What does the US presidential election mean for Syria?

NEW YORK CITY — As American voters head to the polls on Tuesday in a close and bitterly disputed presidential election between current Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump, relatively few will be thinking about Syria.

Foreign policy is rarely the deciding factor in elections in the United States (US). This year, most voters identify the economy, immigration, preserving democracy and abortion as their top concerns. In one poll in September, 81 percent of voters said the economy plays a “very important” role in their decision, while 62 percent—54 percent of Harris supporters and 70 percent of Trump supporters—said the same about foreign policy. 

When it comes to foreign policy, the Russia-Ukraine war and crisis in the Middle East—Israel’s wars in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon, unprecedented tensions with Iran and the fate of hostages held by Hamas—are key concerns. 

The war in Gaza may indeed play a significant role in the outcome of this year’s election. Michigan, a crucial swing state, is home to the largest concentration of Arab-American voters in the country, many of whom are dismayed with the Biden-Harris administration’s handling of what they describe as a genocide, funded and enabled by Washington, that has killed at least 43,824 people. 

But whether or not Americans have Syria in mind as they cast their vote, the outcome of the election—and what it means for US foreign policy—has direct consequences for a country whose more-than-13-year crisis has already been shaped by three presidential administrations, and where the US maintains hundreds of troops on the ground. 

For Syria, a Harris victory likely heralds a continuation of the status quo in US policy under current President Joe Biden: keeping the country a low priority and seeking to manage and contain the crisis, alongside a focus on counterterrorism, humanitarian aid and limiting Tehran’s influence. A second Trump administration is less predictable, and holds possibilities for a more active and volatile approach, as well as disengagement. The wars in Gaza and Lebanon also have direct consequences for Syria, and any future administration will deeply shape their trajectory.

Over the past four years, Syria has ranked low on the foreign policy agenda of the Biden administration, Muhammad Bakr Ghbeis, a board member and former president of Citizens for a Secure and Safe America (C4SSA), a Syrian-American advocacy group, said. “Our estimate of the US policy on Syria is a lack of policy,” he said, with engagement on Syria “minimal.” 

“My assessment is that the current administration is unable to engage meaningfully in the region,” Ghbeis said. Disinterest from Washington, whether in Syria or the Middle East more broadly, has fueled instability, he added. “I think what’s happening in Gaza is an example of how the current administration has been dealing with the Middle East.”

The current administration’s approach can be summed up as “handling, managing, freezing,” Ayman Abdel Nour, director of the Washington-based organization Syrian Christians for Peace, added. 

“Overall, I give Biden an F on Syria policy during the last four years,” Radwan Ziadeh, a senior fellow at the Arab Center Washington DC think tank, echoed. He, too, feels the Biden administration lacks a clear policy investment or strategy when it comes to Syria.

Robert Ford, a senior fellow at the Washington-based Middle East Institute who served as the US Ambassador to Syria from 2011-2014 and as a career diplomat under both Republican and Democratic administrations, said the Biden administration does have a defined Syria policy. “It’s just not a policy its critics like,” he said.

This policy centers on four pillars, he said: counterterrorism, humanitarian aid, sanctions and a stated commitment to a political settlement to the conflict. Together, “they don’t produce a settlement. They sort of produce [the] status quo,” Ford added. “To be fair to the Biden administration, I don’t think the Americans can fix the Syrian problem. I don’t even think the Russians can fix it. It’s an impossible ask.”

The use of sanctions, a central part of the administration’s approach to Syria, has been limited and slow under Biden. The Caesar Act—a sanctions bill passed under Trump—has only been partially implemented and mainly used against drug traffickers.

While the Biden administration holds that its policy opposing normalization remains unchanged, it has reportedly worked to block the passage of the Assad Regime Anti-Normalization Act—which would extend and expand Caesar Act sanctions set to expire at the end of 2024.

Critics argue the Biden administration has de facto enabled a growing trend of normalization with the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad by not actively opposing it. In 2021, Washington Post columnist Josh Rogin reported that an official within the administration told him it would “no longer actively work to stop countries from engaging with Assad, except when the law specifically requires it.” 

“The Biden administration has not been pushing hard for the Caesar Act to be renewed,” Ford noted. “That might be a shift…my sense is not so much that they’ve changed their minds as it’s just not a priority.”

Most observers agree the US approach to Syria under a Harris administration would likely extend the status quo under Biden, pending any seismic shifts on the ground.

Since becoming the Democratic presidential nominee in August, Harris has sought to simultaneously offer a “new generation of leadership” while defending the record of the current administration she is part of.

