I think you will see a response from this President. 

This appeared to add a new red line to U.S. policy that Assad’s 

use of barrel bombs, an all too frequent occurrence, would invite a 

U.S. response. But later the White House clarified that he meant 

chlorine-filled barrel bombs. 

Now for anyone who thinks that I am going tough on the White 

House, maybe you should know that I was equally tough on the 

previous administration’s miscalculation that Assad would somehow fall and so cause them to do things or not do things. And of 

course, here we are many years later, Assad hasn’t fallen. I think 

we made a terrible mistake when we didn’t aid the Free Syrian 

Army 4 years ago, when the President’s national security team all 

was in favor. I think it was a miscalculation. I also think when you 

draw lines in the sand, you need to back up those lines but you 

also need to be consistent. 

And what we are seeing from the administration is there is an 

introduction and retraction of new red lines. It muddies U.S. strategy in Syria. And as I mentioned before, I think it is very important that the President tell the Congress what his plans are in 

Syria and then the Congress needs to give him authorization to 

make any kind of military moves. 

So when we have introduction and retraction of new red lines, 

it muddies the strategy in Syria. I want to ask Dr. Rand, how do 

we expect our allies and adversaries to react to this? 

Ms. RAND. Thank you, Congressman Engel. This is a big concern 

of mine as well, that the inconsistency is sending different signals 

and that our allies will see in the administration and White 

House’s different statements what they want to hear. Right? So 

certain allies have different views and they will seize on one Secretary or another Secretary’s statements, if they diverge, to say 

that is U.S. administration policy. That is a concern. 

40

On the issue of what is the red line, is it just a CW deterrence 

or is it a general deterrence about crimes against humanity, I 

would note that in the couple days after the sarin gas attacks, 

there were very damaging atrocities committed by the Syrian regime again. So if that, indeed, was Mr. Spicer’s red line, it was 

passed already, shortly after the time he was making those statements. 

But I would agree with the concern about allies. I would also add 

the concern about the Syrian people, who are left confused about 

what is the new shift in U.S. policy toward intervention. 

Mr. ENGEL. Anybody else care to comment? 

Mr. SINGH. Well, Congressman, I would agree with the general 

principle that credibility is important. And I think to have credibility, we also need to have clarity. I agree with that. And that is 

why it is important that we have a very rigorous policy process 

where we decide what are those lines are for the United States 

that sort of both threaten our interest, threaten civilians on the 

ground. What are we prepared to do in response? And then that 

we communicate those things to the appropriate channels. Sometimes a public message is right. Sometimes private messages to 

places like Moscow and elsewhere are the right methods. 

But that all requires a rigorous policy process and I think that 

will be the key for us. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. Let me ask a question about the chemical weapons program. In 2013, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons certified, and we remember this, that it 

had removed 1300 tons of declared chemical weapons from Syria. 

And of course, we now know that Syria held back some chemical 

agents from declaration and removal because it used those agents 

in the April 4th sarin gas attack. 

Now, I supported the U.S. response, as I said before, 59 Tomahawk missiles, because I thought it was an appropriate demonstration to Syria and their Russian enablers that there would be consequences for the use of chemical weapons. But these strikes are 

not a long-term solution and they will not help to eliminate the 

threat posed by Syria’s continued possession of chemical weapons. 

So let me ask any of the witnesses what recommendations do you 

have to work toward full implementation of the U.N. Security 

Council Resolution 2118, which sought to remove Syria’s chemical 

weapons, and what particular responsibility does Moscow have in 

the implementation of this resolution and in removing chemical 

weapons from Syria? 

Anyone who cares to answer. 

Ms. RAND. Sure, I will start. I think this is an excellent point. 

And I mentioned in my testimony there is a JIM, the Joint Investigative Mechanism, that was commissioned by the U.N. in 2015 to 

go and actually name perpetrators and some of the chemical weapons. And this mandate was extended last year to 2017. It will run 

out I think sometime this summer or the fall. 

So it is really critical. This is an urgent diplomatic—again, it is 

not a sufficient diplomatic solution to the chemical weapons bomb, 

but it is part of the solution and it is urgent that the U.S. show 

its leadership at the U.N. and push Moscow and other powers to 

agree to continue this mandate of the JIM. 

41

Mr. LISTER. I would add, if I may, you know frankly speaking, 

Russia bears the weight of responsibility for the fact that this 

chemical weapons attack took place. And we shouldn’t forget that 

Russia had troops and almost certainly aircraft up until a certain 

time at this air base from which the attack was launched. 

We should all be asking the question, and I am sure we all are, 

did Russia in fact know that the Assad regime had retained some 

extent of its chemical weapons capabilities. And if it did, then we 

would be justified in, I think, putting and placing more pressure, 

whether through sanctions or other diplomatic means, on the Russian Government to force it to see, through a broader package of 

policies on Syria, the more holistic one that I described in my opening statement. 

But in the end, Russia isn’t going to achieve its ultimate objective in Syria which is stability. For Russia, Syria is still something 

to be negotiated over. And I think what the Russians are discovering, almost on a week-by-week basis now, is that having invested 

resources in Syria and in rescuing the Assad regime, achieving 

their ultimate long-term objective isn’t happening and it is not 

going to happen for a long time. So I do think we have a responsibility to put more pressure on Russia. 

And more broadly, I think the sanctions on I think 271 Syrians 

connected to the chemical weapons program is a good step. I noted 

that a number of that size suggests that we are not just targeting 

senior officials but we are also targeting people further down the 

ladder of seniority and I think that is wise. I think using what I 

would term escalatory sanctions—starting from the ground level 

and moving up—is an excellent way of putting more pressure and 

a sense of paranoia within the regime’s military, intelligence, and 

otherwise the regime’s apparatus, that we know what they are 

doing. We know who they are. We know everything about them and 

they will face consequences for being involved in these kind of 

criminal acts. And I think there is a lot that we can do to add to 

that pressure further. 

Mr. SINGH. If I could just make a brief point, Congressman. I 

want to make sure that there is a clear understanding that this is 

not just a humanitarian issue for the United States because the 

CWC is a nonproliferation treaty. And if we allow that nonproliferation treaty to be breached, I think that has strategic ramifications for the United States for nonproliferation broadly. So we 

need to keep that frame of reference in mind as well. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Okay, we go to Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

And while Congress must be consulted before any long-term escalation of force in Syria, I supported the missile strikes that took 

place earlier this month and I hope that they serve as a warning 

that the United States will no longer tolerate Assad’s chemical 

weapons attacks against the innocent civilians. The missile strikes 

proved our willingness to use force. That is a necessary ingredient 

whose absence doomed any previous chance of a negotiated outcome in Syria. 

But I am still very concerned about the lack of a comprehensive 

strategy in Syria, a problem that has stretched across both adminVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:39 Jun 07, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Z:\WORK\_FULL\042717\25261 SHIRL
42

istrations and our seeming insistence on treating the symptoms, 

rather than the disease. And as so many of us have said over the 

years, it is not possible to defeat ISIS while Assad remains in 

power, I fear that our narrow focus on short-term tactical successes 

will only exacerbate the problems that we are trying to solve. 

So I wanted to ask you, Mr. Lister, can we hope to defeat ISIS 

while Assad remains in power? A lot of you spoke about what 

would happen if. And how does Assad’s presence and tactics contribute to the growth and the narrative appeal of ISIS, as well as 

the al-Qaeda-linked and other jihadist groups in Syria? 

And if Assad is not removed by countering Iran, by finding leverage with Russia, or otherwise, is it possible for this conflict and its 

associated costs to come to an end? 

Mr. LISTER. Thank you very much for a really excellent question. 

And I think to answer it, we need to consider context as well, some 

historical background, but I will stay in the immediate term for 

now. 

The reason why we have had success against ISIS or one of the 

reasons why we have had success with little other negative knockon effects up until now, is because ISIS purposefully detached itself 

from the other dynamics of the Syrian conflict. With the exception 

of about a 6-month period of time, ISIS never sought to work with 

the opposition. It never sought to become part of the revolution 

against the Assad regime. It explicitly sought to establish an Islamic State with or without help and it would kill anyone who got 

in its way. 

And for that reason, we have been able to attack ISIS in isolation 

from the rest of the conflict with relative success, up until now, but 

I think, as I hope is becoming clear, we are now seeing some of 

those disadvantageous knock-on effects becoming clear. For example, our NATO ally Turkey is effectively now at war with our local 

partner fighting ISIS, as of last night. And all of that is because, 

as you say, we didn’t base all of this on a more holistic strategy. 

We didn’t appreciate enough all of the broader dynamics. So, that 

is today. 

In terms of Assad staying, I think the most important thing to 

bear in mind here is some history. In 2003, when the United States 

prepared to invade Iraq, as in fact American troops crossed on day 

one, the Grand Mufti then in Syria, the State-appointed, Assad-appointed Grand Mufti, issued a fatwa in which he declared it religiously obligatory on all Muslims globally to launch resistance 

movements in Iraq against American troops, using any means necessary. And that order was given to men and women. And that 

was, essentially, an instruction from the Assad Government. 

Within 11 days of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, 5,000 foreign jihadi 

fighters crossed into Iraq, crossed Syria’s borders; they flew into 

Aleppo and Damascus airports; were bussed in government buses 

to the Iraqi border and waived through open border crossings. 

And in the 7 or 8 years that followed, during the war in Iraq, 

it would not be an exaggeration, I think to say, that hundreds of 

American troops would still be alive if the Assad regime had not 

continued its assistance to ISIS’ predecessor movement, the Islamic 

State in Iraq. ISIS wouldn’t be what it was today if those foreign 

jihadi fighters hadn’t been given a free hand to train in Syria, to 

43

use Syrian Government medical facilities, and then to cross Syria’s 

borders into Iraq. 

And that support for jihadists didn’t stop when American troops 

left Iraq in 2010. In 2011, whilst the Assad regime was arresting 

pro-democracy protesters, and women, and children, it was releasing jihadists from prison. Two of the seven founding members of 

the al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria were released from prison at the beginning of the protests. At least ten, as far as I am aware, of ISIS’ 

most senior leaders in Syria were released from Assad prisons 

under an amnesty in 2011. 

And since then, it is common knowledge that, at the very least, 

trade in gas, trade in other resources, has continued between the 

Assad regime. In fact, this very government here has sanctioned 

several Syrian officials for facilitating those trades. 

So the argument is right. I know I am taking some time but the 

argument is right to say that while Assad stays in power, there is 

very little chance that that kind of facilitation of jihadists for Syrian goals, for Assad regime reasons, will not continue. And most 

importantly, the narrative for their very existence will continue to 

exist. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much, sir. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. 

Mr. Greg Meeks from New York. 

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank all 

three of the witnesses. I think you have been absolutely excellent 

and very insightful. And I really appreciate your testimony. 

Let me start by stating declaratively I think that any rational, 

reasonable person would strongly, as I do, condemn the atrocities 

that took place in Syria and the utilization of chemical weapons 

but I believe just overall because, as one of the witnesses testified, 

people are dying, whether it is by chemical weapons or by conventional weapons. Death is death and they are dying by the numbers 

and we have to make sure we get a handle on that. And that we 

must, and the whole international community, must put our best 

efforts into addressing the crises there. 

That has been what my position has been since the start of the 

conflict and it remains so today. That being said, many of my colleagues here, and as you have indicated, I think each and every 

one of you have indicated your thoughts on what should be next. 

I wish that the President of the United States would also tell us, 

as Members of Congress, what should be or what the strategy is 

next. You know we cannot be left wondering after the launch of 59 

Tomahawk cruise missiles what Congress is to do. Congress should 

never be left wondering what next after the use of military force 

and never, especially in a situation where there is no imminent 

threat to our homeland. The United States needs—and why is 

that? Because we have a Constitution and the President should 

abide by that Constitution. And so the President should get congressional authorization for military action. 

And as I sit here, I am extremely uneasy that we have no updated AUMF. And the President has stated, basically, that he has 

acted impulsively, without clearly articulating a strategy on Syria. 

Why do I know that? Because the President said he happened to 

44

have seen a picture of babies and that made him decide to do something that he had said just a few weeks before that he wasn’t going 

to do. So he just acted impulsively, without a real strategy as to 

what to do next. 

And when we talk about drawing red lines, and I felt this also, 

when President Obama had the red line, he came to Congress. Congress punted on what to do in Syria. 

So I would hope as we look to and ask President Trump to come 

to Congress, and I hope he does, that we don’t punt. We listen to 

the issues. Let’s take the responsibility ourselves. 

The most difficult decision for me, and I have been here for 19 

years, the most difficult vote that I have had to make is the vote 

to make the determination of whether or not we were going to authorize the use of force, whether it was in the Kosovo struggles, in 

the Balkans when President Clinton was there, whether it was 

Iraq and Afghanistan. I want, and I think my constituents expect 

me, to have a vote in that regard and we must make sure that we 

have that. We cannot shirk our responsibility as Members of Congress. 

And so I don’t want to then say, whether it is President Trump 

or any other President after him, to say we punted, as Members 

of Congress, and then we criticized what the President did do or 

didn’t do thereafter. Let us, I mean we should do our jobs. 

