The Case for U.S. Withdrawal from Syria

With the fall of the Assad regime, the United States (U.S.) no longer has a compelling reason to maintain its presence in Syria. The original strategic rationale for involvement—combating ISIS and containing rivals like Russia and Iran—has become outdated. The new Syrian government can address the remaining security threats, including ISIS, while advancing stability in the region. Maintaining a U.S. military presence not only drains resources and distracts from more pressing global challenges but also strains relations with NATO ally Türkiye and undermines efforts to unify Syria under a legitimate and stable government.

By withdrawing, the U.S. can avoid deeper entanglement in a conflict that no longer serves its strategic interests and can pave the way for regional actors to take the lead in ensuring stability. This transition aligns with President Donald Trump’s “America First” agenda, presenting a timely opportunity to end unnecessary foreign engagements and refocus national priorities on critical domestic and international issues.

Damascus and Ankara leading the fight against ISIS
The U.S. intervention in Syria was initially justified by the fight against ISIS. While the group remains a potential threat, its capabilities have been substantially degraded over the years. Recent attacks, although alarming, are only part of the predictable aftermath of the regime’s collapse. More importantly, the new Syrian government has demonstrated a strong commitment to counterterrorism in its diplomatic engagements with regional and international actors. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the rebel group behind the fall of the Assad regime, has also proved its capability to take effective action against jihadist groups in Idlib. The anti-Al Qaeda campaign by HTS is a case in point. There is no love lost between HTS and Al Qaeda, with the former having successfully combated Al Qaeda affiliates like Hurras al-Din in Idlib in the past. HTS’s past operations against jihadist groups underscore its commitment to eradicate terrorism, showing that it is well-placed to manage the ISIS threat without the need for a continued U.S. military presence. 

Furthermore, it is critical for the new Damascus administration to demonstrate effective counterterrorism efforts as a cornerstone of both its domestic and international legitimacy. Addressing the ISIS threat is not just a security imperative but also a way to rebuild trust with a war-weary population and signal stability to foreign governments. Successfully curbing terrorism would affirm the administration’s control over the state and its ability to uphold law and order while simultaneously enhancing its credibility in the eyes of the international community. This would pave the way for broader diplomatic recognition and increased opportunities for economic and political partnerships.

Türkiye stands ready to assist in combating ISIS if necessary. As a NATO member state, Türkiye has both the capacity and willingness to address this challenge, as demonstrated by its track record of counterterrorism operations against ISIS and PKK-affiliated groups in Syria. Türkiye has a vested interest in maintaining stability in its southern neighbour, making it a logical partner in the fight against ISIS. Ankara has suffered significantly from the fallout of the Syrian crisis and is now prepared to assist Damascus in its counterterrorism efforts, including pursuing ISIS remnants in the Syrian desert and helping secure ISIS camps and prisons in northeast Syria. This ensures that, in the event of a U.S. withdrawal, the risk of a resurgence in terrorism is minimised, and the region is not left in a security vacuum. Unlike the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan, the U.S. can depart Syria with confidence, knowing that with the help of Türkiye, the new Syrian government can continue anti-ISIS operations and maintain stability in Syria.

Strategic considerations
The presence of U.S. forces in Syria was partly justified by the need to counter Russia and Iran’s influence in the region. However, with the collapse of the Assad regime, these actors have effectively been sidelined. Russia, which supported the regime for so long, has seen its strategic foothold in Syria crumble, as its military presence failed to preserve the Assad regime against the HTS offensive. Similarly, Iran’s influence, bolstered by efforts to expand its regional footprint through proxy groups, has been nearly eradicated due to the regime’s downfall and the Israeli operations in the region. Moreover, the new Syrian government has taken a clear stance against Tehran’s interference in Syrian affairs and is unlikely to allow Russia to re-establish its former dominant position in the country. As a result, the U.S. presence in Syria is no longer necessary to counterbalance the influence of these rivals, as their ability to project power in the region has been substantially diminished.

Israel’s security, a major consideration for U.S. policymakers, has also improved as a result of Iran’s removal from Syria. With Tehran no longer capable of using Syria as a base to attack Israel, the risk of regional escalation has decreased significantly. Syrian territory can no longer be used as a transit route to transfer weapons to Lebanon, undermining Hezbollah’s supply lines and reducing its ability to pose a threat to Israel. Additionally, recent ceasefires with Hezbollah and Hamas have further stabilised Israel’s security landscape. These developments render the U.S. military presence in Syria unnecessary to ensure Israel’s safety, allowing the U.S. to withdraw without jeopardising its ally’s security.