When asked if there was anything she would have done differently from Biden over the past four years in an October 8 television appearance, Harris responded: “There is not a thing that comes to mind.”

Still, Ghbeis is hopeful that there could be some daylight between Biden and Harris when it comes to Syria. “Whether it’s because of the circumstances of the Gaza crisis or because of her own style, I do expect more engagement and more interest in the region in general,” he said. “A different assessment by a new team would be positive…There would be a new energy, new blood. And I think that is, by itself, reassuring.”

On the campaign trail, Harris has mainly spoken about the Middle East in reference to the war in Gaza, saying she empathizes with civilian suffering while reaffirming her country’s “unwavering commitment to Israel’s security.”

“From our interaction with the campaign, we know that Vice President Kamala is interested in supporting and continuing to support and hopefully increasing humanitarian funding and assistance to the Syrian people in general,” Ghbeis said. C4SSA engages with Democrats and Republicans and has had contact with both the Harris and Trump campaigns.

Abdel Nour, Ziadeh and Ford expected consistency between Biden and Harris on Syria. “I can’t imagine that Harris is going to change policy on Bashar al-Assad or drop sanctions. It’s unimaginable to me,” Ford said. 

While a Harris presidency would likely bring an extension of Biden’s approach, what a second Trump presidency might mean for Syria is more difficult to assess.

“The problem with Trump, he’s unpredictable. That’s very dangerous for foreign policy,” Ziadeh said. “Another Trump administration will be unleashed…I don’t think he will accept any restraint from anyone.”

The first years of Trump’s presidency were marked by the continued fight against the Islamic State (IS), culminating in the physical end of its self-declared caliphate in Syria and Iraq in 2019, as well as the killing of its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Trump also directed strikes on Syrian regime military targets in 2017 and 2018 in response to chemical attacks on opposition-held areas. “It was a very measured response,” Ford said. “The Trump administration clearly did not want to escalate.” 

With respect to pressure on the Assad regime, the administration “talked a tough game, but in fact the Americans didn’t do very much,” Ford reflected. “The Russians had the diplomatic initiative to the extent that it mattered with the Astana process [peace talks led by Russia, Turkey and Iran], to which the Americans weren’t invited in, for the most part.”

The Trump administration, particularly Secretary of Defense Mike Pompeo, took a hardline stance on Iran, withdrawing from the Obama-era nuclear agreement and imposing a “maximum pressure” strategy of increased sanctions. Ghbeis, of C4SS, called Trump-era engagement on Syria, including opposition to Iranian influence in the country, “far more effective” than under Biden.

“Our community has engaged with the Trump campaign and heard reassuring statements…about the Syria policy being somewhat aligned with the anti-Iran policy and [that] containing the presence and influence of Iran in Syria will remain a priority for a new Trump administration,” Ghbeis said. “We have heard reassuring positions in terms of keeping Assad as an enemy to the country.” 

Abdel Nour views the unpredictable nature of Trump’s foreign policy as an opportunity for decisive action, whether on Iran or Syria. “It will not be what he will do, [but rather] how he will react to something, an event,” he said. More experienced as a politician than in his first term, Trump “can stand and use the power of the US, when the Democrat doesn’t use that,” he said. “We are counting now that he is wiser.”

Like Harris, Trump’s foreign policy towards the Middle East is largely unknown. Besides “stand with Israel” and “restore peace in the Middle East,” the official Republican party platform says little. Trump himself has made several statements asserting that he has done more for Israel than any other previous administration, and has urged Tel Aviv to “finish what they started”in Gaza before he would begin a possible second term.  

In the closing weeks of the campaign, Trump has reached out to Muslim community leaders within the US, including Syrian-Americans, in an effort to eke out a win in Michigan. Most Syrians Ziadeh speaks to support Harris, while some “think Trump’s rhetoric against Iran will help the Syrians.” He warned against this, saying “there is no coherent policy at the end.” Provocative moves like the 2020 assassination of top Iranian General Qassem Soleimani “does not develop any meaningful policy [for] the life of Syrians,” he said.  

One major question hangs over any discussion of US foreign policy on Syria: the future of the country’s armed presence on the ground. The US currently has at least 900 troops and a number of military contractors in Syria, mainly in parts of the northeast controlled by the predominantly Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). 

“The potential of US troops’ withdrawal from Syria is catastrophic in our assessment, and that would be our top concern with a new Trump administration policy on Syria,” Ghbeis said. 

The US ground presence in Syria dates back to 2015, as part of the US-led international coalition’s support for the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG), now the main component of the SDF, against IS. Ongoing backing for the SDF is a constant source of tension between the US and Turkey. Ankara views the YPG as an extension of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which is listed as a terrorist organization by both Turkey and the US.

