DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) — For the first time in 13 years, the U.S. flag was raised in Syria’s capital on Thursday, signaling a new chapter in American-Syrian relations under the country’s recently formed HTS-led administration. The low-profile yet symbolic event was held at the former U.S. ambassador’s residence in Damascus, once abandoned at the height of Syria’s civil war.
Tom Barrack, the U.S. ambassador to Turkey and newly appointed special envoy to Syria, presided over the ceremony alongside Asaad Al-Shaibani, the foreign minister of Syria’s transitional government. Though the U.S. embassy remains formally closed, the gesture marks the strongest sign yet of Washington’s willingness to engage with the new leadership in Damascus.
The government, led by Ahmad al-Sharaa — a former figure in Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham — came to power after a swift offensive unseated long-time president Bashar al-Assad late last year. While HTS remains designated a terrorist group by the U.S, recent diplomatic signals suggest a softening stance, driven in part by geopolitical recalculations.
This normalization effort comes at a time of intensifying crisis in Gaza, where Palestinian civilians continue to endure airstrikes, displacement, and blockade without significant shifts in international policy. The optics of renewed U.S.-Syria ties, in contrast to ongoing inaction on Palestine, have sparked unease among observers who see the development as part of a broader trend of regional realignment — one that leaves long-standing causes behind.
Though officials on both sides framed the flag-raising as a step toward “stability” and “engagement,” it has raised difficult questions for many in the region: What does it mean when former adversaries find common ground, while one of the world’s most pressing humanitarian catastrophes remains unresolved?
Syria’s new leadership has taken visible steps to distance itself from its militant past, emphasizing governance and regional cooperation. But as old flags rise and new alliances take shape, critics warn that symbols alone cannot conceal deeper shifts — or the costs of silence elsewhere.