Clearly, as I said, and someone mentioned Iraq, I think Mr. Lister did, clearly shock and awe. And many of us came back, many 

Members of Congress, came back after the shock and awe and we 

thought it was all over; we had won; it was victory. And then we 

saw that there was not strategy thereafter. 

Let us have learned from that lesson that we can’t just be so 

high and happy because we have had—there was a strike, 59 missiles that seemed to be sending a message that is over; we did the 

right thing. Let’s talk now. Let’s learn from what we didn’t do in 

the past and talk a strategy and work with our allies. 

I think that Dr. Rand talked about how important it is to make 

sure we are having a dialogue and a conversation with our allies 

as well as to make sure we are doing what is on the ground. 

I think Mr. Lister was talking about how in fact during the war 

the Syrian Government was still active in putting folks in and trying to turn around the minds of individuals on the ground. Both 

he and Dr. Rand were absolutely correct. If we are cutting off humanitarian aid, if we are not putting in place things on the ground, 

if we are refusing to let refugees into the United States, we are not 

then doing what we need to do to make sure that even the folks 

on the ground to keep ISIS, or Daesh, as I call them, from recruiting individuals on the ground thinking that we are the bad guys. 

So I really had a question but I am out of time. I was just so 

impressed with your testimony and with the way that you have 

been answering questions. 

You know I think, Mr. Chairman, maybe this is the youngest 

panel we have had. We need to make sure we have more young 

people whose future is really on the line. They are really thinking 

about tomorrow because it is their today. And so this is on both 

sides, all the witnesses, you and Mr. Engel should be really complimented about the witnesses that you have brought here today. 

45

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Meeks. 

We now go to Dana Rohrabacher of California. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much and I would like to 

echo what Mr. Meeks just said about the value of the testimony 

today. 

What is interesting is you sort of dumped a heap of facts onto 

us and you are trying to make some sense out of it, like some sort 

of a jigsaw puzzle. And here you are. You have studied this, you 

have spent your whole time studying, and you can’t come up with 

what the jigsaw maps out of this quagmire is. And so we appreciate 

you letting us know the series of facts that we need to deal with 

and maybe we can work together and come up with some ideas. 

I was heartened that our chairman, Mr. Royce, whom I have 

deep respect for, during his questions mentioned how we might 

really benefit negotiating with Russia on this issue. 

Chairman ROYCE. Well, I didn’t get to the second part of my 

question. We would replace Putin, as well as Assad, in negotiations. I just wanted to clarify, Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. But what we heard today is that there was 

a civil war in Syria, an organized effort supported by outsiders to 

overthrow the Government of Assad. That civil war, where people 

came in to support that has now morphed into regional anarchy, 

basically. And let me just say that I don’t believe that Assad was 

any more brutal, any more dictatorial than a number of our friends 

and allies in that region. If there was a civil war being financed 

against any number of those governments, they would wipe out 

their opponents. And I do believe there is a moral equivalency between dropping a bomb on people and killing those same people 

with gas. You are killing innocent people. We have to stop the killing and we have seen that there is killing of innocent people. 

And obviously, when we bombed, we ended up bombing their air 

base because 85 civilians suffered effects from gas and died. At the 

same time, while we are engaged in bombing in other parts nearby, 

and our bombs are killing ten times or five times that number of 

civilians, no. The killing should stop. That should be our goal and 

we should be willing to work with Russia in order to try to find 

some overall regional solution now and it shouldn’t just be Assad 

has to go. 

Let me just suggest what Erdogan is doing now, especially in his 

latest attacks, Erdogan is doing more damage to our national security by his basically power grab inside his own country and his 

Islamicization of his own country, he is doing much more damage 

than Assad could ever have dreamed of doing to our security. And 

yet, we are going to continue giving support to Mr. Erdogan, even 

after this incredible power grab that he has just participated in, a 

corrupt election that gives him the power to move that country. 

And now we find he is actually attacking Kurds now, rather than 

just trying to work with us in some ways. 

Here is the question. All these facts that you are talking about 

and—again, I appreciate, deeply appreciate the facts that you have 

given us today to consider. Do we now need, if we are going to have 

peace in that region, a regional type of grand meeting somewhere 

like they did after World War I, and redraw the borders, and have 

newly accepted areas where the Kurds could have their area, and 

46

you could have various recognition, rather than trying to have a 

situation where today it obviously isn’t working and we obviously 

have a double standard for Assad and Russia than we do for our 

own friends? 

So let me put that out on the table. 

Mr. SINGH. Thank you, Congressman. I think that the way I 

would interpret what has happened here in Syria is maybe a little 

bit different in the sense that I see in 2011 a peaceful protest that 

was brutally suppressed by the Assad regime. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And do you think any of our allies, the 

Saudis, the Qataris, the Kuwaitis, if they thought that there was 

a civil war being financed by some other country in their region, 

would not have been just as brutal as Assad was? 

Mr. SINGH. Well, sir, I don’t think that that was what happened 

here. I think this was, actually, as I said, peaceful protests by Syrians that were suppressed by the Syrian regime. And I think that 

the Syrian regime created the conditions for the rise of an extremist opposition that, as Charles pointed out——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. But you are talking about an evolution because what happens is, we have seen it over and over again, peaceful demonstrations, you have a dictator, a gangster, he slaughters 

innocent people and then all of a sudden it escalates. That has happened a dozen times. 

Mr. SINGH. Well this is on a very different scale, Congressman, 

than anything that has happened in the region, as I think Dr. 

Rand pointed out because you have hundreds of thousands of people, millions of people displaced. And I think what we really need 

is now to show leadership, which we didn’t show in the past, to get 

on the same page of our allies to try to resolve the situation, where 

we haven’t in the past. 

Chairman ROYCE. Okay, we need to go to Mr. Bill Keating of 

Massachusetts. 

Mr. KEATING. Well thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to 

thank the chairman and the ranking member because this committee, since I have been involved in it for several years now, has 

been thoughtful, and substantive in its action, and instrumental in 

many of our policies. 

And along those lines, I want to just mention that as valuable 

as the testimony is today, I want to see going forward. I see a pattern on these issues where we are not having Trump administration officials in front of this committee and I think that is important to flesh out the strategy itself. 

Chairman ROYCE. That is a good point, and if the gentleman will 

yield for a moment, Mr. Engel and I have had the opportunity to 

speak to the Secretary of State and we are extending an invitation 

to the committee. 

Mr. KEATING. I am not surprised. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Keating. 

Mr. KEATING. And I just want to comment, too, that that will 

help flesh out a strategy and that is what we are talking about 

here. 

You know today’s testimony and the brutal conflict itself has 

proven that ending these atrocities and reaching a resolution requires a strategy, a strategy that reflects the complexities on the 

47

ground and cooperation at the international level. And I think a 

one-off military strike, which I thought was appropriate, yet one 

that wasn’t followed up with a plan, and the inadequate staff in the 

State Department to meaningful engage, and also budget proposals 

that undermine our ability to be strategic are all issues. 

Now, I also want to concentrate on something that I struggle 

with, and I think it has been brought up in today’s testimony and 

that’s the fact that Mr. Lister, in particular, started along these 

lines. In one sense, we are getting testimony and a general feeling 

among people looking at this issue that Assad is such a problem, 

we can’t have a final resolution with his maintenance of power. 

Yet, we are also saying we need Russia to perform such a meaningful role in dealing with a resolution. 

And Mr. Lister started along an area I wanted to pursue when 

he said Russians were at that airbase before the chemical weapons 

attack. And there were open source and unofficial reports that Russian-controlled drones were going over the hospital prior to the attack doing intelligence and recognizance, for what purpose, ahead 

of time. And how complicit is Russia, not just in their ignoring 

their responsibilities under the treaty that was negotiated in 2013, 

but complicit in some of these actions? As Dr. Rand said, it doesn’t 

matter how people are killed. They were complicit in, you know I 

think, just the slaughter of civilians in their bombing and their 

military tactics, the same way working side-by-side with Assad. 

So how can Russia be so pivotal in one sense to what we are 

doing, if they were complicit with Assad and Assad complicates 

this? If you can, delve into that. I know it is a difficult question 

but I appreciate all your thoughts on it. 

Mr. LISTER. If I may, it is an excellent question, again, and an 

extremely important one. This is the meaty, horrible side of politics. Russia is our direct adversary in terms of Syria policy and yet, 

it is also part of the solution. It will have to be part of the solution. 

If it is not part of the solution, we won’t get a solution. 

The reason why I single out Russia as being part of that is largely because, as I said earlier, for Russia, Syria is something to be 

negotiated over. For Iran, this is zero-sum; there is nothing to negotiate. 

So our only opening here is to convince the Russians that their 

current plan of action is unsustainable and it won’t lead to the 

eventual objective that they want, which is, ultimately, ideally, for 

Assad to be still be in Damascus and in control of 100 percent of 

his territory. It is not going to happen. 

We also need to bear in mind, in terms of your complicity question, Russia has a very different military philosophy. We saw, I believe in 1990, in its operation in Grozny in Chechnya, the idea of 

fighting terrorism for Russia was scorched earth. And this is precisely how Russia has further emboldened Assad’s scorched earth 

policy. This is why I described the Syrian Army as a result of——

Mr. KEATING. And my time is running out but I think it is important to distinguish as well there is such a perception I think in our 

country that Russia is our ally targeting ISIS. And frankly, that is 

not the case there. Could you just maybe throw some of your 

knowledge that you have in this area toward at least breaking up 

that myth, to a degree? 

48

Mr. LISTER. Sure. Well, I would be lying to say that Russia 

hasn’t fought ISIS but I would be telling the truth to say it is far 

from their first priority. 

Russia has pivoted on different priorities over time. When it has 

successfully negotiated with the international community to enforce 

a ceasefire between the opposition and the regime, it has then celebrated the success of having established a ceasefire, and then with 

all the world’s media watching, pivoted to fight ISIS for a couple 

weeks. 

Mr. KEATING. Well, thank you. My time is up. I would yield back 

but thank you for shedding some light on this. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go to Mr. Joe Wilson of South Carolina. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am very grateful 

for the leadership today of Chairman Ed Royce and Ranking Member Eliot Engel to hold a hearing as we discuss the long-term stability of not just Syria but the Middle East as a whole. And I am 

really pleased, too, how bipartisan this is. Indeed, I am happy to 

join with Congressman Greg Meeks to point out that we have a 

very insightful panel and I wish you well in your careers. 

More than 500,000 people have been killed and 14 million driven 

from their homes as the result of the unending conflict. This gruesomely sad situation should have been dealt with earlier and I am 

disheartened that it has taken until a few weeks ago where action 

was taken against Assad after he conducted another chemical 

weapons attack, committing mass murder against his own people. 

We find ourselves in a difficult situation today, as we have let 

Russia and Iran take an unnecessarily active role in shaping Syria’s future. More should be done in Syria and more will be done. 

I want to thank all of you for the testimony. For each of you, how 

do you assess the humanitarian crisis in Syria and the neighboring 

nations resolving itself? And I actually am trying to be positive. 

When we talk about a stable and prosperous Syria after the missile 

strikes, what you would you say are the most important milestones 

to achieve in order to incentivize millions of displaced Syrians to 

come home, beginning with Mr. Singh? 

Mr. SINGH. Well thank you, Congressman. Thank you for your 

kind words. 

It is a difficult question because I think we are actually quite far 

away from—and I appreciate you are trying to be optimistic but I 

think we are actually quite far away from any such milestones. 

I do want to reiterate that while we talk quite a bit about Assad, 

and Russia, and Iran, and appropriately so, again, I think we need 

to bear in mind that this conflict is no longer sort of a single conflict and those actors, which are, I think, malign actors, are largely 

active in western Syria. And so you have these other quadrants of 

the conflict in which, for example, we wouldn’t want to invite 

Assad, and the Russians, and the Iranians to have influence over 

the liberation of Raqqa and what is happening in eastern Syria. 

I think what we need to do is to look at each of these quadrants 

separately, do what we can to stabilize each of them, and to empower local actors. And in doing so, perhaps return some semblance of stability to them, at least in the short-term preventing 

them from getting worse. 

49

So as I look at southern Syria, for example, the Jordanians worry 

that renewed fighting in southern Syria, close to their border, 

where there is now an ISIS branch that has been established, could 

result in more refugee flows across their border. And as I said, they 

are already hosting up to upwards of a million refugees, which is 

a big strain. So at least preventing that from getting worse, I 

think, will be quite important. 

Once we have achieved some measure of stability in one or more 

of those quadrants, then I think over the longer term you can think 

about how do you knit this back together. But I think the reality 

is, for the foreseeable future, you are not going to see Syria reunified. There is no single actor that has that capability and we 

shouldn’t pursue that goal, first and foremost. It should be stability 

in these zones. 

Mr. LISTER. Very briefly, I would say I would refer you to my full 

written testimony in which I do try to suggest, at least, and as I 

said in my opening comments, that there are interim things that 

we can do which I think can alleviate some of the very dire humanitarian situation. And there are things we can do with relatively 

minimal effort, although increasing investment from where we currently stand to allow refugees to come back into Syria, to allow interim reconstruction to begin. And all of that compiled together results in some indirect pressure on the Assad regime to consider negotiations in a serious way. 

