As Donald Trump toured the newly restored Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris last weekend, an event of seismic proportions unfolded thousands of miles away in the Middle East. Armed Islamist fighters advanced on Damascus, finalizing the overthrow of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime. This dramatic turn of events in Syria contrasts sharply with Trump’s firm declaration: “Syria is not our fight.”
Trump’s statement, posted on his Truth Social network, emphasized his isolationist stance: “The United States should have nothing to do with it. This is not our fight. Let it play out. Do not get involved!” However, the situation in Syria, long a focal point of global geopolitics, raises significant questions about the feasibility of maintaining a hands-off approach.
A Legacy of Involvement
The fall of Assad’s government has left Syria in the grip of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a US-designated terrorist organization. As the dust settles, the Biden administration, in its final weeks, is scrambling to establish conditions for recognizing a future Syrian government. Secretary of State Antony Blinken has been engaged in urgent diplomacy, seeking regional support to ensure any new Syrian leadership rejects terrorism, respects neighboring states, and eliminates chemical weapons stockpiles.
While Trump’s nominee for national security adviser, Mike Waltz, echoed the president-elect’s mandate to avoid “getting dug into Middle Eastern wars,” he underscored core American interests: combating remnants of the Islamic State (IS), safeguarding Israel, and securing alliances with Gulf Arab states. Waltz’s remarks reflect the Trump administration’s broader strategy, which views Syria as a smaller piece in a larger regional puzzle aimed at countering Iran and solidifying ties between Israel and Saudi Arabia.
US Troops in Limbo
Currently, around 900 US troops remain in Syria, primarily east of the Euphrates River, working with Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) to counter IS remnants. This presence also serves as a strategic buffer against Iranian weapons routes. However, Trump’s isolationist rhetoric has rekindled questions about the future of this mission.
During his first term, Trump attempted to pull US forces from northern Syria in 2019, only to partially reverse the decision amid bipartisan concerns over a potential IS resurgence. His missile strikes on Syrian targets in response to chemical weapon attacks further muddied his non-interventionist claims. Analysts believe Trump’s isolationist instincts may clash with on-ground realities and the views of his own advisers, creating potential friction within his administration.
Regional Complications
Syria’s fragmented landscape complicates Trump’s “leave it to them” policy. The SDF, a key US ally, faces relentless pressure from Turkey, which regards the group’s Kurdish forces as terrorists. Turkish airstrikes have targeted Kurdish positions, while Turkish-backed militias vie for control of strategic areas, raising fears of further destabilization.
Trump’s relationship with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan could shape US strategy. Analysts speculate Trump might negotiate a deal allowing Turkey greater influence in northern Syria in exchange for a US troop withdrawal. Such a move could strengthen Turkey’s position but risks exacerbating tensions with Kurdish allies and undermining efforts to stabilize the region.
Echoes of the Past
Experts warn that Trump’s Syria policy could mirror the abrupt withdrawal from Afghanistan, which left a power vacuum with far-reaching consequences. However, Trump’s former ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford, predicts a more calculated approach. “He’ll set a clear timeline for withdrawal,” Ford said, emphasizing the need for a structured transition to prevent chaos.
Tulsi Gabbard, Trump’s controversial nominee for director of national intelligence, adds another layer of complexity. Gabbard’s past meetings with Assad and criticism of US policy in Syria have drawn sharp scrutiny, with detractors accusing her of sympathizing with authoritarian regimes. Her confirmation process is expected to be contentious, reflecting broader debates over America’s role in the Middle East.
A Tenuous Balance
Despite stark differences in tone, the Biden and Trump administrations share some common ground on Syria, notably a desire for a government aligned with US interests. Both administrations aim to contain Iran and Russia’s influence in the region while avoiding deeper entanglement. However, Trump’s approach—emphasizing disengagement—raises questions about the sustainability of US alliances and the potential resurgence of extremist threats.
As Trump prepares to assume office, his administration faces the delicate task of balancing non-interventionist ideals with geopolitical realities. Syria’s future remains uncertain, but one thing is clear: staying out may not be as easy as Trump suggests.
