Tom Barrack, the US Ambassador to Turkey and Trump’s Special Envoy for Syria, made a series of “shocking” statements concerning Syria last Thursday, 29 October. Most notably, he said: “Finding someone willing to invest in Syria is almost impossible”; he reiterated that Syria had only recently been removed from the “State Sponsor of Terrorism” designation, but that sanctions and restrictions remained in place; and he added that the environment was still unsafe and that the banking system remained “uncooperative”. He also made the strange claim that Syria was burdened with debts amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars!

The problem with those who considered Barrack’s latest statements “shocking” is that they had believed his repeated earlier statements over nearly two years, in which he promised that rivers of milk and honey would flow into Syria through the lifting of sanctions and an influx of foreign investment.

In any case, understanding the deeper meaning of Barrack’s statements is extremely important in determining what needs to be done at the national level. In this regard, the following key points can be identified:

First: The Americans are repeatedly confirming what we have been saying for decades: the US cannot be an ally of Syria and cannot, under any circumstances, be relied upon, whether in the economy or in any other sector.

Second: These statements come on the heels of a series of measures, agreements, and memoranda that have been pursued along three clear trajectories. The first is the effort to impose the greatest possible degree of control and influence by the World Bank and the IMF over Syria’s financial and banking sectors. The second is the push to place the most strategic and essential sectors, from a national security perspective (electricity, oil, etc.), under the monopoly of a specific and well-known group of capital owners, all under the banner of a “free-market economy”. The third is to strip state institutions of whatever tools they still retain to influence the country’s domestic socioeconomic reality, through measures such as the lifting of subsidies and privatization. In other words, the overall outcome is to weaken state institutions and their ability to intervene in economic and financial affairs under the pretext of attracting investment, only to then close the door to foreign investment and declare that it will not come. In effect, this amounts to suffocating the country from both within and without.

Third: In parallel with these economic developments came the Jordanian airstrikes on Syria’s Daraa Governorate, carried out without coordination with the Syrian authorities, and under the slogan of “counterterrorism”. The parallel between these developments is no coincidence. Ultimately, Jordan’s conduct is entirely consistent with the substance of Barrack’s statements and with broader US policies in our region and towards our country.

The actual meaning of these parallel developments is that Syria is being pushed towards a new explosion: on the one hand, through economic pressure and the deterioration of people’s living conditions, and on the other, through terrorism and combatting it. Ultimately, this serves the interests of the Zionist and American.

The danger is imminent, grave, and real. Syria’s genuine and righteous patriotic forces, wherever they may be, whether within or outside state institutions, must move towards closing ranks and uniting their efforts. The only practical path currently available is to unite the Syrian people through a genuine national unity government that leads a comprehensive transformation, organized and defined by an inclusive general national conference with full powers. Through such a conference, Syrians must reach agreement on the shape of their state and its governance system, a new social contract, and the country’s economic and political orientation. This must ensure social justice and equal citizenship for all Syrians, while safeguarding their dignity and the dignity of their country.