And I would encourage you to look, although it is far from perfect 

and certainly Turkey has problems in terms of being our ally at the 

moment, I would refer you to look at what was done in northern 

Aleppo and how effective, on a humanitarian level, that is now becoming. I would say 40,000 refugees have returned to that area 

now, which is, effectively, a safe zone, in the last 4 to 6 weeks or 

so. That gives us a signal of what is possible. 

Ms. RAND. Thank you, Congressman. I would agree completely 

with my colleagues and just add two more very important points. 

One, I think I mentioned earlier this access issue. There are five 

million or so Syrians living under opposition control or sort of nonregime control that are being denied access, it seems, to some of 

the humanitarian aid that even we are paying for. So the access 

issue, through the cross border, through Turkey, that is a key 

issue. That is a diplomatic issue. It is pushing our partners and 

pushing the Russians to help get this aid into Idlib Province and 

other provinces under the opposition control. So point number one 

is the access. 

And second, to go back to the very good questions from your colleague from Massachusetts, you know the Russians are playing not 

only a scorched earth policy but their air war tactics are driving 

civilians from Syria in rapid numbers. And so they turn it on and 

off and they divert, as Mr. Lister said, to the ISIS fight for a moment and then go back to targeting. 

But just in this month, I believe, the Russians have increased 

their targeting of civilians’ Idlib homes and other places. And that 

really drives the refugee crisis because they are targeting hospitals. 

They are targeting civilian infrastructure sites. And that is what 

is making people leave their homes, when they are——

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, each of you. 

50

Chairman ROYCE. Dr. Ami Bera. 

Mr. BERA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to expand on something that my colleague, Mr. Keating, touched on. You know none 

of us questions the measured response in response to the use of 

chemical weapons. But at this juncture, we are given a task as 

Members of Congress to start thinking about what next. And we 

can’t do that without—none of you speak on behalf of the administration. You are providing your opinion. 

And let me just put that in context. When President Obama was 

asking Congress to take actions, we had a hearing in this very committee in September 2013. And again, no disrespect to the panel, 

but we had Secretary of Defense Hagel; we had Secretary of State 

Kerry; and we had the chairman of the Joint Chiefs General 

Dempsey, and we were able to ask those questions. 

So let me remind the President that he doesn’t have the authorization to take additional actions against Assad without consultation of Congress. And I know both the chairman and ranking member are doing their best to get those individuals from the administration in front of this committee but the President needs to understand that separation of powers and it is incredibly important. 

Again, the measured response supported broadly by bipartisan 

members here, but in isolation, that response of Tomahawk missiles doesn’t accomplish anything. It is the what next. 

And I appreciate the testimony of the witnesses. I think you are 

providing valuable insight and opinion but we need the administration here so we can ask directly what their strategy is. And thus 

far, the President hasn’t stated what next strategy is and that is 

a real concern. 

You know, Dr. Rand, you touched on something and I think all 

of you would agree on when we think about our foreign policy: 

There are really three pillars here. There is certainly the defense 

but then there is the diplomacy and the development aspects of foreign policy. And when we think about staffing levels at the State 

Department, I am incredibly worried about our readiness for the 

second and third pillars of whatever the next strategy is. 

Dr. Rand, do you want to touch on the lack of staffing at State, 

and the vulnerability, and our readiness here? 

Ms. RAND. Thank you, Congressman for that question. First, I 

should say that there are many, many dedicated career civil servants, and foreign service officers, and the majority of the State Department, USAID, who are there working day in and day out on 

this issue, in particular. And I applaud their consistent contribution to this issue. It is a really tough tragedy to work on. 

But yes, that is a concern. The way the State Department works 

is that the political appointees who sit at the Deputy Assistant Secretary, Assistant Secretary level interact with their Department of 

Defense colleagues to make sure that the three Ds are actually 

working—the development, defense, and diplomacy—work synergically together comprehensively. If you don’t have those level of 

appointees or those levels of leaders to go to the meetings and to 

work with the military, you are inherently going to erode the contributions at the civilian levels of U.N. foreign policy. 

Mr. BERA. Great. Would either one of you want to comment? 

51

Mr. SINGH. I just want to say one thing on this. I had spent some 

time myself at the State Department. I was a Special Assistant to 

Secretaries Powell and Rice. And I think that I agree with Dr. 

Rand on the principle that we need to get the State Department 

staffed up. We need to staff our diplomacy. I am concerned about 

some of the reports of big cuts to the State Department budget. 

On the other hand, it is also important that we have the right 

organization at the State Department and, as I understand it, that 

is one of the things that Secretary Tillerson is looking at. 

Because I think one lesson that I would take from the last administration is that we have to be careful that we have a unified 

Middle East strategy and that we empower our officials to look not 

just at one slice of the salami, as it were, but that we empower 

them to look at the entire region. So I would like to, for example, 

see an Assistant Secretary of State for Middle Eastern Affairs who 

actually has the power to look at multiple issues across the region 

and integrate them into a single strategy. 

And I will also say my impression is, without minimizing your 

concerns, Congressman, that inside, for example, the National Security Council, the Trump administration is looking very carefully 

at this issue and what our strategy in Syria should be. 

Mr. BERA. And again, I would just reiterate that may be taking 

place but there is a role for Congress and there is a role for that 

consultation with Congress. That is how our Government is set up. 

And let me just say, not to minimize, we have great Government 

employees. We have great employees with the State, DoD, et 

cetera, that are doing a tremendous job. 

So, again, I would just urge the administration to respect this 

committee. And I will yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go to Jeff Duncan of South Carolina. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You know we have a great panel. You guys are very well-versed 

in the topic. I just want to point out that we may have had some 

people from the administration here to testify, had some of the administration’s appointments not been slow to be confirmed on the 

Senate side due to obstruction over there. And that is unfortunate 

because this is a very timely issue. 

I want to speak on behalf of my constituents because I get a lot 

of messages to my office, Facebook, Twitter, other things that say 

this: What are the U.S. national security interests that are at stake 

in Syria and how do these Syria-specific interests relate to broader 

U.S. regional or global interests? What are we doing in Syria? Why 

is it important to the United States? 

And I will start with Mr. Singh. 

Mr. SINGH. Thank you, Congressman and it is a great question. 

And I think your constituents are absolutely right to ask that, as 

we should of every foreign policy issue. 

I think we have several interests at stake here. Number one is 

counterterrorism, first and foremost, because obviously we are focused on defeating ISIS and trying to do it in a way which is sustainable, so that ISIS doesn’t come back. And I think that is something that ordinary Americans are concerned about. 

Second, we don’t want to see Iran increase its power or increase 

its ability to project power, whether against our interests or 

52

against our allies like Israel and Jordan. And one thing that we 

have seen, as others have discussed, is that Iran is, in fact, attempting to do that. 

There is also an element here where we have Russia trying to 

thwart American interests, American objectives in this region and 

project its own power globally. 

And then just finally——

Mr. DUNCAN. Let me just ask you—I mean we tried that in Vietnam. How is this going to be different when we try to thwart another country like Russia’s engagement in a certain region of the 

world? Can you touch on that? 

Mr. SINGH. Well, I don’t know that we are aiming to thwart Russia’s engagement in this region of the world. As my colleague mentioned, Russia has had influence in Syria for a long time. I think 

it is actually reverse. I think Russia is trying to, in principle, prevent the United States from succeeding in this region. And that is 

a big concern, I think, for any policymaker, whatever your view of 

what a relationship with Russia should be in the long-run. 

And I would just add one more thing, which is obviously we have 

seen this conflict cause tremendous instability in Europe. And instability in Europe is I think, also, a concern of the United States. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Any of you others want to comment on that? 

Mr. LISTER. I don’t want to repeat what my colleague has said 

but I would want to reiterate the obvious is, of course, counterterrorism as an interest. We focused almost explicitly on ISIS for the 

last several years but we seem to have forgotten al-Qaeda. And 

that, for me in my area of work, is a very significant concern and 

we can come to that, perhaps with further questions. 

The issue of international norms and American credibility is also 

at stake; I could speak at length at how American credibility has 

been severely damaged with regards to our treatment of the Syrian 

crisis over the last 6 years. And there are things, as my remarks 

said, that we can do to rescue some of that credibility. 

Iran and Hezbollah are increasing like we have never seen them 

before. Hezbollah is now arguably more powerful than some Eastern European militaries. 

Mr. DUNCAN. It is interesting that you mentioned that several 

times today about Iran and Hezbollah. Do you believe that Iran is 

emboldened based on the Iranian deal that gave them $400 billion 

plus that they could use to export terrorism to finance Hezbollah 

and other terrorist organizations? Do they feel more emboldened 

because they have the financial ability now from that deal? 

Mr. LISTER. It is hard to say with certainty, although, I would 

find it hard to believe they didn’t find themselves feeling more 

emboldened. I think the one key difference I can tell after the 

JCPOA in terms of Iran’s strategy in Syria is that they have managed to train these Shia militiamen from all across the region, and 

far more intensively, and far more professionally than they were 

before. Whereas, we saw 2 or 3 years ago tens of thousands compiled of Afghan Hazara Shia militiamen essentially being cannon 

fodder in strategic areas. They are now highly capable forces. And 

that can only have been the result of increased funding, logistical 

support, training facilities, and of course, travel across the region. 

53

Mr. DUNCAN. I know Dr. Rand wants to get in here and I have 

30 seconds but let me just make a point and ask Dr. Rand. Do you 

think if the United States hadn’t pulled out of Iraq prematurely 

without leaving a contingency there, things would be different in 

western Iraq and Syria? 

Ms. RAND. Thank you, Congressman. 

You know the Iraq point is a very good one and I actually would 

disagree slightly that the Shia militia training, the cause and effect 

of that probably predates the JCPOA. It probably goes back many, 

many years. I mean you could date it even to 2006-2007, when 

these Shiite militias were forming. 

So I don’t think it is the 2011-2010 period that we are talking 

about. I think we are talking—if you want to cite Iraq as a causal 

variable that led to the growth of the Shiite militia movement and 

their ability to train and seize power, I would go even earlier to 

2005, 2006, 2007. 

Mr. DUNCAN. My time is up. 

Mr. Chairman, I reiterate it would be nice to have some administration officials here. 

Chairman ROYCE. Very good. 

Dina Titus of Nevada. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am afraid I am going to 

be saying the same thing that most of my colleagues have said because I share their sentiments. 

I think the meandering policies of the Trump administration 

have done nothing to end the civil war in Syria. We all agree it is 

a complicated situation. That is why we need a clear strategy with 

a focused execution and leadership and that is not what we have. 

The only thing this administration has been clear about is that 

Assad, apparently, gets to stay in power and he is the person who 

has been willing to kill more 500,000 of his own people. 

We haven’t received any details about how the President wants 

to work with others in the area. We haven’t seen this super-secret 

plan to get rid of ISIS. All we have seen are some so-called messages that have been sent to Iran and North Korea. And we have 

had the mother of all bombs dropped. We have had the Armata 

going somewhere; we don’t know where. We have had saber-rattling that has upset some of our closest allies. It seems to me a 

kind of mass confusion and it is very unpredictable, which means 

it is unstable and can lead to mistakes. 

In the meantime, the State Department has been sidelined in the 

whole process of forming any kind of cohesive foreign policy strategy. 

I will agree with Mr. Keating, Dr. Bera, Mr. Duncan, you all are 

wonderful. You are the experts, obviously, but we have had nobody 

from the administration. Your analysis is interesting to us but you 

are think tank people. You are academics. You are former administration folks. You are not who is there now and supposed to be 

making the decisions. 

I know we are trying to get the Secretary here. Maybe we need 

to get Ivanka here—she has her brother whispering that she is the 

one who suggested they do the bombing—or Jared Kushner. Maybe 

they are the ones doing the policy. So maybe we need to bring them 

in front of us and ask them what is going on. 

54

In the meantime, I would just ask Dr. Rand, you know it has 

been 20 days since we dropped all the missiles on Syria. Now, 

President Trump all the time has said I will never forecast what 

I am going to do. Unlike the previous administration, I am not 

going to warn the enemy. Well, they warned Russia and they hightailed it out of there. Russia warned Syria; they got out of there. 

They were using the airfield the very next day. Those precious babies that so moved our President when they were hit with the 

chemical gas are still being killed by barrel bombs or are washing 

up on the shores of Greek islands because they are refugees. 

What was the effect of that, that message? What good did it do? 

Doctor, do you see any effect on the regime of that strike? Would 

you advise doing more strikes, less strikes, what? 

Ms. RAND. Yes, thank you Congresswoman. Three weeks later, it 

is hard to say exactly what the impact was in terms of the civil 

conflict, in terms of the war against ISIS, and in terms of our allies. I think there were a lot of raised hopes and expectations 

among many allies in many different parts of the world. And the 

neighbors had different views, as I said, and they read into the 

strikes what they want U.S. policy to be, which often conflicts with 

each other, which is of concern. 

But no, I didn’t see a deterrent effect in terms of slowing down 

Assad’s killing machine, nor slowing down Russian support for 

Assad in the past 3 weeks. 

Ms. TITUS. So the message wasn’t very clear or wasn’t very effective? 

Ms. RAND. Yes, I don’t think that message had that sort of impact. 

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Lister? 

