US Airstrikes On ISIS Targets In Syria After Al-Assad’s Fall. America’s On-Off Involvement In The Syrian Tragedy, A Complex Chessboard Where Everyone Wins Except the Syrian People!

The United States has launched a series of airstrikes on ISIS targets in Syria following the unexpected collapse of President Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

According to the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), over 75 targets were hit, including ISIS leaders, operatives, and training camps. These operations, involving advanced warplanes like the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress and McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle, were conducted to prevent the extremist group from capitalizing on Syria’s volatile situation. Initial damage assessments showed no civilian casualties.

“There should be no doubt—we will not allow ISIS to reconstitute and exploit the current instability in Syria,” stated CENTCOM Commander General Michael Erik Kurilla. He also warned that any groups aligning with ISIS would face severe consequences.

A Moment of Danger and Opportunity

Outgoing U.S. President Joe Biden called Assad’s fall a pivotal moment for Syria, describing it as both a significant risk and an opportunity for a better future. In a White House address, Biden noted that Assad’s regime had crumbled due to declining support from key allies, including Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah.

“For years, Iran, Hezbollah, and Russia propped up Assad. But their support has now evaporated, as all three are far weaker today than when I took office,” Biden asserted, suggesting U.S. policies had indirectly facilitated the regime’s downfall.

However, Biden acknowledged the challenges ahead, pledging U.S. support to help Syrians navigate the post-Assad transition.

Trump’s Non-Interventionist Stance

Incoming President Donald Trump expressed a starkly different approach, indicating his administration’s intent to avoid entanglement in Syria. Writing on Truth Social, Trump emphasized his longstanding non-interventionist views.

“Syria is a mess, but it is not our problem,” he wrote. “THE UNITED STATES SHOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. THIS IS NOT OUR FIGHT. LET IT PLAY OUT. DO NOT GET INVOLVED!”

Syria, A Region in Flux

The abrupt end of the Assad dynasty, which had ruled Syria for over five decades, leaves the Middle East at a crossroads. With approximately 900 U.S. troops still stationed in Syria and the nation fragmented among competing factions, the region faces heightened uncertainty.

The situation outlines the complex dynamics of U.S. involvement, swinging between intervention and restraint, with no clear path forward.
When it comes to Syria, the United States has always seemed like a distracted partner at best—occasionally intrigued but never fully committed. Over the decades, its involvement in Syrian affairs has been sporadic, inconsistent, and often half-hearted. Despite occasional flickers of interest, Syria was never a central focus for Washington.

A Flash of Interest in the 1950s

Back in the 1950s, the Cold War’s shadows loomed large, and Syria briefly found itself under the U.S. spotlight. Fearing that Syria was drifting into the Soviet orbit, the U.S. attempted to orchestrate a series of coups in 1956 and 1957.

But these attempts lacked conviction and ended in failure, with the plotters either killed or imprisoned. While Secretary of State John Foster Dulles was wary of meddling in Syria, his CIA-director brother, Allen Dulles, was more gung-ho—reflecting the golden era of covert operations that often stumbled into chaos.

Diplomatic Pivots. The 1970s to the 1980s

In the years that followed, U.S. engagement with Syria waxed and waned.

During the aftermath of the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, Washington engaged in intensive negotiations with Damascus. In the early 1980s, the U.S. tried to weaken Syria’s grip on Lebanon by pushing the ill-fated May 17 Accord between Israel and Lebanon.

Hafez al-Assad, Syria’s leader at the time, wasn’t having it. While there’s no declassified evidence pinning Syria directly for the deadly attacks on the U.S. Embassy and Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, the attacks undoubtedly aligned with Syrian interests, hastening America’s exit from Lebanon.

A Cautious Partnership in the 1990s

Syria’s role shifted in the 1990s as U.S. diplomacy worked to bring it into the fold during the Gulf War.
The Syrian government even joined the anti-Iraq coalition, but relations soured again following a deadly 1996 attack in Saudi Arabia tied to Iranian operatives based in Damascus.

Later attempts, like inviting Syria to the Madrid Peace Conference and Bill Clinton’s overtures for a deal with Israel, ultimately fell flat, as Hafez al-Assad proved a tough negotiator unwilling to budge on issues like Syria’s border with Israel.

Post-9/11 and the Civil War Era

The 2000s brought new friction. Syria’s alleged support for insurgents crossing into Iraq and its sheltering of militants made it a thorn in Washington’s side. Following the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in 2005, the U.S. supported efforts to push Syrian forces out of Lebanon but failed to hold anyone accountable for the crime.

Under the Obama administration, there was a fleeting moment of hope for renewed diplomacy, including discussions about returning the Golan Heights to Syrian control. However, the outbreak of Syria’s civil war in 2011 shattered any chance of a deal. The U.S. response included a massive campaign to arm anti-Assad rebels, but this effort too fizzled out, brought to an end under Donald Trump’s presidency in 2017.

