Why Italy reopened its embassy in Syria and why the rest of the west should follow.

Key Findings

Italy has reopened its embassy in Damascus after more than a decade of strained relations, a consequence of the Syrian civil war.
This decision is driven by multiple factors, with the primary goal of curbing Russian influence in the region.
Italy’s Mattei Plan, a broader diplomatic strategy, seeks to address illegal immigration and energy needs through development projects in Africa and the MENA region.
Italy’s initiative could serve as a model for the EU, promoting diplomatic engagement with Syria as a path to long-term regional stability. However, other EU members, such as Germany and France, oppose the normalization of relations with Syria.
While a complete severance between Syria and Russia seems unrealistic as long as the Assad regime perceives its survival as tied to Moscow, a “carrot and stick” approach by the EU—offering the gradual lifting of sanctions in exchange for political reforms and distancing from Moscow—could provide Syria with incentives to reduce its dependence on Russia.

Italy’s move

In a significant shift in foreign policy, Italy has recently reopened its embassy in Damascus, Syria, marking the end of over a decade of diplomatic estrangement. This move follows years of strained relations between Syria and most Western nations, driven by the Syrian civil war and widespread human rights violations committed by the Assad regime.

Italy’s decision, driven by a blend of geopolitical, humanitarian, and strategic considerations, represents a key step in the broader diplomatic doctrine being shaped by Giorgia Meloni’s government since the start of its term.

The Mattei Plan[1] could be described as a postcolonial approach to foreign policy, designed to enhance Italy’s influence in Africa and the MENA region through collaborative development projects. This strategy seeks to address two pressing challenges—illegal immigration and Italy’s energy needs—by offering long-term, sustainable solutions that benefit both Italy and its regional partners.

Italy’s initiative could serve as a model for other European Union (EU) member states. By re-engaging with Syria diplomatically, Europe can prevent the country from becoming a full satellite of Russian influence and contribute to a more balanced and effective long-term resolution of the Syrian crisis.

Currently, the Syrian government controls approximately 70% of the country, and Italy’s decision to reopen its embassy in Syria reflects the understanding that isolating the Assad regime has done little to resolve the conflict. Instead, it has allowed Russia to solidify its influence in Syria, positioning itself as a key player in the Middle East.

By re-establishing diplomatic relations, Italy seeks to engage directly with the Syrian government, creating channels for dialogue, humanitarian aid, and potentially influencing the political transition process. Furthermore, Italy acknowledges that the conflict’s regional repercussions—such as the refugee crisis and the rise of extremist groups—require a comprehensive strategy that extends beyond military intervention. Diplomatic engagement with Syria could also address these issues at their source, fostering stability and mitigating the humanitarian impact on neighboring countries and Europe.

Italy’s[2] diplomatic re-engagement should not remain an isolated effort, but it is highly likely to face opposition from key European powers such as Germany and France. On July 29th, the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs explicitly voiced its opposition to the normalization of diplomatic ties with Syria, citing ongoing human rights concerns.

It is noteworthy that in the early 2000s, Bashar al-Assad received several orders of merit from Western countries, including the Knight Grand Cross of the Order of Merit of the Italian Republic, the highest honor in Italy, which was revoked in 2012, and the French Grand Cross of the National Order of the Legion of Honour, returned in 2018. Interestingly, the Finnish ‘Order of the White Rose’ remains conferred upon him, reflecting the initial acceptance of the Assad regime by European nations prior to the onset of the Syrian Civil War.

Continuing to isolate Syria would only strengthen the country’s ties with the Kremlin. In light of the normalization already taking place with the rest of the Arab world, such an approach would be counterproductive for the Western nations.

The European Union[3] must adopt a unified approach toward Syria to effectively counterbalance Russian and Iranian influence. This situation presents an opportunity to move toward the standardization of the varying foreign policies among member states.