Trump’s emphasis on prioritising U.S. national interests provides a framework for reevaluating the necessity of military deployments abroad. Just as the U.S. withdrew from Afghanistan and is seeking to reduce its role in Iraq within the context of its policy of retrenchment, it should also exit Syria to focus on more pressing national security interests, such as competition with China. The resources currently allocated to Syria could be better used to strengthen U.S. influence in the Indo-Pacific, making the long-desired “pivot to Asia” a more achievable and strategic priority. 

Rethinking U.S. support for the YPG
The U.S. currently has about 2,000 troops stationed in Syria, tasked with conducting anti-ISIS operations. This military presence is a continuation of the U.S. partnership with the YPG, an armed group operating in northeast Syria, which began under the Obama administration as part of the strategy to combat ISIS. However, this partnership has always been controversial, as the YPG is the Syrian offshoot of the PKK, a terrorist organisation designated as such by both the U.S. and Türkiye. Despite the problematic nature of the PKK-YPG connection, successive American administrations continued to support these groups in northeast Syria. With the collapse of the Assad regime, however, the Trump administration has an opportunity to shift its policy, disengage from supporting a PKK-affiliated group, and begin cooperating with the legitimate government in Damascus.

The YPG’s control in Syria is no less problematic. As an offshoot of the PKK, the group capitalised on the power vacuum created by the Syrian civil war to establish both a military and political presence in the country. This has led to tensions with local Arab communities, many of whom view the YPG as an occupying force and have consistently called for its withdrawal. The YPG’s dominance in northeastern Syria does not reflect the region’s demographic makeup, with Kurds constituting only about 8% of Syria’s population. Moreover, the YPG has ruled the area with a heavy hand, suppressing dissent not only among Arabs but also among Kurds affiliated with rival political parties. Continued U.S. support for the YPG risks exacerbating ethnic divisions, potentially leading to further instability in the region.

In addition, the Syrian government’s goal of reunification directly clashes with the YPG’s control over key territories and resources in the northeast, including oil and gas, water, and agricultural land. These resources are crucial for Syria’s recovery and future stability, making the YPG’s control particularly controversial. Damascus seeks to dissolve armed factions, especially the YPG, due to its control of vast territories and valuable resources in the northeast. However, the U.S. military presence in the region, which continues to support the YPG, stands in the way of Syria’s unification, preventing Damascus from fully reasserting control over the northeast and leaving the situation unresolved, with the potential for further escalation at any moment.

Relations with Türkiye
One of the most significant benefits of withdrawing from Syria would be the improvement of U.S.-Türkiye relations. Türkiye views the YPG as a direct threat to its national security due to its PKK affiliation and has consistently opposed the U.S. partnership with the group. The YPG’s continued presence in northeastern Syria has been a major source of friction between Washington and Ankara. The U.S. had previously assured Türkiye that this partnership was “temporary, transactional, and tactical,” designed as a limited engagement in the context of the fight against ISIS. With ISIS significantly weakened and a new government now in place in Syria, the rationale for continued U.S. support for the YPG has diminished. It is time for Washington to honour its commitment to Türkiye and cease this support.

Türkiye has now emerged as the most important power shaping Syria’s future. With its military presence on the ground, diplomatic leverage, and deep involvement in refugee and border security issues, Türkiye plays a pivotal role in ensuring regional stability. Good relations with Ankara would enable better coordination on Syria’s reconstruction, the safe return of refugees, and the stabilisation of the post-conflict environment. Close cooperation with Türkiye could also prevent the resurgence of extremist groups and help preserve Syria’s territorial integrity. As a key NATO ally, strengthening ties with Türkiye would serve U.S. strategic interests far better than maintaining an alliance with a non-state actor that threatens both Syria’s unity and Türkiye’s security. However, good relations with Türkiye depend on the U.S. ceasing its support for the YPG. Ending this alliance would address Türkiye’s security concerns, pave the way for a more stable and cooperative approach to shaping Syria’s future, and reinforce the unity of the NATO alliance.

Conclusion
The time has come for the U.S. to leave Syria. The original justifications for its presence—defeating ISIS and countering adversaries like Russia and Iran—are no longer relevant. A new Syrian government is particularly capable of addressing lingering security issues, especially the threat posed by ISIS. Withdrawing would allow the U.S. to refocus on strategic priorities such as China, repair relations with Türkiye, and contribute to a more stable and inclusive Syria. Prolonging the U.S. presence in Syria serves no strategic purpose and risks further entanglement in a conflict that no longer aligns with American national interests. 

Trump’s stance on Syria is clear: “The U.S. should have nothing to do with it. This is not our fight. Let it play out. Do not get involved!” During his first term, he made two attempts to withdraw U.S. forces from Syria but faced significant pushback from the Pentagon and Congress. With Republicans now controlling both houses, Trump holds a stronger political position and should act on his earlier promises to end U.S. involvement in Syria, closing this chapter of American foreign policy.