Mr. LISTER. The message was clear in one single act but there 

is no strategy. The only impact I can say that we have seen is that 

there clearly is still some concern within the Assad regime about 

the fact that we did conduct the attack because they have redeployed almost of their aircraft to Russia’s military base in the 

northwest of the country for protection. 

So clearly, the impact of one strike of 59 cruise missiles has 

made people ask questions about whether or not we will do it again 

but they shouldn’t just be asking the questions. It should be clear 

from our side whether or not there will be any more or whether 

there will not be. 

So clearly, as I said in my opening remarks, we do need an underpinning strategy to have the proper effect that we want. 

Ms. TITUS. All right. 

Mr. SINGH. You know I confess I disagree slightly with my colleagues on this. I think of the narrow purpose of these strikes was 

to deter the use of chemical weapons and to lend credibility to 

American military threats, I think that it is possible that they will 

succeed in that narrow basis but, again, that is narrow. So I 

wouldn’t be quite as negative about it, perhaps, as you suggest. 

Ms. TITUS. I think that you say it is possible that it will succeed. 

What happens if it doesn’t deter them and they do it again? That 

is the big question that looms out there. What next, I guess, is the 

point. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

55

Chairman ROYCE. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania. 

Mr. PERRY. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

As is often the case in this committee, I feel like I am compelled 

to correct the record by the time it comes to my opportunity to ask 

some questions. So I am just going to take some time to remind everybody who says that we must have a strategy and that this side 

opposes such a thing, nothing could be further from the truth. We 

believe that we must have a strategy and that the President must 

come to us as well for further and continued military action. 

That having been said, let’s just be reminded that he has been 

in office for about 100 days. Meanwhile, for 8 years prior to this, 

we still didn’t see a strategy and, when we did, well it was a red 

line, and then I am going to take some military action, and then 

when the American people disagree with it, then I am going to go 

to the Congress, and then I am not going to do anything. And if 

this is complicated, which it is, I would say that whatever the 

strategy was during the last administration has a lot to do with the 

complications we are dealing with right now, which includes Russian involvement, which the United States effectively kept out of 

the Middle East for 60 years under previous policy. Let’s not forget 

that. 

All right, moving on. Does anybody on the panel believe that 

Moscow was aware of Assad’s use of chemical weapons beforehand 

and/or approved of it or was it beyond its control, Russia? Mr. 

Singh, do you know? 

Mr. SINGH. I don’t know but it is hard for me to imagine that 

Russia and Iran wouldn’t be aware of those types of things, given 

the integration between these militaries. 

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Lister? 

Mr. LISTER. Just to add briefly, the French Government released 

an investigation into the attack yesterday. They actually deployed 

assets to the town that was attacked. 

One of the things they found was the chemical hexamine was 

used as a mixing agent for sarin. The key thing about hexamine 

is it takes many, many hours, if not 1 to 2 days, to actually complete the process of forming sarin. It is composed of—it is a binary 

chemical. 

Mr. PERRY. Right. 

Mr. LISTER. There have been media reports here in the United 

States citing unnamed intelligence officials saying that we had detected people linked to the chemical weapons program going to the 

Shayrat Air Base in the days preceding the attack. If those reports 

are true and we indeed did detect those things, there is no way in 

my mind that Russia, having troops on the base itself, could not 

have known. 

Mr. PERRY. Wouldn’t know. Wouldn’t know, right. 

So it would seem that Russia, potentially, at least at this point, 

could be complicit and it seems to be pointing in that direction. 

Dr. Rand, do you have a countervailing opinion? 

Ms. RAND. Well I agree. I think actually the most guilty behavior 

was afterwards, where there was a disinformation campaign in the 

weeks subsequent, where Russia was denying this attack to place 

in the face of the hospital reports from Turkey, the——

Mr. PERRY. Overwhelming evidence. 

56

Ms. RAND. Yes. So that actually, I don’t know the answer to your 

question but that was pretty damning. 

Mr. PERRY. To what extent can Assad defy Russia? I mean they 

are trying to influence. They have their base there. They want to 

keep Assad to that extent but I would agree they are looking for 

stability that they are not going to get. What kind of leash does he 

have? Does he have a pretty broad range of authority where he can 

still receive compliance from Russia and things like what we just 

discussed, potentially? 

Mr. SINGH. That is an awfully tough question to answer, Congressman. I think he, as Charles mentioned, he needs Russia and 

Iran, especially, to have any hope of success militarily in the battlefield. At the same time, they need him. There is no Assad regime 

without Assad. 

Mr. PERRY. Right. 

Mr. SINGH. So there is a codependency. And exactly what is the 

dynamic in that relationship, I would be hard-pressed to say. 

Mr. PERRY. But I would think, at a minimum, we are hardpressed to put a whole lot or really any degree of trust in Russia 

in some kind of bilateral operations or negotiations. I mean we are 

forced to it because they are at the table because the last administration essentially allowed them at the table or they forced themselves to the table. But we can’t trust them in anything we are 

doing. Would that be a fair assessment? 

Mr. SINGH. I think that our history of negotiations so far have 

shown that, as Mr. Lister mentioned, they have a pretty poor track 

record when it comes to enforcing ceasefires and getting Assad to 

do what he needs to do. 

Mr. PERRY. Just looking further, what would their objective be 

in Libya and Egypt? Is this the beginning of further influence in 

the region? 

Mr. SINGH. Well I think, broadly, Russia is trying to reassert 

itself as a global power. It is trying to reestablish its influence in 

regions like the Middle East but not only the Middle East. And 

look, having a presence there on NATO’s southern flank, you know 

they obviously have quite a presence on NATO’s eastern flank, 

gives them a bit of influence and leverage over especially those 

southern NATO countries. 

So I think that there are a lot of different things in play. 

Mr. PERRY. Yes, so I think we need to be wary of that and aware 

of that. 

Regarding future negotiations and stability, and your assertion 

that it is not going to come anytime soon, and I would agree with 

you, are there decision points for Russia? And if there are, and I 

imagine there are, do you have any inclination to what they would 

be? 

And finally, Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence, would you just 

acknowledge that it was protocol to allow the Russians to know 

that our missiles indeed were inbound. It was not collaboration or 

collusion, it is protocol. 

Mr. SINGH. It is protocol and I think it is prudence, as well, 

frankly. 

Mr. PERRY. Okay. And the previous question? 

Mr. SINGH. The decision points for Russia. 

57

Mr. PERRY. Yes. 

Mr. SINGH. Russia is obviously most active in that western sort 

of quadrant of the conflict, as well as a bit in the southern quadrant. And it seems right now they are trying to establish control 

around Idlib. 

And so I think that seems to be the focus but I think whether 

or not that remains the focus, how that goes will depend also in 

part on what happens in the rest of the country. I think, for example, a successful operation to liberate Raqqa changes the sort of 

facts on the ground because it really, especially if we are starting 

to empower local actors there, it eliminates the possibility that 

Assad can somehow regain control of the country and perhaps 

changes the dynamics for Russia, for Assad, for Iran. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. We go to Brad Schneider, Brad 

Schneider of Illinois. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you, again, 

for calling this hearing. To the witnesses, your testimony, your 

written testimony in particular, was extraordinarily helpful. 

I want to associate myself with my colleagues about the need for 

a strategy, the need for the administration to be here speaking to 

us. But also I want to, as maybe starting a trend, set the record 

straight because it was indicated that it is obstruction that is slowing down having people in place. And I just want to point out that 

there have been very few nominations made within the State Department, among other departments. 

There are two upcoming nomination hearings. The Senate is 

moving quickly. We need the senior officials to be nominated and 

in place to make sure that we implement the strategy we need to 

have in place. 

Moving to questions, Mr. Lister, you indicated in your testimony 

that Assad cannot put Syria back together again. Is that a statement about Assad or is it more a statement about Syria in general? 

Mr. LISTER. I take it to mean the latter part of your question is 

implying whether partition is possible? 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. No, the question is can Syria be put together 

again or is it something that we are trying to do the impossible? 

Mr. LISTER. Fundamentally speaking, a very significant proportion of Syria’s population have seen the wrath of the Assad regime 

and the methods he uses—so the Assad regime’s chief motto is 

Assad or we burn the country. Assad frequently says he is cleansing his country of the impure. 

With Assad still in place and with his foreign intelligence apparatus, you have every single piece of information about anyone who 

could potentially be opposed to his regime. While he stays in power, 

six and a half million Syrians will never go back. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. And I agree that Assad can’t. But is it possible 

to put Syria back together at this point? 

Mr. LISTER. I think so, yes, in the long-term. The key thing for 

everyone to bear in mind is that the only thing, in my experience, 

that unites the opposition and the regime is an opposition to Syria 

falling apart. Both of them oppose partition 100 percent. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Good. 

Mr. Singh, turning to you. You talked about Syria being a conflict spread over four zones. And as I look at it and others were 

58

talking about it, it is maybe more. There are more facets to this 

challenge. 

But I wonder is it one conflict over four zones or it is four conflicts with intersections, or using Mr. Lister’s term, interlinked conflicts? 

Mr. SINGH. Congressman, I mean I guess you would apply almost 

either terminology to it. I think the point, from my point of view, 

is that you can’t treat Syria as one problem, in a sense. In fact, you 

have distinct but, perhaps, overlapping problems. So for example, 

we have the problem that has erupted in recent days of the Turks 

and the Kurds in their tensions to one another and clashes with 

one another now. We have the problem of Iran and Hezbollah trying to establish a presence along the Golan Heights. We have the 

problem, potentially, of, if there is renewed fighting in the south, 

refugees flowing into Jordan and the Jordanians feeling as though 

they have to do something perhaps to push ISIS back from their 

own borders. 

And then we also have the sort of issue that really we are focused on in this hearing of western Syria and the plight of civilians 

who are caught between the Assad regime and its backers and the 

opposition which is, as I said, increasingly jihadist dominated in 

that area. 

So these are all sort of parts of the Syrian conflict but I think 

that to make good policy, we may need to look at them not separately, not totally distinctly, but as sort of discrete problems, if you 

know what I mean. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Dr. Rand, I don’t know if you have comments to 

add to that. 

Ms. RAND. Concurring. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Okay. As I try to understand what is happening 

and, again, thank you for sharing your insights, it seems that we 

need to have certainly a multi-faceted strategy, if not overlaying 

strategies that are distinct. 

On the one level, we have this humanitarian crisis that we have 

to deal with with, not just the internally displaced but the pressure 

it is putting on the region. 

Mr. Singh, as you touched on, we have the regional issues in 

what is happening at the north along the Turkish borders is distinct from what is happening on the highway between Damascus 

and Aleppo, distinct from what is happening near the Golan. And 

having that tragedy on the regional and then the global, we are 

running out of time, but the issue of the prospect of a failed state 

in Iraq being a haven for terrorist groups and, Mr. Lister, thank 

you for emphasizing al-Qaeda because it is not just ISIS. We have 

to have a strategy with all of those. 

So I guess I am going to finish with a statement for a question 

because I am out of time. But it is imperative that we have the administration here sharing with us, so that Congress can exercise its 

responsibility to understand and ultimately make the decision of 

what role the United States should be playing in these conflicts. 

So with that, I yield back. Thank you very much. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you for those questions. 

We will now go to Chairman McCaul from Texas. 

Mr. MCCAUL. All right, thank you, Chairman. 

59

My first question is to Mr. Lister and maybe for the panel. I have 

been briefed on this Democratic Federation of Northern Syria that 

operates, obviously, in the northern part of the country. On December 29th, the 165 leaders, Kurdish, Christian, Yazidi, and Arab 

populations came together to form a counsel and declare the creation of a government known as the Democratic Federation of 

Northern Syria. And it was sort of intriguing to me. I know some 

of our Special Forces may be working with them to defeat ISIS but 

what intrigued me about this group was that, at some point, if and 

when Assad falls, we are going to have to have some model of governance, some template for the country. And I think that is something that we have seen historically in the past we have made mistakes on, when a dictator falls and there is no governance, then the 

terrorists take over. 

And so my question is can you tell me more about this Federation and the prospects of it and other groups like it becoming sort 

of a model governance? 

Mr. LISTER. Sure. Well, the formation you speak of is essentially 

a result of the Kurdish YPG’s policy in northeastern Syria, which 

is to establish a semi-autonomous region of the country either with 

or without the tacit acceptance of the United States and with or 

without the tacit acceptance of the Assad regime, both of whom it 

retains contact with. 

You know many of the underpinning philosophies underpinning 

it are good and laudable. The idea of freedom of representation, in 

theory, the theory of equal opportunities for the sexes is all good, 

and there are many, many more. There are problems with it, 

though, within this Federation territory, it has become all the more 

common now for any portions of opposition or any other Kurdish 

parties that aren’t the YPG have had their offices raided, burnt 

down, arrested. It is now illegal, according to that Federation for 

any of the leaders of those other Kurdish parties to even enter the 

territory. 

So it is potentially a good stabilizing measure in the interim period but it isn’t part of a solution I can see other Syrians and the 

rest of the country being part of. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Is it something the United States should be supporting? 

Mr. LISTER. In the interim, perhaps, yes, I mean because it 

works for now. It has stabilized northeastern Syria. It has resulted 

in the defeat of ISIS in those areas. But we need to be very, very 

aware of how poisonous, and I use that word, how poisonous the 

YPG’s political philosophy is perceived by Syrians on both sides of 

the opposition-regime conflict. There are significant fears. 

