As a new government is set to form in Syria following a sudden coup earlier this week, the United States’ response to the political upheaval appears uncertain.

Rebel groups unexpectedly overthrew Syria’s longtime leader, Bashar al-Assad, on Dec. 8, 2024, sending the dictator into exile in Russia.

President Joe Biden has warned that the rebel groups have a “grim record of terrorism” and said that the U.S. will be watching the groups’ actions. But President-elect Donald Trump has said that the U.S. should not intervene in the sudden takeover and its aftermath.

Amy Lieberman, a politics and society editor at The Conversation U.S., spoke with Jordan Tama, a scholar of U.S. foreign policy at American University, to better understand the role that the U.S. has played in Syria – and what Assad’s sudden fall from power might mean for this relationship.

What is most important to understand about US engagement with Syria?

U.S. involvement in Syria dates back to at least 2011, when the Arab Spring, a pro-democracy Middle East protest movement, broke out and spread to Syria.

This prompted a brutal crackdown by the Syrian government, led by Syrian leader al-Assad. Some of the protesters then became part of rebel groups in Syria and fought against the Assad government, resulting in civil war. The U.S. immediately imposed heavy financial sanctions on the government of Syria.

In 2013, the U.S. began providing arms to some of the rebel groups that were resisting the Assad government. That year, the Syrian military also crossed a “red line” that had been set by then-President Barack Obama by using chemical weapons against civilians. Despite pressure to enforce the red line, Obama opted not to intervene once Assad agreed to destroy Syria’s chemical weapons – a commitment that Assad did not fully live up to.

In 2014, the Islamic State group, often known as ISIS or IS, took over parts of Syria. The U.S. deployed forces directly to fight IS in 2015. By 2019, the U.S. had severely weakened IS, and the U.S. scaled back its presence. The U.S. never accepted the Assad government’s legitimacy, but it did become largely resigned to Assad’s rule.

What does US involvement currently look like?

The U.S. has remained involved in Syria in several ways. First, it has about 900 troops deployed in some remote parts of Syria to prevent ISIS from regrouping.

Second, the U.S. has given more than US$1 billion in military assistance to more moderate armed groups that resisted control by the Assad government. Much of this aid has gone to the Syrian Democratic Forces, a military force led by the Kurds, a minority ethnic group that controls northeast Syria and has worked closely with the U.S. on fighting ISIS while maintaining its opposition to Assad.

Third, the U.S. has kept heavy financial sanctions in place against the Syrian government dating back to 2011. And fourth, the U.S. has been providing humanitarian aid for Syrians suffering from the country’s 13-year civil war.

The U.S. did not play a direct role in the recent toppling of the Syrian government. The Syrian rebel groups that overthrew Assad are mainly backed by Turkey, which seeks to weaken the Syrian branch of another Kurdish group called the Kurdistan Workers’ Party. Turkey views this group as a threat to control over its own Kurdish population.

What does the overthrow of the Assad government mean for the US?

The U.S. is not yet making any firm judgments about whether this change is going to be good for the U.S. Overall, Assad’s fall opens the possibility of improved relations between the U.S. and Syria, but that will depend, in large part, on the new leadership in Syria.

Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, or HTS, the group that led the overthrow of Assad, has ruled in an authoritative manner in the area of Syria it has already been controlling.

ISIS also represents a continuing concern for the U.S. The U.S. has carried out a series of strikes on ISIS targets in recent days in an effort to prevent ISIS from gaining ground following the collapse of the Assad government.

What does Trump’s election mean for the US engagement in Syria?

Trump has taken the position that Syria is a mess and that it is not America’s problem. During his first term, Trump wanted to pull out all of the remaining U.S. troops from Syria, and his advisers persuaded him to keep a small number of troops there. Whether Syria’s new leaders act in an authoritarian manner likely won’t matter to Trump.

But Trump is strongly pro-Israel, and he will likely not have any problem with Israel carrying out strikes in Syria.

Under Trump, the U.S. will probably not be a major player shaping events in Syria, but I think it is in the nation’s interest to remain engaged, because what happens in Syria does affect the rest of the Middle East – and, by extension, the U.S.