This year, C -SPAN celebrates 45 years of covering Congress like no other.
Since 1979, we've been your primary source for Capitol Hill, providing balanced, unfiltered coverage of government.
Taking you to where the policies debated and decided, all with the support of America's cable companies.
C -SPAN, 45 years and counting.
Powered by cable.
A conversation now on Syria and the future of the Middle East.
Ben Taliblu is back with us.
He's a senior fellow specializing in the Middle East at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
Let's start with what factors will determine what comes next in Syria after the fall of Assad and what role could the United States...
Well, it's a pleasure to be back with you and happy holidays to you and the viewers.
Listen, there's nothing short of historic than what's going on in Syria right now.
For over half a century, the Assad family has ruled that country from Damascus.
And really since 2011, 13 plus years now, there's been various evolutions of the revolution which started peacefully.
I would still say I would say that we are in merely the next phase of the Syrian Civil War.
There is still fighting between various militia.
So explain who those various groups are and...
Who's backing them, whether it's the United States or other regional allies, and how that plays out?
Sure.
So up until very recently, the Assad regime, Assad himself, an Alawite, a minority sect of Islam, more heterodox and orthodox, you could say, was backed by two large state patrons, the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Russian Federation.
And in Syria...
Russia had historically what really the Russian Empire had wanted for many years, which is a warm water port.
They had that at Tartus and then later on they had an air base as well at Hameem.
Basically this was Russia's foothold into the Middle East and it had been a partner of the Assad regime and the Assad family.
We're good to go.
...democratic forces who are largely but not exclusively Kurdish, backed by the United States.
When the US was looking for a partner in Syria to pick, it wasn't...
We're good to go.
We're good to go.
I think?
Subtitles by the Amara .org community.
We're good to go.
As the Syrian Civil War continues into this more political phase, what role will the U .S. play and will the U .S. begin by trying to leverage the threat of withdrawal as other actors are looking to double down, particularly Turkey, which is a NATO country?
Remind folks what the U .S. force is doing there right now and what have they been doing amid this drive onto Damascus and Assad fleeing.
Well, amid the drive on Damascus, they've essentially been sitting there.
Since Damascus fell, however, the U .S. has had airstrikes against ISIS positions in central and eastern Syria.
You mentioned what...
Under what authority the U .S. force presence was there, the U .S. was there to fight ISIS, so this was part of the counter -ISIS campaign, and the U .S. had played a pretty powerful role there, both thwarting some of the ISIS advances from Iraq into Syria,
as really supporting the counter -ISIS campaign on the ground and on the air.
We're going to go into more of this with Ben and Ben Talibloo of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies this morning.
I want to give you a chance to call in and ask your questions, though.
A lot's happened in Syria.
We're good to go.
And here, forgive me, I'll be tipping my hand as to how I see this individual.
He remains subject to a U .S. bounty.
He has a U .S. bounty on his head.
He's currently the head of HTS, Hayat Tahrir al -Sham, a designated terrorist organization.
He's led manifestations of formerly al -Qaeda -affiliated terrorist groups in Syria, beginning with Chepet al -Nusra.
Then that really collapsed in 2016.
There was a 2017 rebrand.
And then beyond that 2017 rebrand, you have the group, which is really more of a coalition or a constellation of some Salafi jihadist organizations who were actually effective fighters against the Assad regime as well.
We're good to go.
Starting from 2016, some of those people actually end up saying, well, look, how come the U .S. has had targeted airstrikes on a whole host of al -Qaeda officials, not just in Syria, but in Iraq, but really around the world, but has never touched this individual despite having a bounty?
Does that mean there is some laissez -passer or some covert relationship there?
Sometimes that line of thinking can get into conspiracy if taken to its fullest conclusion.
But nonetheless, it does raise questions.
How come this person was allowed to kind of remain on the battlefield while having... Subtitles by the Amara .org community