Since the onset of the Syrian civil war, Russia has provided military and political support to the Assad regime, ensuring its survival. This has fostered a dependency that will be challenging to sever unless the international community offers Syria viable alternatives. A coordinated EU policy could involve reopening embassies, engaging in diplomatic dialogue, and offering incentives for political reforms and economic reconstruction. By taking these steps, the EU can gradually diminish Moscow’s influence, encourage the Assad regime to explore other partnerships, and work toward a political solution that includes all stakeholders

A multilateral coordinated approach

Turkey, a NATO member and Syria’s neighbor, holds a unique position that could facilitate closer relations between the alliance and Syria, as far the west should move compact and coordinate in order to disengage the country from the “axis of evil”.

Despite its complicated relationship with Damascus—particularly regarding its support for Syrian opposition forces and military incursions in northern Syria—Turkey has maintained a pragmatic yet opportunistic approach, balancing its interests with those of Russia and the United States. Turkey could serve as a mediator between NATO and Syria, leveraging its influence to initiate dialogue and build trust. However, any rapprochement must carefully consider the Kurdish issue, as the Kurdish population in northern Syria remains a significant point of contention between Ankara and Damascus. The Kurdish forces, who have been U.S. allies in the fight against ISIS, are viewed by Turkey as terrorists linked to the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party). Therefore, any NATO-Syria engagement must address Turkey’s security concerns while ensuring that the Kurds are not sidelined in the process. The Iraqi solution of an autonomous Kurdish region has proven to be effective, with the Kurdistan region emerging as one of the wealthiest and most stable areas in the war-torn Middle East.

The relationship between Syria and Turkey has been tumultuous, shaped by historical tensions, territorial disputes, and the Syrian civil war. Prior to the conflict, Turkey and Syria experienced a period of rapprochement marked by economic cooperation and diplomatic exchanges. However, the outbreak of the Syrian civil war and Turkey’s support for opposition forces led to a significant deterioration in relations. In recent years, there have been signs of a potential thaw, with both countries expressing a willingness to engage in dialogue. This shift is partly driven by mutual concerns over Kurdish autonomy and the desire to stabilize the region. While the path to normalization is fraught with challenges, it presents an opportunity for broader regional stability, particularly if Turkey can leverage its position within NATO to foster a more constructive relationship between the alliance and Syria.

The Arab world’s recent rehabilitation of Bashar al-Assad, exemplified by Syria’s readmission into the Arab League in 2023, marks a significant shift in the region’s approach to the Syrian conflict. This move, driven by a desire to stabilize Syria and reduce Iranian influence, has opened the door for broader international engagement with the Assad regime. However, it also underscores the limitations of isolating Damascus, as regional powers have chosen to reintegrate Syria rather than allow it to remain within the spheres of influence of Iran and Russia.

Despite these diplomatic developments, the notion of a complete severance between Syria and Russia is unrealistic as long as the Assad regime perceives its survival as tied to Moscow. Russia’s military intervention in 2015 was a turning point in the Syrian conflict, ensuring the regime’s survival and granting Russia a permanent foothold in the Middle East. Any effort to reduce Russian influence will require a long-term, multifaceted approach that addresses Syria’s security, economic, and political needs.

The EU and NATO, with Turkey playing a key role, must work together to offer Syria alternatives to its dependency on Russia[4]. Forwarding a pragmatic stick and carrot approach, relying on the gradual lifting of sanctions in exchange for gradual realignment of the country to the west, respects of the human rights and a progressive detach from the Kremlin. The access to Syrian oil, now sanctioned by the EU, could also benefit in the next future the trembling European energetic market.

This approach should involve economic incentives, security guarantees, and support for a political transition that includes all Syrian factions. However, achieving this will require sustained diplomatic engagement and a willingness to negotiate with Assad, acknowledging that total regime change is unlikely in the near future.

A path for the future?

Italy’s reopening of its embassy in Syria should serve as a catalyst for broader European engagement with Damascus. A unified and coordinated approach involving the EU and NATO, with Turkey’s mediation, is essential to counterbalance Russian influence and foster a more stable and peaceful Syria. However, this will require a long-term commitment and the recognition that diplomatic solutions must be inclusive and realistic, addressing the complex web of alliances and rivalries in the region. Only through sustained and collective efforts can the international community hope to achieve a lasting resolution to the Syrian conflict.

Bibliography