I will end just by saying I was part of a significant Track II process for 3 years, which involved almost a thousand Syrians from 

across all sides of the conflict, highly influential people in their own 

regard. The only actor not involved in that process was the PYD, 

the political wing of the YPG. And the only reason for that is nearly every single Syrian involved in that process said they would boycott the process if the PYD was involved. 

It is just worth us remembering that using that as a model for 

the rest of Syria will not work, whilst it may work in the northeast. 

But it is not translatable for the rest of the country. 

60

Mr. MCCAUL. Well, following on the YPG, on Tuesday, Turkey 

launched an airstrike against groups, Kurds, including the YPG in 

Syria. We have been working with them to defeat ISIS. I know 

there were communications to Turkey not to do this. The President 

is meeting with President Erdogan next month. 

As a member of NATO, how do you propose that the United 

States balance this issue? 

Mr. LISTER. Well, I would refer you to my earlier testimony and 

to my prepared remarks. I refer to the fact that Turkey has many 

faults but also we have many faults with this situation. 

We have pretended that the YPG isn’t part of the PKK, which 

is a designated terrorist organization in this country. The PKK is 

also the primary national security threat for Turkey and it has 

been for 30 or 40 years. 

So there are things we do need to do to build confidence back up 

with the Turks and the primary policy recommendation I would 

have there in the immediate term is to try to encourage or force 

Turkey to reconsider a ceasefire with the PKK inside Turkey, 

which would then have the positive knock-on effect of de-intensifying the hostilities between Turkey and the YPG. 

For me, that is the only way around it. 

Mr. MCCAUL. I assume the other witnesses agree with this assessment? 

Ms. RAND. Yes, this is exactly right. I would just add that the 

President and the new administration seem to be trying to warm 

relationships with Turkey. There were a number of phone calls, including after the referendum 10 days ago, congratulating President 

Erdogan. This is a new warm relationship that has to be translated 

into tough talk and negotiations on these types of issues to promise 

to work on the YPG issue in exchange for restraint and not to target people that our Special Forces are working with and partnering 

with. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you. I see my time has expired. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you for those questions. 

We will now go to Mr. Espaillat from New York. 

Mr. ESPAILLAT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Engel. And esteemed witnesses, thank you for your excellent and 

enlightening testimony. 

I don’t mean to pile on but, however, thus far, so far in Congress 

and with full control of both the Senate, the House, and the White 

House, it is perplexing that we have not heard from a State Department official who might really play a constructive role in answering some of the questions that we may have. 

Just yesterday we heard from Secretary of State Tillerson and 

General Mattis on the North Korea issue. And we have not used 

military force there, yet. So I think it is imperative that we hear 

from the administration on their plan, their strategic long-term 

plan to address this humanitarian crisis in Syria. Close to half a 

million civilians have died or exactly 480,000, and 14 million people 

have been displaced, and maybe 50 or more percent of the country’s 

infrastructure has been destroyed. 

So this is truly a humanitarian crisis and beyond the attack on 

the airfield, we have not really heard from the President or his administration on the long-term strategic plan to deal with this parVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:39 Jun 07, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Z:\WORK\_FULL\042717\25261 SHIRL
61

ticular humanitarian crisis. And we saw how while he warned the 

Russians of the planned military action, he ordered the launch of 

59 Tomahawks on Shayrat Airfield in Syria. And he very emotionally and appropriately stated that Assad choked out the lives of 

helpless, men, women, and children. It was a slow and brutal death 

for many of them. 

But less than 24 hours after the attack, the Syrian Government 

and their Russian allies were able to continue to fly missions out 

of the airfield. When will they fly another mission with chemical 

weapons? That is the question that we must all ask ourselves. In 

fact, there are recent allegations that even after the airfield attack, 

the regime has used chlorine gas against civilians. 

And so we want to know, I want to ask is there any evidence? 

Have you heard of any evidence of this being true that they have, 

in fact, after the sarin attack, they have used other chemical weapons on the Syrian people? 

Mr. LISTER. Briefly, yes, or as much evidence as we can glean 

without being there ourselves. Doctors on the ground have treated 

chlorine-like symptoms, difficulty breathing, tearing from the eyes 

in, as far as I am aware, at least three different locations since our 

cruise missile strikes, including one of the times which was literally the day after our cruise missile strike. And those attacks are 

taking place just outside Damascus and elsewhere in the north of 

the country. 

Mr. ESPAILLAT. So the bombing of the airfield has not deterred 

the Assad regime from continuing in its bad ways. And so we must 

hear from the administration on the strategic long-term plan in the 

region. The President, in his first 100 days has issued executive orders to a 4-month halt on allowing refugees in to the United States. 

We just heard in the past days how his assistant and First Daughter Ivanka contradicted that particular policy, saying that allowing 

Syrian refugees into the United States has to be part of the discussion. Maybe we should allow that statement into the record, Mr. 

Chairman, but we must continue to highlight America’s long-standing tradition to offer humanitarian aid and allow refugees from 

troubled parts of the world to enter America, where they will protected and shielded from bodily harm. This is an important component of who we are as a nation and we must continue to look in 

that direction. 

Trump is proposing cuts on the State Department and we heard 

how General Mattis has stated that if we cut diplomacy, we just 

buy additional bullets. And so we are in the crossroad where we 

have not heard from the administration with proposing cuts on the 

State Department, the Assad regime continues to violate human 

rights. We are not clear on where we are going and yet, we are not 

speaking to each other. And we speak to each other about North 

Korea, as we should and yet, we have not used physical force there. 

So we must continue to support refugees coming in. We have a 

good vetting system to ensure that they are not here to harm our 

nation. And whether they are children being killed in El Salvador, 

Guatemala, Honduras, or Syria, they are children that we should 

help across the world. 

62

And I am asking President Trump to reverse his course on the 

executive order and to come to Congress with a long-term foreign 

policy strategy on Syria. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. YOHO [presiding]. Thank you, sir. It is now my turn and so 

I am going to ask you guys, and I appreciate your patience being 

here. I want to go back to the subject of this hearing, Syria After 

the Missile Strikes: Policy Options. 

I was torn when President Trump ordered those Tomahawk missiles in there because I was a strong opponent of President Obama 

going in there when they were going to do the no-fly zones because 

was saw what happens with no-fly zones in Libya. It leads to a 

failed state. There is nobody to take over and that was our concern 

back then. And this was a limited strike. 

And I want to go back to some of the stuff that you said. Mr. 

Lister, you said you noted that the mode of death—whether it is 

bombs, bullets, I threw in beheading, or chemicals—it is still death 

but the chemical weapons have been deemed an unacceptable form 

of warfare. And if we go back to the Chemical Weapons Convention, it comprehensibly prohibits the use, the development, the production, stockpiling, and transfer of chemical weapons. Any chemical used for warfare is considered a chemical weapon by the Convention. And then we have the chlorine barrel bombs that Assad 

has been using. And we have written bills to prevent that. We can’t 

get the traction because everybody says chlorine is not considered 

a use but within the chemical weapons treaty it says the use of any 

toxic chemical as a weapon, when used to produce fatalities solely 

or majoritively through its toxic action is in and of itself forbidden 

by the treaty. 

So my question to you is: We have pretty much every country in 

the world signed on to the CWC and there are four of them that 

haven’t. So the consensus is, with all the countries, the 192 that 

have agreed to this, is that chemical weapons should not be used. 

So we are in agreement there. 

Is there an enforcement mechanism or is it just an agreement we 

are not going to use them? And if somebody crosses that red line 

and uses them, is there an international response written down 

anywhere and, if not, would you recommend there should be and 

it should be an international coalition of all nations? 

What are your thoughts, Mr. Singh? 

Mr. SINGH. Well, Congressman, thanks for the question. I confess 

I am not an expert in the CWC. So I am not sure I have the answer to your questions. 

But I think if the treaty is going to mean anything and it is a 

lesson also for other nonproliferation treaties, which we put a lot 

of emphasis on, there have to be sanctions. There have to be penalties for those who violate them and it can’t be just American penalties and American sanctions. It needs to be international. 

Mr. YOHO. And that is what I want to come out of this so that 

it gives clarity for a nation because I don’t want America to have 

to do this alone but after 5 years of slaughter over there and pushing 500,000 people and, as Ms. Titus brought up, you know this administration has done nothing. Well, we can blame a lot of administrations for not doing anything. And we need to have the clariVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:39 Jun 07, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Z:\WORK\_FULL\042717\25261 SHIRL
63

fication of if this does happen and we have signed on to these 

agreements, somebody needs to back them up. 

Mr. Lister, do you have any thoughts on that? 

Mr. LISTER. I am also not an expert on the treaty either or the 

Convention and I would echo what Mr. Singh has said. It is our 

responsibility as an international community to enforce conventions 

like this. 

Mr. YOHO. All right, and I know you guys aren’t the experts or 

want to talk about the policy side of that but you are experts in 

your fields. So I am asking you to give us the information that you 

would draft as far as a wording that we could go to the U.N. and 

say we want this or go to our State Department and say we want 

this wording put into the international community that if you cross 

this red line, not just America, but all the members that have 

signed up to this are coming after you. 

Dr. Rand? And Mr. Lister you said—you looked like you had 

something else to add. 

Mr. LISTER. I will just finish. I think the responsibility to protect 

is a useful mechanism here. If chemical weapons are proven to be 

being used against civilian populations repeatedly, that may give 

us one opportunity under some kind of a U.N. mandate to at least 

push for some kind of response and consequences for it. 

Yes, that is what I would offer. 

Mr. YOHO. Dr. Rand? 

Ms. RAND. I would agree with the RTP, the responsibility to protect method of advancing this but I would also add that you know 

last week at the U.N. there was a resolution, or 2 weeks ago right 

after the missile strikes, to condemn it and to investigate it and 

Russia vetoed it, in fact, on the one paragraph on the information 

about they didn’t like the way it was worded or something. But I 

think the main diplomatic task ahead is to go back on this particular strike and ensure that there is an investigation because 

that is part of the norm against CW is the international community 

goes in, and investigates, and holds accountable individuals, including by name, by the way. The PCW has been very good at finding 

the perpetrators in the past 2 years. 

Mr. YOHO. Right. 

Ms. RAND. It has a published list of names. 

Mr. YOHO. And my goal is that we have an enforcement mechanism that has teeth behind it because that is the only way I could 

justify what President Trump did is the slaughter that has been 

going on for over 5 years, that it has to be brought to an end. And 

if we just sit by as a world, we are all guilty of watching this happen. And so I am glad he stepped in but before we go any further, 

we need to have clarification. 

And my time is out. 

And we will go now to Mr. Brad Sherman from California. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. 

We have three separate goals in Syria and there is a tendency 

to mash them together. We have to keep them separate, evaluating 

every policy as to whether it helps at least one of those goals without setting back one of the others. And we shouldn’t attack a proposal just because it does nothing to achieve two of our goals if it, 

in fact, helps us achieve one of the three goals. 

64

Our first goal is to protect the Syrian people and we would, eventually, like to see good governance in Syria. Our second goal is to 

destroy ISIS. And our third goal is to preserve the Chemical Weapons Convention that bans the use of poison gas. 

And there has been discussion here about how the mode of death 

doesn’t matter. You are just as dead if you are hit by a bullet or 

a bomb as if you are hit with sarin. But the fact is that we live 

in a world in which mankind at least achieved the Chemical Weapons Convention. 

One could write an account or history where chemical weapons 

were invented before gunpowder and in that account or history, 

chemical weapons are allowed and explosives are not but that is 

not the way history unfolded. We have a convention against the 

use of chemical weapons that has saved countless millions of lives 

and it is worth standing up for that convention, even if we realize 

that Assad has killed half a million people, or the war that he created has killed half a million people, and only a very, very small 

percentage of those died from chemical weapons. 

Now not only do we have those three goals, the Syrian people, 

ISIS, and the Chemical Weapons Convention, they are not equally 

important goals, but we have a couple of caveats. And that is we 

want to do that all without excessive U.S. casualties and without 

a war with Russia. We don’t want another Iraq War. We don’t 

want another Cuban Missile Crisis. 

Now, one of our colleagues said that he thought that there was 

a moral equivalence between Assad and other authoritarian regimes in the Middle East. I would say Mubarak did not kill hundreds of thousands of people. In fact, he allowed himself to be, or 

was allowed to leave power, rather than killing hundreds of thousands. 

Not every authoritarian regime in the Middle East is responsible 

for aiding the killing of hundreds of Americans, as Mr. Lister pointed out, the Assad regime is. 

Not every Middle East authoritarian regime has tried to develop 

nuclear weapons the way Syria did until they were bombed in 

2007, and no doubt they paid North Korea for the material and the 

technology. So, they proliferated in that direction as well. That is 

money in the hands of North Korea. 

And there are 500,000 dead Syrians. That does not equate to 

Erdogan. And I have been one of the harshest critics of Erdogan 

on this committee. 

The Obama administration forced Assad to give up 2,600 pounds 

of chemical weapons. That was a tremendous accomplishment. And 

our hope is that the action taken by President Trump will prevent 

Assad from using whatever he has left. We will have to see. 