A Legacy of Missed Opportunities

Interestingly, Syria had sought U.S. assistance as far back as 1946 to train its army, but Washington passed on the offer.

Over the decades, competing priorities—from Vietnam to the Cold War to partnerships with Egypt and Israel—meant that Syria never held a strong enough card to warrant sustained U.S. interest. By the time the Soviet Union retreated from the Middle East and Syria experimented briefly with liberalization in the 1990s, it seemed too little, too late to rekindle meaningful ties.

For most Americans, Syria has been a distant and mysterious place. If you could find it on a map, it was likely marked in bold as enemy territory—a dictatorship allied with the Soviets, hostile to Israel, and on the wrong side of the Cold War.

It wasn’t a country Americans visited often, nor was it a major feature in the collective consciousness. The Syrian-American connection, if there was one, came through immigrant descendants or communities like Syrian Jews in Brooklyn, not through any profound interest in the nation itself.

When the Arab Spring erupted in 2011, this general indifference carried over. By then, President Obama had cautiously stepped into Libya’s turmoil, but Syria was another story. While Obama condemned Bashar al-Assad’s brutal crackdown, he made it clear that the U.S. would not directly intervene, leaving the task of rebellion to the Syrian people. Some opposition groups misread this as a signal of support, but Obama’s words were more restrained than revolutionary.

The Dilemma of Intervention

Within Obama’s administration, voices called for military action, but none could convincingly outline how intervention would lead to a democratic, stable Syria aligned with American values.

This indecision led to a half-measure: a program to arm the so-called “moderate opposition.” Yet, as the moderate groups weakened under pressure from jihadist factions, the U.S. faced diminishing returns. By 2015, Russian intervention on Assad’s behalf and the growing radicalization of the rebels further discouraged Washington from deeper involvement.

The ISIS Factor

The rise of ISIS in 2014 refocused U.S. efforts, shifting from opposition to Assad to a campaign against the terror group. Kurdish-led forces became America’s key partners, and a small U.S. military presence was established in eastern Syria. Their mission? Prevent ISIS and other hostile elements, like Iranian forces, from crossing into Syria. Notably, these troops were never tasked with confronting Assad’s regime.

Trump’s Chaotic Approach

When Donald Trump took office, his Syria policy was as inconsistent as his broader foreign policy. He dropped support for armed opposition groups but kept U.S. troops in northeastern Syria, citing interests that ranged from combating ISIS to controlling oil fields.

At one point, Trump ordered a withdrawal, only to reverse course under congressional pressure, particularly from his own Republican allies. His decision to greenlight Turkey’s offensive against Syrian Kurds sparked outrage, while his signing of the Caesar Act—imposing sanctions on entities dealing with Assad’s regime—showed a willingness to maintain economic pressure on Damascus.

Syria. A Complex Chessboard Where Everyone Wins Except the Syrian People

President Biden’s Syria policy mirrors much of his predecessors’ approaches: support for Caesar sanctions continues, albeit with a softer touch to curb overcompliance, and there’s a willingness to allow Egyptian natural gas to transit Syria en route to Lebanon.

Direct dialogue with Assad was off the table, and the U.S. maintains a small troop presence.

For Israel, Syria has become an opportunity rather than a threat. Israeli airstrikes have targeted Iranian assets hundreds of times, restrained only by the need to avoid Russian casualties and preserve a tacit understanding with Moscow.

With Syria’s chemical arsenal destroyed and its military capacities eroded, Damascus posed no direct threat to Israel. Ironically, the civil war’s outcomes have worked in Israel’s favor, converting a potential Iranian land corridor into a buffer zone and leaving Syria incapable of significant retaliation.

The UAE and Saudi Arabia shifted gears from opposition to Assad to pragmatic reengagement.
With Qatar sidelined and Iran stretched thin by its costly involvement, Gulf states reestablished diplomatic ties with Syria, these developments signal an opportunity for Arab capital to counterbalance Iran’s influence.

Turkey consolidated control over parts of northern Syria, effectively turning the region into a buffer zone populated by jihadist factions under its watch. This strategy, while controversial, aligned with Turkey’s aims to curb Kurdish ambitions and exert influence in Syria without destabilizing the Assad regime.

Russia emerged as a major winner, having preserved Assad’s rule, avoided a protracted insurgency akin to Chechnya, and secured long-term economic and military interests in Syria. Moscow’s role as a key power broker even garnered tacit support from Gulf Arab states, solidyfying its position in the Middle East.

But The Price Paid by Syrians…

While the geopolitical players reposition and recalibrate, the Syrian people bear the brunt of the suffering. Crushed by sanctions, crippled infrastructure, and a lack of governance, they face dire living conditions worsened by public health crises and climate change. Yet, these realities rarely influence the strategic calculations of global capitals.

In this intricate geopolitical game, nearly every external player has achieved some measure of success. The glaring exception is the Syrian populace—caught in the crossfire of competing interests and left to endure a legacy of devastation.