The sudden collapse of the Assad regime has plunged the United States' military mission in Syria deep within uncertainty, raising tough questions for President-elect Donald Trump. On December 7, 2016, he boldly declared on X (formerly Twitter), "Syria is a mess, but is not our friend. The United States should have nothing to do with it. This is not our fight."
That sentiment echoes his broader philosophy aimed at halting foreign military commitments. Now, as he prepares to reclaim the presidency, the Middle East he is returning to has drastically changed, with the U.S. combat mission reliant on allies grappling with their own survival struggles.
With over 2,000 U.S. troops stationed in eastern Syria for the past decade—working to combat the Islamic State and counter the influence of Iran—the potential for chaos looms. The vacuum left by Assad’s fall facilitates the rise of extremist factions, primarily Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which has been gaining ground among the rebel forces amid the power transition.
HTS has established itself as the main insurgent force, and with its historical roots tied to Al-Qaeda, its leadership poses significant challenges for U.S. policy. A former Al-Nusra Front affiliate, HTS is considered by the United Nations Security Council to be a terrorist organization, with sanctions targeting its operations. Notably, HTS’s leader, Abu Mohammed al-Golani (who has recently rebranded himself as Ahmad Hussein al-Sharaa), now de facto heads the nation post-Assad.
"Let Allah sort this one out"—so goes the attitude many believe Trump may adopt as he contemplates America’s role. The former president’s instincts might lean toward letting regional players resolve their conflicts, yet uncertainty looms over what might happen if Syria devolves fully under terrorist control.
Critics warn of the cascading threats faced by the region, including the potential for HTS to garner international legitimacy, reversing the progress made against ISIS, which had, at its peak, claimed significant portions of territory across Syria and Iraq. Trump is likely to find parallels to another U.S. military engagement—the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan—primarily aimed at curbing terrorist influence.
Those who heralded Trump's past foreign policy rhetoric as prudent are now facing the reality of managing HTS, as it continues to solidify its grip within Syria. The prospect of Turkey's involvement complicates matters even more. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has sustained support for HTS and other rebel factions, making U.S. engagements trickier. Under Erdoğan's prolonged leadership, Turkey has sought to reclaim its historical prominence, positioning itself as both NATO ally and regional power broker.
Following the predictions of chaos, Trump's inclination to withdraw may tempt him to ignore or downplay the consequences of HTS’s ascension. Reports have indicated HTS-led enforcements are already appropriated to uphold their version of law, inherently skewed to the extremist interpretation of Islamic teachings, thereby reversing decades of social progress.
This complicated milieu means Trump's administration has limited options to navigate. On one hand exists the desire to uphold his nationalistic agenda of refraining from foreign conflicts, and on the other lies the stark reality of failing to stabilize Syria, thereby allowing it to fester as America grapples with new security crises.
Analysts caution against underestimations, invoking memories of the earlier phases of the Syrian conflict and its potential to escalate. Should Trump’s administration resort to military measures, particularly within Turkey, such actions would starkly contradict his foundational promise to avoid foreign entanglements. It would place him amid the very dilemma he sought to evade.
The resulting Syrian crisis now presents pressing challenges for the incoming administration. Will they uphold the current troop allocations to safeguard against impending disasters, or will they adhere to the isolationist tactics promised during his campaign? Either decision bears numerous ramifications, not only on regional stability but also for his administration nationally, as backlash for whatever course of action lays deadlock on him.
Finally, the dilemma reaches far beyond troop levels—it encapsulates the essence of American foreign policy moving forward. The stakes are high as the possibility looms of creating another breeding ground for terrorism, this time under the auspices of HTS and adhered to by governing forces leading Syria.
