As Donald Trump joined world leaders in Paris last weekend to admire the restored Notre Dame Cathedral, armed Islamist fighters in Syria were advancing toward Damascus, marking the imminent collapse of the Assad regime.
In this juxtaposition of global events, the US president-elect, seated alongside the French first couple, remained attuned to the dramatic developments unfolding in the Middle East.
“Syria is a mess, but it is not our friend. “
He added: “THE UNITED STATES SHOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. THIS IS NOT OUR FIGHT. LET IT PLAY OUT. DO NOT GET INVOLVED!”
This post and another the following day underscored the president-elect’s strong mandate to avoid intervention in foreign conflicts. However, it also raised significant questions about the future trajectory of U.S. policy.
With President Bashar al-Assad’s government fallen and given the war’s far-reaching impact on regional and global powers, can Trump realistically maintain a stance of having “nothing to do” with Syria?
Will he withdraw U.S. troops entirely? Does his approach represent a stark departure from President Biden’s policy, and if so, what is the purpose of the White House’s actions during the five weeks before Trump assumes office?
The current administration is engaging in an intense diplomatic push in response to Assad’s fall and the ascent of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a Syrian Islamist group designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, currently traveling between Jordan and Turkey, is working to secure support from key Arab and Muslim nations for a set of U.S. conditions tied to recognizing any future Syrian government.
Washington insists that the new government must be transparent and inclusive, reject terrorism as a base, avoid threatening Syria’s neighbors, and dismantle all chemical and biological weapons stockpiles.
Mike Waltz, Trump’s nominee for national security adviser, is awaiting confirmation, and one guiding principle underpins his foreign policy vision.
“President Trump was elected with an overwhelming mandate to not get the United States dug into any more Middle Eastern wars,” he told Fox News this week.
He went on to list America’s “core interests” there as the Islamic State (IS) group, Israel, and “our Gulf Arab allies”.
Waltz’s comments were a neat sum of Trump’s view of Syria as a small jigsaw piece in his bigger regional policy puzzle.
His goals are to ensure that remnants of IS remain contained and to see that a future government in Damascus can’t threaten Washington’s most important regional ally, Israel.
Trump is also focused on what he sees as the biggest prize: a historic diplomatic and trade deal to normalize relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia, which he believes would further weaken and humiliate Iran.
The rest, Trump believes, is Syria’s “mess” to work out.
Trump’s rhetoric harkens back to how he talked about Syria during his first term when he derided the country – which has an extraordinary cultural history dating back millennia – as a land of “sand and death”.
“Donald Trump, himself, I think ranted very little to do with Syria during his first administration,” said Robert Ford, who served as President Barack Obama’s ambassador to Syria from 2011-14, and who argued within that administration for more American intervention in the form of support for Syrian moderate opposition groups to counter Assad’s brutal suppression of his population.
“But there are other people in his circle who are much more concerned about counterterrorism,” he told the BBC.
The US currently has around 900 troops in Syria east of the Euphrates River and a 55km (34 miles) “deconfliction” zone bordering Iraq and Jordan.
Their official mission is to counter the IS group, now much degraded in desert camps, and to train and equip the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF – Kurdish and Arab allies of the US who control the territory).
The SDF also guards camps containing IS fighters and their families.
In practice, the US presence on the ground has also gone beyond this, helping to block a potential weapons transit route for Iran, which used Syria to supply its ally Hezbollah.
Mr Ford, like other analysts, believes that while Trump’s isolationist instincts play well on social media, the realities on the ground and the views of his team could end up moderating his stance.
That view is echoed by Wa’el Alzayat, a former adviser on Syria at the US Department of State.
“He is bringing on board some serious people to his administration who will be running his Middle East file,” he told the BBC, specifically noting that Senator Marco Rubio, who has been nominated for secretary of state, “is a serious foreign policy player”.
These tensions—between isolationist aspirations and regional strategic objectives—were evident during Trump’s first term. In 2019, he ended CIA funding for some “moderate” rebel groups and ordered the withdrawal of U.S. forces from northern Syria.
At the time, Mike Waltz described the withdrawal as “a strategic mistake,” voicing concerns about a possible resurgence of ISIS. This sentiment was echoed by Trump’s administration, which partially reversed the decision amid mounting security concerns.
Despite his non-interventionist rhetoric, Trump broke from this stance by authorizing the launch of 59 cruise missiles at a Syrian airfield in 2017. This came in response to a chemical weapons attack allegedly ordered by Assad, which killed scores of civilians. Trump also intensified economic sanctions against Syria’s leadership, underscoring a more active, if selective, engagement in the region.
The ambiguity of Trump’s “it’s not our fight” stance was encapsulated by Waltz, highlighting the often contradictory nature of his foreign policy approach.
“That doesn’t mean he’s not willing to step in,” he told Fox News.
“President Trump has no problem taking decisive action if the American homeland is threatened in any way.”
Adding to the possibility of tension is another key figure, Tulsi Gabbard, who Trump has nominated as director of national intelligence. The controversial former Democrat-turned-Trump ally met Assad in 2017 on a “fact-finding” trip, and at the time criticized Trump’s policies.
Her nomination is expected to face intense scrutiny from U.S. senators, as allegations—denied by her—of being sympathetic to Assad and Russia are likely to dominate discussions.
Concerns over the ongoing U.S. mission in Syria and a desire to conclude it are not unique to Trump’s administration. In January, three American soldiers were killed in a drone strike at a U.S. base in Jordan, reportedly carried out by Iran-backed militias operating in Syria and Iraq. This attack occurred as the Israel-Hamas conflict in Gaza threatened to escalate across the region.
Such incidents continue to raise questions for the Biden administration regarding the number of U.S. troops stationed in the area and their vulnerability to similar strikes.
Interestingly, the positions of the outgoing Biden administration and the incoming Trump administration on Syria align more often than they diverge. While their rhetoric and tone differ significantly, both seek a government in Damascus that aligns with U.S. interests.
Both administrations aim to capitalize on the setbacks experienced by Iran and Russia in Syria. Trump’s “this is not our fight, let it play out” mirrors the Biden administration’s “this is a process that needs to be led by Syrians, not by the United States.”