For Syrians, the name Donald Trump often recalls two pivotal moments during his presidency from 2016 to 2020. These include a missile strike on Shayrat Airport in Homs in 2017 and an assault on the Scientific Research Center in Barzeh, Damascus, in 2018—both directed at Syrian government forces.
As Trump now returns to the White House, Syria remains trapped in a war that continues to devastate the economy, deepen societal wounds, and heighten suffering through widespread displacement and relentless arrests. Human rights organizations regularly document these ongoing abuses.
Upon his recent victory, Trump addressed his supporters in Florida, proclaiming, “America will enter a golden age; we have achieved a victory that will make America great again.” He pledged to end what he described as “chaos in the Middle East.”
While U.S. policy typically holds steady regardless of presidential transitions, the way policies are enacted varies with each administration. Trump’s Middle East approach, often described as notably stringent, included implementing the “Caesar Act,” imposing heavy sanctions on Syria. In contrast, observers claim that President Joe Biden has not prioritized these sanctions.
“U.S. foreign policy is directed by deeply entrenched institutions rather than any single president or party,” explains political analyst Nada al-Rakad, head of the Hasaka National Charter. She describes foreign policy as shaped by the interests of powerful corporations and economic pressures.
Israel’s interests
Rakad also suggests that U.S. policy in Syria is influenced by Israel’s regional interests. “America consistently views Israel’s neighbouring countries through an Israeli lens,” she tells 963+. This shared U.S.-Israeli stance on countering Iranian influence is expected to continue impacting Washington’s approach to Syria.
Rakad adds that lifting U.S. sanctions on Syria depends on achieving a political solution aligned with UN Resolution 2254. “Such a solution is possible only if it aligns with the regional and U.S. interests, especially Israel’s,” she states. “If normalization occurs, it might involve parts of the current regime working with opposition elements to create a new structure that oversees security, stability, and counter-terrorism efforts.”
Syrians’ views on Trump are mixed. Ahmed, displaced in Idlib, hopes that Trump might address the Syrian issue more seriously than past leaders, recalling the two strikes he ordered in response to government actions against civilians and his strict stance on sanctions. Samer Salloum, a journalist in Suwayda, echoes this view, preferring Trump over Harris, whom he associates with Biden’s perceived indifference toward Syria.
Asmaa al-Sayed, however, feels that U.S. presidents invariably prioritize Israel’s interests over the well-being of Middle Eastern populations, anticipating no change in Syrian suffering. Haitham al-Khatib, an engineering student in Homs, believes Trump’s stance against Iran might temporarily align with Syrian interests, though he doubts any genuine effort will be made to improve Syrians’ lives. “The U.S. approach in the Middle East is clear: Israel first,” he notes.
In 2017, Trump publicly denounced Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, particularly after reports of a chemical attack on Douma, Eastern Ghouta. He warned that Assad would “pay a heavy price” for his alleged use of chemical weapons, famously stating, “Assad the animal will become a thing of history,” and criticizing then-President Barack Obama for not enforcing “red lines” drawn earlier.
Since February 2012, U.S. diplomatic relations with Syria have been severed. The U.S. closed its embassy in Damascus and evacuated its personnel, condemning the government’s “repression against peaceful protesters.”
Currently, about 900 U.S. soldiers remain in Syria as part of the international coalition fighting ISIS, working in partnership with the Syrian Democratic Forces (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.
