The Syrian Civil War, now in its thirteenth year, continues to exert a profound influence on the geopolitics of the Middle East. What began in 2011 as a popular uprising against Bashar al-Assad’s regime has morphed into a protracted proxy war, drawing in global and regional powers with competing agendas. The conflict’s recent escalation highlights both the fragility of the region’s security architecture and the challenges posed by external interventions that often prioritize immediate strategic gains over long-term stability.
The roots of the Syrian crisis lie in authoritarian repression, sectarian divides, and the exploitation of local grievances by external actors. Assad’s brutal suppression of peaceful protests quickly turned aspirations for reform into a violent civil war. Over the years, the conflict has evolved into a multifaceted struggle involving an array of actors, such as jihadist groups like ISIS and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), Kurdish factions, and state-backed proxies. What began as a binary clash between the regime and the opposition is now a complex battlefield shaped by shifting alliances and geopolitical rivalries.
U.S. Policy in Syria: A Fractured Legacy
The United States has played a pivotal yet inconsistent role in Syria since the early days of the conflict. The Obama administration sought to counter Assad’s regime and extremist groups through a combination of covert support for moderate rebels and an overt partnership with the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). Yet the administration’s failure to act decisively after Assad’s use of chemical weapons in 2013—despite Obama’s “red line” ultimatum—significantly eroded U.S. credibility, opening the door for Russia’s military intervention in 2015. Moscow’s backing of Assad, alongside Iran and Hezbollah, decisively shifted the balance of power in favor of the regime.
The Trump administration adopted a more transactional and unpredictable approach. Trump authorized missile strikes in 2017 and 2018 in response to chemical attacks, signaling a willingness to act unilaterally when U.S. interests or red lines were crossed. However, his abrupt withdrawal of U.S. forces from northern Syria in 2019, which facilitated a Turkish offensive against Kurdish forces, undermined America’s alliances on the ground and left its strategy in disarray. This decision revealed a broader ambivalence in U.S. policy, oscillating between direct action and disengagement.
Under Biden, the U.S. approach has been characterized by cautious continuity rather than a transformative strategy. While maintaining a limited military presence in eastern Syria, Biden has prioritized de-escalation and counterterrorism, largely refraining from significant new initiatives. Yet, the administration’s limited engagement has left a vacuum in which competing actors—including Turkey, Iran, and jihadist groups—have intensified their activities.
Escalation Amidst Transition
The resurgence of violence in late 2024 underscores Syria’s continued volatility. Rebel factions, particularly Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, have launched a surprise offensive in northern Syria, capitalizing on the Assad regime’s stretched resources and declining support from key allies like Russia and Iran. Russia’s reduced focus on Syria—driven by its preoccupation with Ukraine and internal challenges—has weakened Assad’s military capabilities. Similarly, Iran’s overstretched resources and repeated Israeli airstrikes targeting its proxies in Syria, particularly Hezbollah, have diminished Tehran’s ability to bolster the regime. The weakening of Hezbollah and Iranian forces, along with the reduced Russian presence, has created a strategic vacuum in which rebel forces, including HTS, have sought to capitalize on the regime’s vulnerabilities.
This timing raises questions about whether the escalation is partly an attempt by opposition forces to exploit the geopolitical uncertainties associated with the U.S. presidential transition. With Trump expected to assume office in January 2025, the renewed offensive may reflect an effort by rebel groups and their backers, including Turkey, to secure gains before the new administration recalibrates U.S. policy.
What Could Trump Do?
Donald Trump’s approach to Syria is likely to echo elements of his first term while being shaped by the new realities on the ground. His past actions suggest a focus on immediate outcomes rather than a comprehensive strategy. Trump might prioritize defeating remaining ISIS cells and countering Iranian influence, possibly increasing direct military action or pressuring regional allies like Turkey and Saudi Arabia to take on greater roles. His transactional instincts could lead to unconventional agreements with Russia or Turkey, potentially sidelining Kurdish partners again.
However, Trump’s history of abrupt decisions and his emphasis on disengagement from “endless wars” may also drive a further reduction of U.S. military involvement. This could embolden actors like HTS or even jihadist remnants to exploit a diminished U.S. presence, further destabilizing the region. Conversely, if Trump perceives the escalation as a direct challenge to U.S. interests during the transition, he may seek to assert dominance early in his term, possibly through military strikes or a renewed focus on counterterrorism operations.
A Conflict Without Resolution
The Syrian Civil War remains emblematic of the international community’s inability to address complex, multifaceted conflicts effectively. The renewed violence not only highlights the fragility of ceasefires but also demonstrates how moments of geopolitical transition can be exploited by regional actors. For the United States, Syria continues to present a vexing dilemma: how to balance immediate security concerns, like combating terrorism and countering Iranian influence, with a broader commitment to regional stability.
Whether Trump’s second term will bring more coherence or further unpredictability to U.S. policy remains uncertain. What is clear, however, is that Syria’s crisis is far from over, and its ripples will continue to shape the region and challenge global powers.
[Photo by Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, via Wikimedia Commons]
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.
Camilla is a journalist specializing in international affairs, geopolitics and culture. She holds degrees from the Universities of Siena, Bologna, and Stirling. She now serves as the NGO Hecho por Nosotros’ ambassador at the UN headquarters in Geneva, researching and writing publications on human rights and fair trade.
Read the full article here
