Syria's Bashar al-Assad recently fled to exile.
His Iranian supporting regime has been overthrown in Syria.
This is without a doubt a good thing for the U.S., and its ally Israel.
Syria allowed the Iranian regime to create a land bridge from Tehran to Lebanon to flow troops, weapons and equipment to the entire Shia Islamist (i.e., radical Muslim) axis to threaten the entire Mideast.
This is no longer possible.
And Iran has been weakened, as a result.
Additionally, Russia has also suffered a great blow.
But now, the question is, should the U.S. completely remove itself from the chaos that was once Syria?
The problem with doing that is the U.S. has some vital interests in Syria.
The U.S. has a primary interest in ensuring its own physical security and that of its citizenry from foreign attack.
The strongest force in Syria is the jihadist organization, HTS (Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham), which an outgrowth of both al-Qaida and the Islamic State.
Both terror groups have targeted Americans in the past, with thousands of casualties.
Despite the soothing propaganda now coming from HTS, it seems very likely that it would also be a danger to Americans.
HTS works in tandem with another rebel group, the SNA (Syrian National Army) — and with the Turks.
These are both Sunni Islamist forces currently conducting a genocide against the Syrian Kurds. It would be dangerous for any of these Islamists to gain control over the almost 10,000 Islamic State terrorists that the Kurdish-led rebels, the SDF, currently have imprisoned (at the behest of the U.S.).
Things could become even more dangerous if the Sunni Islamist forces gain access to any of Assad’s chemical weapons.
The U.S. has a vital interest in protecting its own economic well-being by keeping the oil and natural gas lanes in the Mideast flowing.
The SDF (Syrian Democratic Force) controls a significant amount of oil and natural gas.
The U.S., as President-elect Trump has stated, does have an interest in making sure these oil reserves are used for the benefit of the U.S., and for nations globally.
Additionally, the Sunni Islamist groups would be a threat to the stability of more significant oil producing states in the region, including Saudi Arabia, the UAE., and Kuwait.
The U.S. also has an interest in bolstering the interests and security of its allies — and alternatively, in punishing its opponents to incentivize pro-U.S. policies.
Allowing Sunni Islamist groups to gain full control of Syria would certainly destabilize Jordan. The Sunni Islamists would also threaten Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other U.S. allies.
The SDF is also an ally of the U.S., which worked with the U.S. to destroy both al-Qaida and the Islamic State and has protected religious and ethnic minorities.
Since the Vietnam War, the U.S. has often been depicted as a disloyal ally; the U.S. should avoid contributing to this perception, as it makes it harder for the U.S. to gain new partners.
The U.S. has an interest in balancing power in every region to deter future wars and help stabilize the world. Letting HTS and its allies' control all of Syria would just be exchanging an emboldened Iranian-led Shia Islamist axis for an emboldened Turkish-led Sunni Islamist axis in the Mideast.
This is unlikely to lead to any stability in the region.
The U.S. has an interest in maximizing human rights and democratic values globally.
HTS' leader has explicitly said his goal was to see Syria ruled under Islamic (Sharia) law and made clear that there was no room for the country’s Alawite, Shiite, Druze and Christian minorities.
Once again, he may claim to no longer be in favor of this; however, the U.S. would be foolish to assume that these statements are anything but taqiyyah.
When there are national interests involved, a nation that is a "strong horse" remains involved in a foreign situation.
The best strategy for the U.S. is for it to continue to work with allies to empower the Syrian minorities as a counterweight to Sunni Islamists.
The U.S. just wants them to maintain control over their territories and balance off the Sunni Islamist axis.
These minorities are not going to fall prey to Islamists. There is, however, no requirement that the U.S. engage in nation building, or attempt to keep Syria united (or to divide it).
The U.S. should continue to support the SDF, with weapons and material. The U.S. has about 2000 troops in the region; there is no reason to remove them now (although there is no reason to boost the number, either).
The U.S. would be wise to let the Turks know that they should stand down from threatening the SDF and the American troops.
Turkey is vulnerable to economic threats, as President-elect Trump has shown.
Also, the U.S. can reach out to the Druze who predominate in the south, and who have made overtures to the Israelis.
The U.S. also might want to reach out to the Alawites on the coast (if they leave the Shia Islamist axis).
And also to the Christians and the Yazidis.
If things change, the U.S. can always change its strategy.
But not participating in Syria’s "Game of Thrones" struggle is dangerous and can lead to great harm to the U.S. and its interests.
History has shown, even when America is not interested in the Mideast, it's unceasingly interested in us.
Adam Turner is a national-security professional with two decades of experience who works for the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA). Previosly he's worked for the Trump adminstration, Sens. Arlen Specter and Rick Santorum. Mr. Turner has also published over 140 columns, in publications such as National Review, American Thinker, The Federalist, The Hill, The Jerusalem Post, The Times of Israel, and Newsmax, among others. Read more from Adam Turner --- Here.
© 2025 Newsmax. All rights reserved.