Since fighting escalated at the start of the year in Aleppo’s Ashrafieh and Sheikh Maqsoud neighborhoods, before shifting east of the Euphrates, Washington’s posture has taken on a more direct and visible character. This shift has been reflected in the public statements of U.S. envoy Thomas Barrack, who voiced support for the Syrian government’s efforts to reestablish centralized authority in a way that protects local communities and enables the orderly, peaceful integration of the Syrian Democratic Forces.
What drew even greater attention were the reported details of the January meetings in Erbil and Barrack’s pointed criticism of SDF commander Mazloum Abdi. According to these accounts, the envoy accused Abdi of attempting to draw Israel into the conflict in the Jazira region, thereby risking a confrontation between two of Washington’s principal allies, Turkey and Israel.
Despite repeated appeals by certain SDF political and military figures to Israel, available indicators point to a firm American position aimed at keeping Israel outside the unfolding events in eastern Syria. Ankara, meanwhile, has monitored developments with notable restraint, avoiding direct military intervention or overt support for Damascus. This posture raises broader questions about how Washington is managing the delicate balance of regional interests on the Syrian stage.
An Emerging American Vision
Dr. Samer al-Safadi, a consultant with the Syrian American Alliance for Peace and Prosperity (SAAPP), argues that U.S. strategy has become clearer in recent weeks. It centers on supporting a political transition that preserves Syria’s unity and protects minorities, while reinforcing regional stability by discouraging external intervention and encouraging the revival of diplomatic ties among states in the region.
The prevailing indicators suggest a determined American effort to prevent Israel from becoming directly entangled in developments east of the Euphrates.
Al-Safadi notes that U.S. policy under President Donald Trump seeks to recalibrate regional power balances while safeguarding the interests of key allies, foremost among them Turkey and Israel. This approach avoids imposing externally engineered formulas and instead emphasizes preventing the resurgence of ISIS, the expansion of Hezbollah, or renewed Iranian penetration, all while preparing the ground for a gradual—potentially complete—withdrawal of American forces from Syria.
Writer and journalist Mustafa al-Miqdad adds that although Washington’s previous relationship with the SDF was deep and operationally significant, it no longer aligns with the current American orientation. That orientation privileges engagement with the state as the legitimate framework for managing interests rather than with sub-state actors. This shift was underscored by an official American declaration marking the end of the SDF’s designated counterterrorism role. At the same time, Washington has not abandoned the group; instead, it has positioned itself as the principal sponsor of its integration into Syria’s security and military institutions.
Managing the Turkish–Israeli Equation
Although the American envoy informed SDF leaders that Israel would not intervene on their behalf, al-Safadi cautions that this does not imply the full exclusion of Turkey and Israel from the Syrian arena. Both actors continue to exert influence, though within a framework of indirect coordination mediated by Washington and designed to contain tensions and avert regional escalation.
He adds that the current American role is anchored in political and diplomatic mediation, consistent with the broader posture of the Trump administration, which favors regional solutions and reduced direct military entanglement. Within this framework, the Syrian government is treated as a partner in managing stability, a relationship that parallels Washington’s engagement with Ankara and Tel Aviv.
Al-Miqdad, meanwhile, points to Washington’s success in curbing Israeli strikes on Syria and in preventing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from intervening in the SDF file. The American posture toward Ankara, however, differs in tone and substance, given that the SDF issue intersects directly with Turkish national security. Washington has therefore given Turkish concerns particular weight, recognizing that events are unfolding along Turkey’s southern border. This fits within a broader American vision of establishing a stable zone that could serve as a new economic gateway for regional interests.
A Potential Southern Scenario
With the SDF file nearing resolution, attention is shifting southward to Suweida province, now the last significant area outside full state control. The situation there is complicated by Israeli pressure on Damascus.
Al-Safadi suggests that a partially analogous formula may emerge in Suwayda under American auspices. Such a model would reflect the diplomatic mediation strategy characteristic of President Trump’s second term: containing escalation, reinforcing stability, and allowing for a limited, calibrated role for regional allies, similar in structure to the arrangements pursued in northeastern Syria. Yet Suwayda presents a more intricate challenge due to its ethnic composition and its security linkages to the Golan. The province’s future, he notes, is closely tied to the prospect of a U.S.-brokered and U.S.-monitored security agreement with Israel.
Al-Miqdad, for his part, indicates that discussions are underway regarding potential arrangements in Suwayda. These would involve Damascus assuming responsibility for security and military administration while allowing space for administrative decentralization in civil affairs within a national framework. The objective would be to prevent the province from sliding into a broader military confrontation.
Across these developments, Washington’s approach reveals a consistent thread: recalibration rather than rupture, mediation rather than confrontation, and the careful management of overlapping alliances in a region where miscalculation can reverberate far beyond its borders.
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.
