With the approach of the U.S. presidential elections on November 5, attention is turning to upcoming U.S. policies in various areas, especially following the events of October 7, which have triggered significant political and regional changes. The recent escalation of Israeli military actions in Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen, along with ongoing exchanges of strikes with Iran, are pivotal developments.
These political transformations suggest that new priorities will be on the agenda for the incoming U.S. administration, particularly regarding the ongoing conflict in Lebanon and the continuation of Israeli strikes on neighboring countries. This situation undoubtedly impacts Syria, where several issues are tied to direct U.S. intervention, including the military presence on the ground and the decision to impose an economic blockade.
War in the region
Political variables suggest that, despite U.S. support for Israel, the current U.S. stance is not conducive to maintaining the ongoing state of war and tension in the region. This shift has been reflected in U.S. reports and statements, as well as in efforts to mediate ceasefires prior to the assassination of the former Secretary-General of Hezbollah.
Dr. Munther Suleiman, a researcher in U.S. policies based in Washington, argues that there will be little difference in the foreign policies of Republican candidate Donald Trump and Democratic candidate Kamala Harris regarding support for military action, aside from their media portrayals. Suleiman believes Harris has expressed more sympathy for civilians in Palestine and Lebanon as part of her election campaign, but her actual stance is closely aligned with that of current President Joe Biden. In contrast, Trump’s position is more straightforward in its support for Israel, particularly through arms deals and encouragement of military operations beyond its borders.
In an interview with Athr Press, Dr. Suleiman stated that if Trump returns to the presidency, he will likely continue to provide political cover for Netanyahu’s actions, offer weapons and economic aid to Israel, and support the so-called “Deal of the Century.” This would likely include a green light for further territorial annexations in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as Trump views Israel’s geographic footprint as limited.
The SDF and the American Gamble
Sarkis Kassarjian, a writer and researcher in Turkish affairs, argues that U.S. foreign policy is not solely determined by the personality of the president but is shaped by three key institutions: Congress, the Pentagon, and the White House. Together, these entities play a crucial role in shaping U.S. policy towards Syria.
In a recent interview with Athr Press, Kassarjian recounted a conversation with Mazloum Abdi, the commander-in-chief of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). Abdi emphasized that the SDF maintains strong ties within the U.S. administration and expressed confidence that the U.S. would not abandon them. Kassarjian noted that despite the complexities surrounding U.S. positions on the Kurds, there is a clear American interest in maintaining a presence in Syria, which hinges on the support of the SDF.
As a result, the SDF is pleased with the presence of U.S. forces, which bolster their influence and provide protection against external threats, particularly the potential for a Turkish invasion, which Ankara has previously threatened, as well as attacks from Syrian tribes united against the U.S.-backed militia.
Withdrawal from Syria
The U.S. withdrawal from Syria represents a significant shift in American policy in the region. Former President Trump had previously called for a withdrawal before the end of his term, but this push was stalled when Biden took office.
Dr. Munther Suleiman, based in Washington, suggests that while Trump expressed a desire to withdraw and initiated plans for it, his decision-making was often inconsistent, influenced by his political mood. He aimed to maintain control over Syrian oil resources, but the increasing frequency of attacks on U.S. bases in both Syria and Iraq, coupled with the potential for rising casualties, could alter the calculus around withdrawal.
In contrast, political researcher Samer Karaki, based in Beirut, argues that one of the primary reasons for the U.S. presence in both Syria and Iraq is the lack of compelling reasons for departure, particularly given the economic benefits derived from oil. He points out that popular resistance against U.S. forces has been weak and largely ineffective.
Karaki also noted in his interview with Athr Press that there is little desire from Russia to confront U.S. forces east of the Euphrates. Moscow’s priorities appear to focus on improving relations between Syria and Turkey, which shapes its foreign policy regarding the SDF.
This article was translated and edited by The Syrian Observer. The Syrian Observer has not verified the content of this story. Responsibility for the information and views set out in this article lies entirely with the author.