There is discussion of chlorine versus other chemical agents. It 

is my understanding that the Chemical Weapons Convention would 

prohibit Syria from even possessing sarin and other chemical 

agents. They are allowed to possess chlorine. You can’t have a modern society without chlorine and chlorinated water but it prohibits 

the use of chlorine as a weapon. 

And of course when chlorine is used, you can’t always be sure it 

was the Assad regime. Chlorine is a much more available item and 

the rebels, or the terrorists, or others might have it. 

65

The question I have requires an understanding of Russian politics. So if I don’t see a volunteer, maybe you could comment for the 

record. And that is, there is, among other things in the Middle 

East, a civil war between Shiites and Sunnis. The Russians have 

adopted the Shiites. Their own Muslim population is overwhelmingly Sunni. How does Putin, the man who at least asserts that his 

hold on power is dependent upon the consent of the government, 

side with the Shiites in this effort without an incredible blowback? 

We all have ethnic and religious communities in our districts and 

I doubt that we would fail to take into account their historical view 

in looking at international affairs. 

Does anybody have a comment on how and why Putin can side 

with the Shiites when he has tens of millions of Sunnis? 

Mr. LISTER. Very briefly, just academically, I would push back on 

the idea that Syria, at least within the frame of reference of Syria, 

that it is all just about Shiite versus Sunni. There are many 

Sunnis who have remained loyal to the Assad regime, just as many 

have turned to the opposition. And Russia has actually tried to 

frame it that way. 

Mr. SHERMAN. But Hezbollah and Iran are there supporting 

Assad out of a Shiite——

Mr. LISTER. Exactly but Russia has tried to frame its policy in 

Syria domestically as not being protecting the Shia. 

It is also worth remembering one thing that is going on right 

now which is having very little media coverage, in Aleppo city, having captured it, the Russian Government is now trying very hard 

to prevent Iran and the Assad regime from populating eastern 

Aleppo, which was previously under the opposition control. It is 

trying to prevent them from populating that area with Shia. And 

it is insisting that Sunnis, including from opposition areas, should 

be given the opportunity to come back to eastern Aleppo. 

And so I would remind you that it is a little more complicated, 

domestically and also on Syrian than the binary——

Mr. KINZINGER [presiding]. The gentleman’s time has expired. I 

thank the gentleman. 

The Chair recognizes the Chair for 5 minutes. 

I just want to dispel very quickly—there is a lot of talk about 

nonintervention in Syria and using Libya as the example. I think 

it is really important to point out that Libya has massive challenges. Part of that was a failure in follow-up after regime change, 

I believe. 

But secondly, if you compare the case of intervention in Libya 

versus the case of nonintervention in Syria, Libya, with all its challenges, is far better off than not intervened—in Syria. 

I remember back in 2013 I was one of the few Republicans outspoken about the need to enforce the red line in Syria. And I heard 

from people all over, a lot in my own party, some members on this 

committee, that said if we intervene and we strike Syria, we will 

begin World War III, and another major intervention in Syria, in 

the Middle East, World War III will commence and everybody will 

be gone. 

I would like to point out that also people said that if we intervened, it will get way worse in Syria. But when we didn’t interVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:39 Jun 07, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Z:\WORK\_FULL\042717\25261 SHIRL
66

vene, it actually got way worse than we ever could have imagined, 

which is where we are at today. 

So as we look at going forward and we imagine all the terrible 

possibilities and probably most of them are terrible, I would like 

to remind people that I think it can get even worse than it is right 

now, which is almost unimaginable. 

As Mr. Lister mentioned in his statement, a very important thing 

happened after the strike on the airbase in Syria, which is the people who sat around said what are the Russians going to do, they 

got their question answered, which is absolutely nothing. They do 

not have the ability to respond, to react. Russia is not the former 

Soviet Union. It is a military where half of its planes can’t even 

fly and it is very underfunded. So I think that is important to note, 

too, as we look at what we are going to do going forward. 

Mr. Lister, let me ask a question. What is Bashar al-Assad’s ultimate fear? What is the one thing that, if we push on that button, 

would drive President Assad, Dictator Assad, to the table to negotiate? 

Mr. LISTER. My theory would be his ultimate fear is America gets 

really serious about Syria and not just about ISIS. 

The only substantive evidence I can recall for that is back in August 2013, after the chemical weapons attack, in the brief period 

of time where it looked like the United States may conduct limited 

punitive strikes, I knew Syrians who were in Damascus at the time 

on the government side who said that nearly half of the Syrian 

Parliament packed up their homes and fled to Lebanon because 

they feared that limited, very limited American military action was 

going to set forth a chain of events that would have completely 

caused chaos within the regime, not the state, but the regime’s 

inner circles. 

So the biggest fear for Assad isn’t terrorism. In fact, he has used 

terrorism for his own means, not just during this crisis but before, 

his biggest fear is that we get serious about solving Syria. And he 

has enjoyed the last 6 years because we haven’t. 

Mr. KINZINGER. So would you say that ultimately he fears his 

own life in that process? So if he would lose power in the regime, 

or his life, or whatever, that is what can be used as a trigger point 

to drive to a negotiated solution because short of that, short of any 

fear of losing power, he has no incentive whatsoever to negotiate 

an end to this war on anything but his own terms. 

So I guess my point is, as the administration goes forward, they 

ought to look at using further air strikes against regime targets as 

a method to drive a negotiated solution here, as the diplomatic instrument of power against an adversary can only be effective when 

backed by the military instrument of power. We see that in North 

Korea. We see that here. 

Let me ask you another question. Can Bashar al-Assad ever gain 

ultimate control of all of Syria again? I mean short of the entire 

world backing his regime, can he ever gain control of Syria? 

Mr. LISTER. You can’t discount anything but if he is going to 

militarily conquer the rest of his country, it is going to take a very, 

very, very long time, and it is going to cause a huge further exodus 

of civilians and many, many more deaths, and it could take 10, 20, 

30 years to do so. 

67

So, the real answer is, effectively, no if the answer is that he is 

then putting the country back together again. You know, it is essentially that. 

Mr. KINZINGER. So without a strategy against Assad, be it negotiated or otherwise, you see part of regime controlled territory and 

you see a large part of the country, which is Afghanistan pre-9/11, 

basically, with some terrorist groups, some opposition groups running around. 

So what would Assad staying in power, very briefly because my 

time is up, what does that do to the al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria? 

Mr. LISTER. Okay, as fast as possible. Al-Qaeda has spent the 

last 6 years embedding itself in an opposition narrative in Syria. 

It has devoted all of its resources to fighting Assad, not creating 

an Islamic State, not fighting a transnational jihad. And for that 

reason only, the continued existence of Assad in Damascus and his 

continued brutality against his people, every single day emboldens 

al-Qaeda’s narrative in the eyes of other Syrians who don’t buy into 

a transnational jihad. And this is the fear: Every single day more 

and more people think, huh, maybe this group has got it right. 

They have always told us the international community will never 

come to our aid. So because they are right, because they are there, 

because they are powerful on the battlefield, maybe these are the 

guys that we should be joining. And that is the state where we are 

today. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Thank you. My time has expired. 

I think it is Mr. Cicilline from Rhode Island. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to the 

chairman and ranking member for calling this hearing. Thank you 

to our witnesses. 

It has been 3 weeks since President Trump launched a missile 

attack against the Assad regime and we are no closer to achieving 

a solution to this crisis. The Trump administration has not formulated any coherent policy to address ISIS or the ongoing atrocities 

being committed against the Syrian people by Bashar al-Assad. 

In actuality, the inconsistency and confusion displayed by members of the Trump administration has emboldened Assad and his 

patron, Vladimir Putin. A monstrous chemical weapons attack deployed against innocent civilians, including women and children, 

came just days after Secretary of State Tillerson signaled to Assad 

and Putin that the United States was willing to accept Assad’s continued role, which represented a stark turnaround from previous 

American policy. 

And in the meantime, President Trump continues to push for his 

cruel and unnecessary ban on Syrian refugees, as well as draconian 

cuts to our foreign affairs budget. Each of these actions will only 

worsen the suffering of the Syrian people and that is why I, along 

with Congressman Beyer and Congresswoman Jayapal, are leading 

a letter to President Trump asking him to reverse his executive 

order and support funding for humanitarian assistance. 

And finally, I am extremely troubled by the administration’s 

seeming lack of understanding of the constitutionally-mandated 

congressional oversight of American military action. If the President intends to escalate our military involvement further, as he 

68

has indicated he will consider, then he has a responsibility to send 

a plan to Congress and seek authorization for any further action. 

My questions are really—I have two. One is the humanitarian 

assistance budget is expected to decimated if President Trump’s 

budget is adopted. Would you speak to how these proposed cuts 

would affect the United States’ ability to work toward stability in 

Syria and in neighboring countries that are taking on the enormous burden of housing the large majority of Syrian refugees, particularly our ally Jordan? 

Ms. RAND. Sure. Thank you, Congressman, for that important set 

of questions. 

First on the refugee ban, it is interesting that the media actually 

hasn’t covered the foreign policy disadvantages of the refugee ban 

because you know Syria’s neighbors are taking in four million, five 

million Syrian refugees. The generosity of the Turks, the Jordanians, the Lebanese, and other neighbors is incredible. 

And so you know last year in 2016, the U.S. took in 12,000 Syrian refugees. I mean that is nothing compared to these smaller and 

less well-off countries. So we are trying to convince our allies surrounding Syria to be generous toward these refugees, to continue 

to give them housing, to continue to give them education, to continue to work with the U.N. and other international organizations. 

And that is a really important signal that hasn’t been covered. So 

I just wanted to mention that because we haven’t discussed that 

so far today. 

Specifically, on the humanitarian budget, it is unclear because 

there are still reports of what the cuts will be but the cuts to humanitarian assistance, international development account, the IDA 

account, cuts to the food aid budget will all significantly affect 

Syria and its refugees, also the IDPs who have stayed within Syria. 

And then the cuts to ESF, to the economic support funds to the 

Jordanian Government are very concerning. I mean it is just confusing as to why you would cut ESF to one of your closest partners 

and allies in the region that is both being generous to the Syrian 

refugees but trying to help you in some of the counterterrorism operations that we have discussed today. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you. 

Finally, I would just ask any of the panelists, you know we always have discussions about a military solution to this conflict. 

And I think in the absence of American boots on the ground, which 

I strongly oppose, I wonder whether there is a military solution 

and what that would look like. And if not, if it is exclusively a diplomatic solution, what is the strategy or your recommendations as 

to how we get to that? 

Mr. Singh? 

Mr. SINGH. Well, thank you, Congressman. I personally say that, 

as in so many of these situations, there is no exclusively military 

solution. There is no exclusively diplomatic solution. Ultimately, to 

the extent our policies are successful, they are successful when we 

combine all of our tools—diplomatic, military, aid, intelligence, and 

so forth—and when we do it in conjunction with allies, with a coalition of like-minded countries. And I think that is what is going to 

be required here. 

69

I do think that, frankly, the April 7th strike is useful in building 

the credibility of American threats of force. I, for one, would say 

that it may be that if we already have some American boots on the 

ground, it may be that there is a role for some more but I don’t 

think it should be the United States in front sort of taking on the 

heaviest military roles. That should be up to our local partners. 

But I think it is going to be force backed by diplomacy, diplomacy 

backed by force, which is going to be part of the answer here. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Anyone else? 

Mr. LISTER. I agree. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Great. Thank you. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. KINZINGER. The gentleman yields back. The Chair recognizes 

the gentlelady from Missouri, Ms. Wagner, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. WAGNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is an important 

hearing. It is high time that the United States grapple strategically 

with how to end the Syrian conflict. 

It is patently clear that there can be no resolution with Assad 

in power, especially as he continues to prioritize a war against 

moderate groups seeking democracy over a war against ISIS. His 

slaughter of innocent civilians is barbaric and the United States 

cannot hope to defeat ISIS with Assad as the only alternative. 

Dr. Rand, the Southern Front has been effective in keeping extremist groups from expanding control in southern Syria. How can 

we, along with our allies in Israel and Jordan, further support the 

Southern Front and help them protect against Assad? 

Ms. RAND. Thanks, Congresswoman. This is an important issue. 

And actually because of the focus on Idlib and Aleppo in the past 

year or so, I think a lot of the attention has shifted away from the 

Southern Front. So I think it is important to raise it again. 

You know a year and a half ago the governance of the Southern 

Front provided kind of a model of the multiethnic, multisectarian 

type of governance. They issued a communique talking about inclusion and representations among the different sects. It seemed quite 

hopeful and seemed potentially a paradigm that could be transported for other parts of Syria. 

So the key here I think is two-fold. One is to support the continued moderation of the leadership of the Southern Front to make 

sure they continue to support different ethnic groups and you know 

there is some inclusion of al-Qaeda elements, I will let my colleague talk about it, but overall, they have been more moderate 

than some of the other oppositionists. But second, is just to support 

them in their counterterrorism needs against ISIS and other more 

extremists that might challenge their hegemony in this part of 

Syria. 

Ms. WAGNER. Thank you, Dr. Rand. 

Mr. Lister, can you discuss coordination between Kurdish forces, 

such as the SDF, and YPG, and, frankly, and other moderate 

forces, and I will say local groups? In what ways could the U.S. 

help advance cooperation between the Kurdish and moderate forces 

across the country to ensure that areas freed from the Assad regime can, in fact, remain free of terrorism? 

