After 53 years, the Assad family’s brutal rule over Syria ended this month in a week-long final offensive that saw rebel groups take Damascus without the protracted engagement that many had feared. Bashar al-Assad fled to Russia where he was granted political asylum by fellow autocrat, Vladimir Putin. For the time being, the rebel victory appears to have ended the decade-long civil war in Syria that killed tens of thousands and displaced millions. But a lasting peace will require an accepted transition between government and security forces. That will be a tricky tightrope to walk, given the competing factions and interests on the ground. The situation is still unfolding, and it’s unclear how it will impact the U.S. mission in Syria.
U.S. troops are still deployed in the Middle East and elsewhere with a mission to prevent a resurgence of the Islamic State group, or ISIS. The vast majority of U.S. troops assigned to that mission are stationed in Iraq and Syria where they are partnering with local forces. U.S. special operations forces have also conducted unilateral direct action missions targeting senior ISIS or al-Qaida militants in the region. That mission is likely to continue if not intensify to prevent ISIS from taking advantage of the transition in Syria. There is a vital U.S. national security interest in ensuring that transnational terrorist groups do not regain a foothold or create a failed state. These outcomes could lead to a large deployment of U.S. forces.
But even the troops already on the ground in Syria have U.S. troops have come under frequent fire in Iraq, Jordan, Syria, and the Red Sea. Several U.S. troops were killed and dozens have been wounded. U.S. troops have faced several hundred attacks over the past year, largely by Iranian-backed militants, in retaliation for U.S. support of Israel’s war against the terrorist group Hamas in Gaza.
U.S. troops also continue to find themselves stuck between groups with competing interests, all of whom are likely to seek advantages in the regime’s fall. For a decade, U.S. troops in northeastern Syria have partnered with the U.S.-backed Kurdish rebels known as the Syrian Democratic Force (SDF), which NATO ally Turkey considers to be a terrorist group. The U.S. presence there has even led to NATO-on-NATO proxy violence between the U.S. allies and Turkish-backed rebel groups, after a disastrous U.S. attempt to stand up an opposition force, the Free Syrian Army, ended in failure.
Those conflicting interests flared as the U.S. and Turkey sought to protect religious and ethnic minorities from the Assad regime while Turkish-backed Syrian National Army (SNA) rebels continued attempts to depose Assad and attacked the SDF. That put the U.S., Turkey, and their rebel forces in conflict with the Assad regime, the Russian Army, and mercenaries from Russia’s Wagner Group. Those fighters were sent to Syria to prop up Assad and the U.S. once fought a battle against Wagner in Syria. U.S. troops have also faced Shia militias from Iraq operating under the banner of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF).
The only thing all of these groups agree on is that ISIS and al-Qaida are a common threat and enemy.
Now that the fighting against the Assad regime has ended, there are a number of issues facing the United States and the international community. President Joe Biden and President-elect Donald Trump seem to agree that U.S. forces should not actively intervene and, to date, they have not. U.S. troops have been limited to counterterrorism operations targeting ISIS, largely through aerial operations. On Dec. 8, for example, Air Force warplanes struck 75 ISIS targets in Syria, with a Pentagon spokesperson saying, “We saw the opportunity and we took it.”
Since the fall of the regime, Israel has also bombed a number of recently abandoned Syrian bases and facilities to prevent Islamic militants from acquiring strategic weapons.
Another major concern is that one of the main rebel groups, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), has been a designated foreign terrorist organization by the U.S. government since 2018. The group began as an al-Qaida affiliate in Syria that was created at the behest of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the founder of ISIS, who was later killed by U.S. special operations forces in 2019. The leader of HTS, Abu Mohammed al-Golani, publicly claimed in 2016 that he had cut ties with al-Qaida. But the Justice Department is still offering a $10 million reward for al-Golani, who has allegedly overseen many terrorist attacks in Syria.
State Department spokesman Matthew Miller told reporters last week that HTS has been “saying the right things” about what Syria should look like post-Assad, such as calling for his fighters to respect the rights of ethnic and religious minorities.
“Ultimately, we’re going to judge them by their actions. And our policy response will be determined by the actions they take,” Miller said.
It remains unclear what steps HTS and other rebel groups will take next. Libya descended into civil war and became a hotspot for al-Qaida after NATO ousted former dictator Moammar Gadhafi in 2011. The country remains a failed state. Likewise, Afghan mujahideen fighters fought with each other after overthrowing the country’s last communist leaders. The civil war devastated Afghanistan and ultimately led to the rise of the Taliban in 1996. Syria is diverse from an ethnic and religious standpoint. Bashar al Assad hails from a religious minority, Alawite Shia, who make up just 12% of the population. He and his family have oppressed and brutalized the remaining 90% majority of ethnic Kurds, Assyrians, Christians, Sunni Muslims, and Druze communities for decades. These groups have now come together in the wake of Assad’s fall to begin the process of governing a free Syria but the jury is still out on if and how they can all co-exist peacefully, especially given the number of well-armed and combat-hardened fighters — rebels and standing military — left after a decade of war. A similar situation in Iraq led to years of sectarian violence and bloodshed.
But unlike Iraq, free and fair elections in Syria will not lead to a Shia-led government due to the demographics described above. This could spell the end of the famed “Shia Crescent” and Iran’s control of Syria’s foreign and security policy from Tehran through Baghdad to Damascus and Southern Lebanon. It also could mean an end to the land routes used to rearm Hezbollah. The rebel groups are unlikely to allow Iran to rearm Hezbollah, which is a boon for Israel’s security, too. The long-term implications are unknown which is why Israel has been bombing weapons depots and strategic sites.
The biggest risk for the United States and the international community is the collapse of a cohesive transition government and the ignition of an ethnic and religious sectarian war. This would be disastrous as a failed Syrian state could become a safe haven for transnational terrorist groups to operate. To prevent a failed state and to prevent the need for a ground intervention, the United States and the international community need to prevent escalations between the different rebel groups and encourage unity in victory. They must also focus on denying terror groups access to strategic weapons and systems left by the regime, protect ethnic and religious minorities, and encourage and enable democratic institutions and free elections in Syria.