The United States faces a critical decision to withdraw from Syria in a manner that safeguards its strategic interests, rebuilds its damaged regional reputation, and disengages from counterproductive alliances with destabilizing forces.
The United States stands at a crossroads in Syria, where its prolonged involvement has strained resources, eroded its regional standing, and fueled resentment among local populations due to its support of destabilizing groups like the PKK/PYD. A strategic and honorable withdrawal could realign the US with legitimate regional actors, including Turkey and the new Syrian administration, while countering Iranian influence and facilitating the eradication of ISIS. This move would not only protect US interests but also mend relations with key allies and enhance its long-term credibility in the Middle East. However, failure to act decisively risks a forced and humiliating retreat in the future.
The overthrow of the Baath regime, which had ruled Syria under a harsh dictatorship for 61 years, ushered in a pivotal period of transformation for the country. As the Assad regime rapidly collapsed and Bashar al-Assad himself was forced to flee, the geopolitical dynamics in the region shifted dramatically. Russia, one of Assad’s primary backers, found itself in a precarious position and was left with no choice but to withdraw from Syria in a hasty manner. This withdrawal was carefully managed; Russian forces evacuated their military bases through agreements with Syrian authorities, ensuring that no significant losses were incurred, no attacks were carried out on their installations, and future negotiations with the emerging Syrian administration remained possible. However, despite the strategic care taken in orchestrating this exit, it marked a significant defeat for Russia, which had invested heavily in maintaining its influence in Syria and the broader region for over a decade.
Similarly, Iran experienced a decline in its influence in Syria, which forced its withdrawal as well. The diminishing relevance of Tehran’s policies in the region, combined with the new Syrian government’s discomfort with Iranian involvement, created conditions that made Iran’s presence increasingly untenable. The withdrawal was also welcomed by Türkiye, Iraq and the United States to restrict the movements of Iranian-backed militias. These efforts helped to prevent direct conflict, maintain a degree of stability, and ensure that the people of Syria could reassert control over their nation without the devastating effects of large-scale violence or widespread bloodshed.
Nevertheless, the process of reclaiming sovereignty over Syria remains incomplete. One of the most pressing issues is the continued presence of PKK/PYD terrorist organizations in specific regions. Full territorial integrity has yet to be achieved, but the new Syrian administration, in close collaboration with Turkey, is showing unwavering determination to address this challenge. Their efforts to combat terrorism and restore stability suggest that the PKK/PYD and similar groups may not be able to maintain their foothold in the region for much longer. Against this backdrop, the United States occupies a critical position in this evolving equation. The nature of US policies and actions moving forward will play a decisive role in shaping how the growing wave of regional discontent against American involvement unfolds. This raises a crucial question: Can the United States formulate a strategy that enables it to leave Syria with dignity while simultaneously safeguarding its long-term strategic and national interests?
What Do American Interests Require?
Despite the challenges it faces in Syria, the United States still has a window of opportunity to exit the region with dignity and honor intact. However, with every passing day, this window narrows as the US incurs increasing losses in terms of energy, resources, international standing, and strategic leverage. A timely and well-planned withdrawal would mitigate these losses and allow the United States to refocus its efforts on broader, more sustainable priorities that align with its national interests.
Currently, the United States is paying a steep price for its ongoing involvement in Syria. The logistical and financial burden of continually deploying troops, maintaining military infrastructure, and supplying resources to the region has become a significant drain on American resources. Compounding this issue is the widespread dissatisfaction among local populations with US policies. Much of this resentment stems from the US’s support of terrorist organizations like the PKK/PYD, whose activities have destabilized the region, forcibly recruited children from local communities, and perpetuated conditions of danger and insecurity. These groups have repeatedly disrupted peace and eroded trust among the local populace, making it increasingly difficult for the United States to maintain any meaningful legitimacy or goodwill in the region.
Meanwhile, the new Syrian administration has articulated a clear vision for the country’s future—one that prioritizes unification under a single, sovereign government based in Damascus. This vision is shared by Turkey, local Syrian communities, and other regional stakeholders, all of whom are committed to restoring stability and territorial integrity. Given the alignment of these legitimate actors, it is highly likely that their goals will be achieved in the medium to long term, with or without US involvement. From a practical and geopolitical standpoint, it would be far more logical for the United States to align itself with these actors, whose legitimacy and local support provide a strong foundation for sustainable governance. Continuing to support the PKK/PYD—a group that relies entirely on external backing, lacks popular support, and holds no legitimate claim to governance—would only further undermine US credibility and interests.
While the circumstances surrounding the US withdrawal from Afghanistan differ significantly from those in Syria, there are parallels that highlight the importance of strategic timing and execution. A withdrawal from Syria, if handled correctly, could not only preserve the country’s territorial integrity and promote stability but also open the door to improved relations with key regional players. Chief among these is Turkey, a NATO ally and a critical actor in the region with whom the US has shared a complex but enduring partnership. Furthermore, such a withdrawal would go a long way toward repairing the US’s image in the Middle East, which has suffered substantial damage in recent years due to its perceived role in fueling instability.
The United States also shares common goals with the new Syrian administration and Turkey in countering Iranian influence in the region. Both Turkey and Syrian forces have already delivered decisive blows to ISIS, further aligning their objectives with American interests. By strengthening ties with these actors, the United States would not only bolster its position against Iran but also contribute to the complete eradication of ISIS, a shared priority for all parties involved.
Trumpism and the Future of Syria
The possibility of an honorable US withdrawal from Syria is closely tied to the policies of President Trump, who entered his second term on January 20. Throughout his presidency, Trump has consistently emphasized the importance of ending wars and prioritizing “America First” policies, which advocate for minimizing foreign entanglements that do not serve American interests. In this context, a strategic withdrawal from Syria aligns perfectly with Trump’s broader vision for US foreign policy.
However, Trump’s approach to Syria will also serve as a critical test of his “America First” philosophy. For decades, US foreign policy in the Middle East has been heavily influenced by Israeli interests, often at the expense of American priorities. Israel’s aggressive and destabilizing policies in the region have fueled conflict, disrupted trade, and perpetuated instability, undermining both long-term peace prospects and the credibility of US involvement. These actions have not only damaged the US’s standing in the region but have also contributed to the empowerment of actors that work against shared regional interests.
In particular, Israel has expressed unease over Turkey’s rising influence in the region, which has been focused on promoting peace, stability, and reconstruction following the developments in Syria. Furthermore, Israel’s ongoing interactions with the PKK/PYD terrorist organization reveal a divergence from the broader goals of regional stability. Trump’s policies in Syria will provide a clear indication of whether the United States is truly capable of prioritizing its own national interests or whether its foreign policy will continue to be shaped by external influences, such as the Israeli lobby.
The futures of Syria and US foreign policy are deeply interconnected. If the United States can focus on its own national interests and disengage from counterproductive alliances, it could pave the way for Syria to regain sovereignty and governance under its own people. Although the opportunity for an honorable withdrawal from Syria has been delayed, it remains within reach. Such a move would allow the US to protect its long-term interests, restore its credibility in the region, and strengthen the foundation of Trump’s “America First” vision. Failure to seize this opportunity, however, would likely lead to a forced and less dignified exit in the future, undermining American interests in both the short and long term.