Mr. LISTER. Again, that is a very important question. I mean I 

think what I have tried to focus on in my remarks is to suggest 

70

that Syria can’t be looked at as a whole. So what we have seen develop in the northeast with the Kurdish YPG and its various allies 

is one specific component of a much broader reality. What works 

in the northeast doesn’t work in the south. We are not going to see 

a reflection of the Kurdish Confederation in the northeast suddenly 

appearing in southern Syria, with a predominately Sunni Arab 

population. 

So I think we should kind of take care of what we have helped 

to develop in the northeast but we also need to also be aware of 

the negative knock-on effects of some of these other actors’ actions. 

And so I genuinely am concerned that if we pursue what I think 

we will pursue, which is a YPG-SDF led offensive on Raqqa, they 

will very seriously consider whether it takes 1 month or 12 months, 

some kind of power sharing agreement with the Assad regime. 

Ms. WAGNER. Power sharing. 

Mr. LISTER. Now that kind—it has already happened. As I said 

in my opening remarks, in northern Aleppo they have handed territory over to the Assad regime. Now, if that happens in Raqqa, that 

is a jihadist’s dream. It fulfills everything they have said for 6 

years, that not only will the West not help protect your civilians 

but, eventually, they will come in and do their selfish thing, which 

is fight terrorism and then, eventually, they will give it over to the 

dictator again. So, we must be very, very careful of preventing a 

scenario like that from coming true. 

And comments from senior military officials here that we have 

no control over the decisions of our local partners, frankly, is a copout. 

Ms. WAGNER. It is a cop-out. Thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. Singh, the Assad regime uses aerial bombardment and terrorizing weapons to strategically displace the civilian populations 

in opposition areas. In what ways have Sunni extremist forces and 

pro-Iranian militias taken advantage of Assad’s attacks and displacement of civilians? 

Mr. SINGH. Well, I think that is an important question, Congresswoman. And Mr. Lister referred to this before but I think there is 

no doubt that the brutalization of civilians, the brutalization of the 

populations is a boon to the extremist groups who, as Mr. Lister 

pointed out, play on this sort of anti-Assad narrative to boost their 

own fortunes. And we have seen exactly that occur because we 

have seen, I think, especially in western Syria, the extremist forces 

amongst the opposition gain in strength in recent months. 

As for the Iranians, the Iranians, I think, are complicit in 

Assad’s actions. And so it is not necessarily right to talk about 

them gaining from them, they are actually part of those actions because it is the Iranians that I think have the greatest force on the 

ground backing Assad and I think we need to ascribe blame to 

them for much of what he does. 

Ms. WAGNER. All right, thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, my 

time has run out. 

Mr. GARRETT [presiding]. Thank you. The Chair would now recognize Mr. Suozzi from New York for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SUOZZI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me start by stating 

the obvious, which is this is incredibly complicated. And I want to 

thank all of you for sharing your knowledge with us today. 

71

I am going to echo what all of my colleagues have said is that 

we really need to hear from the administration as to what their 

plan is to address this very complicated part of the world. 

There is an epic struggle going on in the world and, unlike the 

Cold War, where it was clear that it was the Soviets versus the 

Americans, this is much more complicated. It is stability versus instability. It is control versus chaos, as Tom Friedman said in his 

book. And we have gone from 35 million refugees in the world 10 

years ago to 65 million refugees today and many of them are from 

Syria. And as the doctor pointed out in her testimony a few minutes ago, this is destabilizing other countries, as they try and deal 

with all these refugees in Jordan, and Lebanon, and other countries, in Turkey. And this region is so complicated by the fact there 

are so many parties involved with Assad—Iran and Russia—and 

then the rebel forces, America, ISIS, and al-Qaeda, the Turks don’t 

like the Kurds. I mean there are so many pieces here and it is so 

complicated. But we have to choose in this world that is facing the 

struggle of stability versus instability where we are going to focus 

our resources and where we are going to—we have to make choices 

as to where we are going to pay attention and what we are going 

to do. 

And we have heard from I think it was Brad Sherman before and 

Congressman Kinzinger about some of these choices we have to 

make. And for me, you know let’s put chemical weapons aside, 

which I think was a bipartisan, international agreement that we 

have to combat the best way that we can. But if the choice is between, for right now, what is right in front of us, you have to 

choose between fighting al-Qaeda and ISIS in Syria, or trying to 

protect the Syrian people and undoing Assad and forcing to the negotiating table, you have to choose between those two, what is the 

most important thing in front of the United States right now in our 

national interest? Is it to combat al-Qaeda and ISIS or is to stop 

Assad and force him to the negotiating table? 

Which is the most important thing before us right now? And you 

have to choose, each one of you. Mr. Singh, you go first. 

Mr. SINGH. Congressman, I am going to disappoint because I 

think it is a false choice, frankly. I think if you go back to my initial statement, I think in fact we have now sort of several discrete 

conflicts which are going on within Syria that implicate our interests in the region and implicate the security of our allies. And we 

can’t neglect one for the sake of the other. We have to address all 

of them. 

But it is a mistake to think, as Mr. Lister has said, that we can 

address all of them together in one neat package, sort of look at 

them as one problem to be solved. We have to address them in a 

distinct way. 

So in eastern Syria, there is no doubt that our priority has to be 

al-Qaeda and ISIS. 

Mr. SUOZZI. Al-Qaeda and ISIS. 

Mr. SINGH. And then not just defeating ISIS but thinking about 

what comes next because we don’t want ISIS to return. But if——

Mr. SUOZZI. Well the focus now is on Raqqa. 

Mr. SINGH. On Raqqa, right. 

72

In western Syria, though, absolutely, the continued brutality of 

the Assad regime, the expansion of Iranian power, the expansion 

of Hezbollah’s power is a tremendous concern not just for us but 

for Israel, for Turkey, for our allies in the region. 

Mr. SUOZZI. Now, I have learned somewhere that 85 percent of 

the population of Syria is in western Syria. Is that correct? 

Mr. SINGH. Correct. 

Mr. SUOZZI. Okay. 

Mr. SINGH. That is correct. 

Mr. LISTER. If I may, briefly. I mentioned in an earlier answer 

that we have found ourselves capable for about 2 years to combat 

ISIS primarily in isolation from the rest of the conflict. But we are 

now discovering that when we reach Raqqa, which is an Arab town, 

there are big knock-on effects of doing that with certain actors and 

we are finding, suddenly, the proliferation of knock-on effects along 

the northern Syrian border. 

And it is for that reason that I would agree with my colleague, 

Mr. Singh, that combating terrorism in Syria and protecting civilians are inextricably linked. Terrorist narratives, no matter what 

kind of terrorist you are, is linked to the fact that there is suffering, chaos, instability, and brutality in their world. 

Mr. SUOZZI. So that is empowering them. 

Mr. LISTER. And it is empowering them like nothing else that 

would be possible. And so I would suggest it is impossible for us 

to win against terrorism, whatever that might mean, without encompassing in that strategy, the protection of civilians, a de-intensification of the conflict, and challenging the Assad regime’s freedom to use any means at his disposal to continue to kill people en 

masse. 

Mr. SUOZZI. Doctor? 

Ms. RAND. Thank you. I would agree completely about an inextricability between these two options. And I would give as an example 

something that we have talked about extensively today that I think 

exemplifies this. 

After Raqqa is liberated, there will be a number of political governance and humanitarian questions before us, essentially, as 

those who have trained the militias that oust the ISIS terrorists 

and those include who will govern, whether they are Kurdish or 

Arab, and how much leverage we can push on them to not hand 

over to the regime. Those questions will affect how much we can 

protect the civilians in that liberated area of Syria. And those are 

things within our purview, within our power, within our leverage 

through our training and assisting of the partners that will do the 

liberation. 

Mr. SUOZZI. I know my time has expired. I just want to make 

this one last point. 

By us going after ISIS and al-Qaeda, which is in our own selfinterest, obviously, and national security, and so we must do it, we 

are aiding Assad, and Russia, and Iran in the process because they 

have the same enemy. 

Anyway, I am sorry. 

Mr. GARRETT. Thank you. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair will yield to chair. 

73

I want to be really clear in expressing my high esteem and regard for my honorable colleagues who have spoken earlier, but I 

have rarely seen such a mind-numbing display of misinformation 

and disinformation. So, I want to clear some things up. 

My colleague from Nevada previously mentioned over 500,000 

killed ‘‘by the Assad regime.’’ In fact, the Syrian Observatory for 

Human Rights estimates, and that is the highest estimate of 

deaths in the conflict, that there have been roughly 500,000 casualties, that about a third of those have been to pro-regime forces, 

that is deaths. 

I presume, then, that Mr. Assad is not responsible for all 500,000 

casualties. Is that an accurate assessment, Ms. Rand—Dr. Rand? 

Ms. RAND. The different human rights organizations have different estimates. They range between——

Mr. GARRETT. The question is, is President Assad responsible for 

all half a million deaths in Syria? 

Ms. RAND. At least 80 percent of those 500,000. 

Mr. GARRETT. Okay, so a fact that a third of the deaths have 

been to pro-regime forces, you are intimating then that he killed 

about one-third of that third himself? 

Ms. RAND. No, there is also Russian—there are civilians that 

have not survived because of Russians. 

Mr. GARRETT. Right, I would direct your attention to the Syrian 

Observatory for Human Rights and their statistics. 

My colleague from Nevada also made reference to a MOAB drop. 

That was actually about 2,300 miles away in Afghanistan, right? 

That wasn’t actually in Syria, was it? Yes, so that would be some 

misinformation. 

And then she made reference to no cohesive foreign policy strategy that we have seen from this administration. Mr. Singh, the 

Trump administration was sworn in about January 20th of 2017. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. SINGH. That is correct. 

Mr. GARRETT. Right and so the Syrian civil war really began in 

earnest, as did other events in the Arab Spring, roughly 2010-2011 

and was sort of coopted by first al-Qaeda, and then ISIS moved in 

to fill a vacuum in the east of the nation, probably about 6 or 7 

years ago? 

Mr. SINGH. Absolutely right. 

Mr. GARRETT. And would you characterize the U.S. foreign policy, 

particularly through the State Department, from 2011 forward as 

cohesive and clearly articulated? 

Mr. SINGH. Absolutely not; we had no Syria strategy, I think. 

Mr. GARRETT. And so if, in fact, U.S. policy is not cohesive and 

clearly articulated now, that is no departure from the previous 6-

plus years? 

Mr. SINGH. Well, it certainly isn’t but I agree with you, Congressman, that it is still early going. And so my hope is that the Trump 

administration will be coming forward with a strategy. 

Mr. GARRETT. And so too do I. I really do because I would agree 

that there is not a clearly articulated policy but that there hasn’t 

been one that the previous administration had, by my rough mathematical estimates, about 24 times as much time to formulate one. 

74

So, we also have recent open source intelligence that relates to 

what has been our stated goal that is to attack and crush ISIS in 

Syria. And would it not be your agreement, Mr. Lister, that the 

number of air strikes and attacks directly on ISIS assets since January 20, 2107 have been stepped up and that the apparent success 

of those attacks is greater than heretofore? 

Mr. LISTER. I can’t speak personally to have seen statistics that 

suggest that but it wouldn’t surprise me because we are entering, 

of course, the phase of an intensive operation for Raqqa. 

Mr. GARRETT. Okay and there was also an intimation by one of 

my colleagues that it was inappropriate to have warned the Russians of an impending United States military strike on a facility 

where Russian forces were probably co-located. 

Would you agree with the idea that we shouldn’t have let the 

Russians there were inbound explosive cruise missiles? 

Mr. SINGH. Well, I would disagree that it was wrong to do that. 

I mean we do have deconfliction protocols and, to me, it was prudent to have warned the Russians in the way that we did. 

Mr. GARRETT. Right. In fact, had we not warned the Russians, 

the Russians might have been even more incensed by the American 

action without any sort of heads up, if you will pardon the colloquialism. 

Now, were there regime chemical weapons attacks prior to the 

assumption of power of the Trump administration? 

Mr. SINGH. Yes, there sure were. 

Mr. GARRETT. Okay. And there were also chemical weapons attacks, to be fair, perpetrated by Jabhat al-Nusra/Jabhat Fateh alSham, obviously a renaming of al-Nusra, who was sort of infiltrated by al-Qaeda. They have used chlorine as well, we think, as 

has ISIS. 

Mr. SINGH. So I am not sure I have the best information but I 

think I would draw a distinction between the types of chemical attacks, sarin attacks, and so forth, and the types of attacks you are 

talking about, Congressman. 

Mr. GARRETT. Okay. Is it fair to say that there aren’t a whole lot 

of clean hands as it goes around to atrocities committed in Syria? 

For example, you know setting aflame a Jordanian captured pilot 

wasn’t perpetrated, to our knowledge, by the regime. 

Mr. SINGH. There have been atrocities committed by several 

sides in this conflict. 

Mr. GARRETT. Sure. In fact, I would argue everybody. 

Ms. RAND. Congressman, I would just add on that point there is 

no moral equivalency between the regime has done and what the 

other actors have done. I mean the regime is responsible for the 

vast amount of the destruction. 