The continued presence of US forces, ostensibly with a counterterror mission to prevent an IS resurgence, also serves as a bulwark against a long-threatened ground offensive by Turkey against SDF territories along its border.

A longtime critic of the US’ “endless wars,” Trump twice ordered the withdrawal of all US forces from Syria during his administration. Figures within his administration ultimately convinced him to keep a few hundred troops on the ground.

While the US never fully withdrew its forces from Syria, partial and threatened withdrawals had direct consequences. Trump’s October 2019 withdrawal announcement prompted Turkey to launch a new military operation against the SDF, capturing the cities of Ras al-Ain and Tal Abyad and displacing thousands of people. 

The prospect of withdrawal has remained on the table under Biden. In 2023, the US Congress saw two Republican-led efforts to force the removal of US troops from Syria, both of which lawmakers ultimately rejected. In late January, Al-Monitor and Foreign Policy reported that Washington was considering withdrawing its troops from Syria, sparking widespread concern in SDF-controlled northeastern Syria, despite White House denials. 

Read more: Renewed talk of US withdrawal rattles Syrians in the northeast

Ziadeh expects a Harris administration to keep US forces in Syria, while echoing Ghbeis’ concerns that a Trump administration could follow through on his past efforts.

“Withdrawal, which is in the US national interest, is on the table, even for Democrats,” Abdel Nour said. “Sudden withdrawal is bad, but studied and wise withdrawal,” which he views as more likely under a second Trump administration, “will be good.” Part of a studied withdrawal, as he put it, would be reaching “an agreement to empower” the SDF to “reach the level of how they can defend themselves and reach an agreement between them and the capital [Damascus].” 

Ford has been a strong proponent of a US withdrawal from Syria, and sent a letter in support of a legislative effort in the US House of Representatives to force a withdrawal last February. “I am against deploying US military forces in missions where you don’t have a strategy for success, and you just kind of string it out indefinitely,” he said.

Considering a second Trump administration, “I know going in his inclination will be to withdraw, but it kind of depends who is around him,” Ford added. “I can easily imagine Pompeo pressing hard on the White House to keep troops in Syria” because “they perceive that those troops…restrain Iran in some way or another from doing more nefarious things in Syria.”

It is an argument Ford does not find convincing, as even with the existing US presence, Iranian weapons have continued to flow into Syria via Iraq and onwards to Lebanon. “They don’t get to use the very best road to Damascus, it’s true,” he said. “They use secondary roads, but there are secondary roads.”

Whether Harris or Trump wins the election, a US withdrawal from Syria may only be a matter of time. On September 27, the US and Iraqi governments announced an agreement to withdraw US-led coalition forces by the end of 2026. Washington currently has around 2,500 forces in Iraq.

Under the two-phase agreement, US forces are to pull out of the al-Asad airbase and Baghdad airport by September 2025 and move operations to the Hareer base in the semi-autonomous Kurdistan Region of Iraq. The remaining presence is to withdraw by the end of 2026.

The US presence in Syria is connected to its presence in Iraq, where its forces provide logistics and air support. “I don’t see how they’re going to maintain the logistics for that without Erbil” after 2026, Ford said.

“In the meantime, the YPG has a chance to cut a deal with the Assad government. But that means they’re going to have to make compromises, and they will never make compromises as long as those 900 troops are there,” he added.

Few are optimistic about what the future holds for Syria. “I think the lack of leadership, lack of engagement from the US has only led to a vacuum,” Ghbeis said.

In May 2023, the Assad regime was readmitted to the Arab League after 12 years in the cold. Regional normalization has been “the natural result of a lack of meaningful US policy on Syria,” Ghbeis said. “I do think more engagement from the US will make the US allies in the region more clear minded about what they can do on Syria.” 

Read more: Assad grins at the Arab League summit, and Syrians in exile recoil

Abdel Nour called for more leadership from Syrians to influence the direction of US policy. “We need to deliver a strategy that will build on the common ground between Syrians and the US that they can adopt. Don’t wait until they draw it for you,” he said.

From the perspective of Washington, what is needed from any administration, Ford said, is to “identify and prioritize whatever our national security interests are in Syria.” He pointed to Obama’s choice in 2014 to prioritize fighting IS over pursuing a political transition in Syria. “I’m not sure I agreed with his prioritization, but at least he made a priority,” he said.

Whether a Harris or Trump administration decides to focus on counterterrorism, a political settlement, refugee returns or countering Iran in Syria, “whatever that goal is, figure it out and prioritize,” Ford added. “You may not be able to do one without compromising on the other.”