US Concerns Mount Over Potential Power Vacuum Following Assad’s Downfall

The White House was surprised by the rapid and significant collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s “historic” rule. President Biden, however, also claimed some responsibility. In his statement, he stated that this remarkable change in Syria’s leadership stemmed from a US strategy that had significantly diminished Russia’s and Iran’s influence in the region, thereby contributing to Assad’s fall. Washington had not anticipated that its military aid to Israel following the Hamas attacks last October and to Ukraine since Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022 would lead to the end of nearly 50 years of Assad governance in Syria. This outcome has materialized, and the US now confronts the consequences, which Biden described as a “historic opportunity” yet also a period of “risk and uncertainty.” The US government is attempting to determine the subsequent developments, specifically regarding who will govern Syria. On Sunday morning, the president convened with his national security team at the White House. The US administration will not lament the conclusion of Assad’s rule, the weakening of Iran, or Russia’s diminished standing in Syria. Instead, its concern centers on a potential power vacuum. This vacuum, previously characterized by an undesirable but somewhat stable balance of forces, could be occupied by an outcome Washington finds even less desirable: an seizure of power by Islamist insurgents, some of whom are designated as terrorists by the US. Such groups might not represent the broader Syrian populace and could potentially ignite more disorder and new dangers for the region. While Damascus celebrates Assad’s collapse with gunfire, the majority of Syrians are unlikely to share America’s apprehension. The US will momentarily acknowledge the overthrow of a harsh dictator, but its deeper concern will be focused on who or what will succeed him. The Pentagon has already affirmed that American forces will remain in eastern Syria, where a limited contingent is officially deployed to combat the Islamic State group. Daniel Shapiro, Deputy US Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East, urged all involved parties to safeguard civilians, especially minority groups, and to uphold international standards. He stated, “We are aware that the chaotic and dynamic circumstances on the ground in Syria could give Isis space to find the ability to become active, to plan external operations, and we’re determined to work with those partners to continue to degrade their capabilities.” Additionally, US troops provide training and equipment to what Washington considers moderate Arab and Kurdish forces located east of the Euphrates River and at the al-Tanf military base, near the borders with Iraq and Jordan. The stance Damascus will adopt regarding the US presence in Syria remains unknown, but it appears probable that Washington will advocate for a negotiated stabilization of the country, relying significantly on its preferred factions. Previously during Syria’s civil war, President Obama authorized limited support for groups the US identified as moderate rebels in other parts of the nation. This support was later discontinued when extremist groups gained control on the battlefield and Russia intervened in the conflict to support Assad. Subsequently, Washington had supported a United Nations-led initiative for a negotiated resolution between Assad and opposition factions. This is expected to evolve into US advocacy for a mediated resolution involving the rebels and the remaining elements of Assad’s government. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the group that spearheaded the two-week offensive on Damascus, has frequently indicated a rebranding, disavowing violent retribution and severing its previous ties to al-Qaeda. Washington will harbor significant distrust towards HTS, which it has classified as a foreign terrorist organization. However, some regional figures in close communication with US officials view this perspective as overly simplistic, even cynical. They encourage Washington to adopt a transitional process in Damascus that acknowledges the full spectrum of Syrian opposition. Mouaz Moustafa of the Washington-based Syrian Emergency Task Force, which collaborates with the US military and allied forces in Syria, characterized the current developments as an “indescribable good” that Americans should not attribute solely to one faction’s actions. He informed the BBC, “There is an operations room that has multiple factions of different political stripes – some are secular, some are conservative – but they agree on one thing. They are going to liberate Syria from al-Qaeda, Isis, Iran, Russia, and they will allow people to have their country back.” President Biden, in his statement, remarked that some Syrian groups were “saying the right things now” but emphasized that he would evaluate them based on their deeds. Concurrently, President-elect Trump has commented on Syria via posts, labeling it a “mess” from which the US should disengage. He declared, “THIS IS NOT OUR FIGHT.” His remarks attributed blame to Obama and suggested Russia should now withdraw from Syria, seemingly citing its “weakened state” as justification for Moscow and Kyiv to pursue a negotiated conclusion to the conflict in Ukraine. Trump stated, “I know Vladimir well. This is his time to act.” In 2019, during his presidency, Trump notably announced a sudden withdrawal of US troops from Syria. His administration officials progressively reversed this decision, concerned about yielding influence to Russia and a potential resurgence of the Islamic State group. Trump might be considering a return to his prior stance.