Mr. GARRETT. Okay. Well, I haven’t asked this question yet but 

so let me make sure I understand this right. 

Okay, we have ISIS. We understand who they are. We have got 

Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, who is sort of a derivative of al-Nusra. It 

is fair to say that al-Nusra was sort of coopted by al-Qaeda. Correct? 

In the north, regionally strong we have YPG and Kurds but they 

don’t have any real desire, based on tribal affinity, to rule the nation, or the nation accept a Kurdish-led rule. 

75

And so if we are going to start establishing moral equivalencies, 

then would we rather ISIS, al-Qaeda, or the Assad regime to be in 

charge? Now, that is a rhetorical question. 

The bottom line I think that I am driving at is, before we engage 

in regime change activities, we ought to have a plan on who is 

going to fill the vacuum that we create because what five and a 

half million to six and a half million displaced people have in common is they didn’t want to be displaced. But this nation led from 

behind, in our own words, and worked to create vacuums by encouraging uprising and revolts without any regard for who would 

fill the vacuum. And we saw Christians beheaded on the beaches 

in Libya, and we see half a million dead by the hands of many 

bloody actors in Syria, and we are partly responsible. 

We should not engage in regime change activities without contemplating who fills the vacuum that we create. Would you agree, 

Mr. Lister? 

Mr. LISTER. Frankly speaking, it is not about regime change. It 

is about upholding international norms to ensure that governments 

don’t commit repeated war crimes on a daily basis. And our objective, so far as I am concerned, is not regime change, we are not invading the country like we did in Iraq, it is to set up conditions 

that will allow a political process to be more meaningful and for 

all actors on all sides to treat it seriously. 

Mr. GARRETT. So I couldn’t agree more. And that sort of jives 

with what Secretary Tillerson had indicated to the Russians before 

the missile strike on the airfield. That is, we don’t have to see 

Assad go but we have to see stability and peace in the region. That 

should be our goal. 

Mr. LISTER. Well, I mean, the conclusion of the political process 

is up to Syrians. I think we ought to have, morally, a conclusion 

that Assad should go but it is not our choice to make that decision. 

But it is our responsibility, as a significant portion of the international community, to allow all Syrians to have that choice. 

Mr. GARRETT. Right. 

Mr. LISTER. And they haven’t had it for 6 years. 

Mr. GARRETT. Right, absolutely. Thank you. And I have gone way 

over. 

Mr. ENGEL. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. GARRETT. I have gone way over so I would not yield. 

Mr. ENGEL. You would not yield? 

Mr. GARRETT. I am out of time. 

Mr. ENGEL. You could still yield to me. You are in the chair. 

Mr. GARRETT. I am not going to yield. 

Mr. ENGEL. You are not going to yield? Well, I am sorry that the 

bipartisanship that we have had here for so many years, that you 

don’t follow the lead of the chairman and myself. 

Mr. GARRETT. Well, I apologize. 

Mr. ENGEL. I am really very sorry about that. 

Mr. GARRETT. I forgive you. 

Mr. ENGEL. I have been on this committee——

Mr. GARRETT. I——

Mr. ENGEL. I don’t need your forgiveness. 

Mr. GARRETT. I don’t understand the——

Mr. ENGEL. I don’t need your forgiveness. 

76

Mr. GARRETT. Well, you have been on this committee long 

enough to know the protocol and I don’t. 

Mr. ENGEL. Long enough to know——

Mr. GARRETT. So, I will yield you 30 seconds. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. It is common courtesy that people are 

yielded time when they ask their colleagues. 

Let me just say, first of all, that when I grew up I learned from 

my parents that two wrongs don’t make a right. Many of us on this 

side of the aisle were critical of the previous administration and 

what it did, and we said so at the time. There is no reason to not 

be critical of what is happening with the current administration 

just because the administration didn’t do what should have been 

done. 

I will agree with you, and I have been saying this for years, that 

we made a misstep when we did not aid and abet, help the Free 

Syrian Army way back when. And we made a mistake when the 

previous President drew a line in the sand and then didn’t follow 

through. 

But that doesn’t absolve the current administration from its responsibility. And its responsibility has been that it needs to come 

to Congress with any plan that it has. It needs to tell us what their 

attempts are in Syria and what their goals are. 

We have learned for many, many years, giving any administration a blank check to create war is not something that this Congress should do. 

And I think there is no doubt in my mind, and in everybody 

else’s mind, that Assad is really the butcher of Syria. That yes, 

there have been killings on both sides, but it was the Assad regime’s reaction to the Arab Spring when peaceful Syrians went out 

to demonstrate against their dictatorial government that Assad decided he would respond with deadly force. 

And so I blame all the atrocities that happened in Syria on the 

bloody hands of Assad because had he not acted the way he acted, 

this would not have happened. 

I just want to set the record straight. I do agree that there were 

missteps by the previous administration but that doesn’t mean that 

we have to overlook missteps by this administration. 

I yield back. 

Mr. GARRETT. Thank you and I apologize again to Mr. Engel, as 

it relates to not yielding. I did not, literally, know the protocol of 

the committee. So I will take that lump. 

I want to thank the time of the witnesses today. These are very 

critical issues. Your expertise and insight is important and I think, 

candidly, despite the tone that some of this took, we all want the 

same thing, and that is a world in which people can live where 

they choose to live, free from fear of persecution or death. And 

Syria is one where, if we ultimately get it right, we might take a 

good step in the right direction toward ensuring that going forward 

in the future because it is certainly a tough rubric. 

Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 12:47 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(77)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

78

f


25261n.eps

FULL COMMITTEE HEARING NOTICE 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

WASHINGTON. DC 20515-6128 

Edward R. Royce (R-CA), Chairman 

April27. 2017 

TO: MEMBERS 01' THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AHAIRS 

You arc rcspcctfullv requested to attend an OPEN hearing of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. to be held 

in Room 2172 of the Rayburn House Office Building (and ayailable Jiyc on the Committee website at 

bttp://v, W\\ .ForcignAff.1irs.hou~e .11ov ): 

DATE: 

TIME: 

SUBJECT: 

WITNESSES: 

Thursday, April 27. 2017 

10:00 a.m 

Syria After the Missile Strikes: Policy Options 

Mr. Michael Singh 

Lane-Swig Senior Fellow 

:Managing Director 

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy 

Mr. Charles Lister 

Senior Fellow 

Middle East Institute 

Dafna H. Rand, Ph.D. 

Adjunct Professor 

National Defense University 

By Direction of the Chairman 

m nEed r?(.1pec1ill &'commodatmns. p!eme call 21!2·225-5021 at 

accmmnodarwn.~ m (mcludmg ,n•m!ahliny of Cmmmttec 
79


25261m-1.eps

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS MINUTES OF FUJI. COMMITTEE HFARJNG 

Day _ _:1c:'h:.:"::.':::'d=a,y'---_Date. ___ 4."-!:-=-2.:.:712=0-=-J'--7--~Room, ___ _::2c:l-'-7=-2---

Starting Time -~1,_,0:.::.::.0:_7 __ Ending Time --"1-=-2._:4"7 __ 

Recesses b4J L_to __ ) L_lo ~ L_to __ ) L_to __ ) L_lo ____) L_to __ ) 

Presiding Ylember(s) 

Chairman Edward U~ )loyce 

Check all of the follo~·illf? that apply: 

Open Session [Z] 

Executive ~sed) Session 0 

Tele\·ised 0 

TITLE OF HEARII\"G: 

Syria After the Missile Strikes: Palicy Opti<ms 

COMl\UTTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: 

See attached. 

NO'!-COMMJTTFR MEMBERS PRESENT: 

none 

Eleclronic•lly Roconled (!•peu)[ZJ 

Stenographic Record [ZJ 

HEARING WTT~RSSES: Same as meeting notice attached'! YeslZJ NoD 

((f "n() ", please list helrJ't1! and indud~ title, agency, d.epartment, or organization) 

STATEMEI\TS FOR THE RECORD: (List any stuiements submitied.fur the record) 

IFR -Rep. Eliat Enf?el 

SFR -Rep. Gerald Connally 

Tll\'IE SCHEDULED TO RECOWENE ----u or TIME ADJOURNED _1_2.--'·4_7___ ~ ----------

Full tmnlllitteeearil1gcoorclinator --
80

f


25261m-2.eps

PR!iS!i.VT 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

Fuu CoMMTTTFF. HF.ARTNG 

M!iHR/iR PRFS/i\'T M!iHRFR 

Edward R. Royce, CA X Eliot L Engel, NY 

Christopher H, Smith, NJ X Brad Sherman, CA 

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, FL X Gregory W_ Meeks, NY 

Dana Rohrabacher, C A X Albio Sires, NJ 

Steve Chabot, OH X Gerald E Connolly, VA 

Joe Wilson, SC X Theodore E, Deutch, FL 

Michael T, McCaul, TX Karen Bass, CA 

Ted Poe, TX X William Keating, MA 

Darrell Issa, CA X David Cicilline, RI 

Tom Marino, P A X AmiBera, CA 

Jeff Duncan, SC X Lois Frankel, FL 

Mo Brooks, AL X Tulsi Gabbard, HI 

Paul Cook, CA Joaquin Castro, TX 

Scott Perry, PA X Robin Kelly, IL 

Ron DeSantis, FL X Brendan Boyle, PA 

Mark Meadows, NC X Dina Titus, NV 

Ted Yoho, FL X Norma Torres, CA 

Adam Kinzinger,IL X Brad Schneider, IL 

Lee Zeldin, NY X Tom Suozzi, NY 

Dan Donovan, NY X Adriano Espaillat, NY 

James F. Sensenbrenner, Jr., Wl X Ted Lieu, CA 

Ann Wagner, MO 

Brian J Mast, FL 

Brian K Fitzpatrick, P A 

Francis Rooney, FL 

Thomas A Garrett, Jr,, VA 
81

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE ELIOT L. ENGEL, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

f


25261d.eps
82

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE ELIOT L. ENGEL, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

f


25261e.eps
83


25261f-1.eps

Statement for the Record 

Submitted by Mr. Connolly of Virginia 

On April 4, 2017, the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad carried out an 

unspeakable attack on the northern Syria town of Khan Sheikhoun. The horrendous sarin gas 

attack killed roughly 100 people, including scores of children. Unfortunately, this Committee can 

no longer be shocked by the extent of Assad's brutality. 

The Assad regime has perpetrated atrocities on the Syrian civilian population-- including 

sectarian violence, mass killings, torture, and the use of chemical weapons and barrel bombsand it shows no signs of subsiding. Just days before the most recent chemical attack, U.S. 

Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley stated that it was no longer a priority of the 

United States to remove Assad from power, effectively telling Assad that he could continue such 

murderous treatment of his own people. 

On April 6, 2017, the United States conducted airstrikes targeting Syrian war planes and 

infrastructure at al-Shayrat airfield in Horns Province. The United States and the international 

community must respond to the use of chemical weapons. However, fifty-nine Tomahawk cruise 

missiles are not a substitute for a strategy going forward. A kneejerk kinetic response without an 

overarching military strategy endangers American lives and diminishes U.S. global leadership. 

The Trump Administration must begin a dialogue with Congress about our Syria policy. 

We should be clear-eyed about the conditions under which these events have taken place. The 

Syrian civil war has raged for more than six years. Conflict between government forces, terrorist 

organizations, and opposition groups has engulfed the country. Operations to support competing 

factions of the civil war have pitted the interests of world powers against one another and forced 

all sides to wrestle with the specter of an expanded conflict. There are 13.5 million Syrians in 

need of humanitarian assistance inside Syria, and nearly 5 million Syrians have registered as 

refugees in neighboring countries and beyond. This crush of humanity has strained resources 

within those countries, drastically changed regional demographics, and destabilized neighboring 

countries. 

Amidst this backdrop, the United States has a variety of interests at stake in Syria, including 

counterterrorism efforts and the fight against ISIL, alleviating humanitarian concerns, enforcing 

global norms against chemical weapons, and broader regional stability. Congress and the 

Administration must embark on an effort to define for our allies, our constituents, and the Syrian 

people how we will protect these interests. 

1f President Trump intends to engage in further military action, then the War Powers Resolution 

requires that he obtain authorization from Congress within 60 days. The clock started with 

Trump's airstrikes on April6. U.S. sanctions have not effectively cut off the flow of money and 

supplies to the Assad regime. The Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act (H.R. 1677), of which I 

am a cosponsor, would impose new sanctions on Syrian human rights abusers and those who 

facilitate the Assad regime's atrocities. I am pleased that this Committee will be marking up this 

bill next week. H.R. 1677 also encourages negotiations to bring about a lasting political solution. 

A negotiated settlement is the only way to end this conflict, but the Trump Administration has 
84

Æ


25261f-2.eps

decimated U.S. diplomatic capabilities by failing to fill senior State Department positions and 

proposing draconian cuts to U.S. development and diplomacy programs. 

This crisis cannot end while a civil war rages on. Ultimately, it is political negotiations that will 

bring lasting relief to the millions of affected Syrians who have known only violence and 

displacement for more than six years. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses regarding 

how the United States can navigate the protracted chaos of the Syrian saga and articulate a 

strategy to protect its interests in Syria. 

2