Trump says Syria is “not our fight,” but staying out may prove difficult.

While Donald Trump was in Paris last weekend with world leaders, admiring the restored Notre Dame cathedral, armed Islamist fighters in Syria were advancing toward Damascus, marking the final stages of the Assad regime’s collapse.

In this dramatic contrast of global events, the president-elect, seated between the French president and his wife, was still closely monitoring developments in the Middle East.

On the same day, Trump posted on his Truth Social account: “Syria is a mess, but is not our friend. THE UNITED STATES SHOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. THIS IS NOT OUR FIGHT. LET IT PLAY OUT. DO NOT GET INVOLVED!”

These posts, along with another the following day, served as a clear reminder of Trump’s strong stance against foreign intervention.

However, they also raised significant questions about what comes next. Given how the conflict has involved and impacted both regional and global powers, can Trump truly stay uninvolved now that Bashar al-Assad’s government is on the brink of collapse?

Will he withdraw U.S. troops?

How does his approach differ from President Biden’s, and if it does, what action, if any, should the White House take in the five weeks leading up to Trump’s inauguration?

The current administration is engaged in intense diplomacy following the fall of Assad and the rise of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a Syrian Islamist armed group designated by the U.S. as a terrorist organization.

I’m writing this aboard Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s plane as he travels between Jordan and Turkey, working to rally key Arab and Muslim nations to support Washington’s conditions for recognizing a future Syrian government.

The U.S. insists that any new government must be transparent and inclusive, not serve as a “base for terrorism,” not pose a threat to Syria’s neighbors, and must eliminate any chemical and biological weapons.

For Mike Waltz, Trump’s pick for national security adviser (who is still awaiting confirmation), there is one clear principle guiding his foreign policy.

“President Trump was elected with a strong mandate to keep the United States out of further Middle Eastern wars,” he told Fox News this week.

He went on to outline America’s “core interests” in the region: the Islamic State (IS) group, Israel, and “our Gulf Arab allies.”

Waltz’s comments encapsulate Trump’s view of Syria as just one small piece of a larger regional puzzle.

Trump’s goals are to ensure that remnants of IS remain contained and to prevent any future government in Damascus from threatening Washington’s key regional ally, Israel.

Additionally, Trump is focused on what he sees as the ultimate prize: a historic diplomatic and trade deal to normalize relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia, which he believes would further weaken and humiliate Iran.

For Trump, everything else is simply Syria’s “mess” to resolve.

Trump’s rhetoric on Syria mirrors his approach during his first term, when he dismissed the country – with its rich, millennia-old cultural history – as a land of “sand and death.”

“Donald Trump, I think, really wanted very little involvement with Syria during his first administration,” said Robert Ford, who served as President Obama’s ambassador to Syria from 2011-2014. Ford, who advocated for more U.S. intervention to support moderate Syrian opposition groups against Assad’s brutal regime, added, “But there are others in his circle who are much more focused on counterterrorism.”

Currently, the U.S. has approximately 900 troops stationed in Syria, primarily east of the Euphrates River and within a 55-kilometer “deconfliction” zone along the borders of Iraq and Jordan. Their official mission is to counter the Islamic State (IS), now largely diminished in desert camps, and to train and equip the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a Kurdish and Arab alliance controlling the region. The SDF also guards camps housing IS fighters and their families.

In practice, however, the U.S. presence has extended beyond these objectives, particularly in efforts to block a potential weapons transit route for Iran, which has used Syria to supply Hezbollah.

Robert Ford, along with other analysts, believes that while Trump’s isolationist rhetoric resonates on social media, the realities on the ground and the perspectives of his team may temper his approach.

Wa’el Alzayat, a former U.S. Department of State adviser on Syria, shares this view, noting, “He is bringing on board some serious people to his administration who will be handling his Middle East strategy,” specifically pointing to Senator Marco Rubio, nominated for secretary of state, as a significant foreign policy figure.

These tensions between isolationist ideals and regional objectives surfaced during Trump’s first term, particularly when he cut CIA funding for certain “moderate” rebel groups and ordered the withdrawal of U.S. forces from northern Syria in 2019. At the time, Waltz called the move “a strategic mistake,” and fearing an IS resurgence, Trump’s own officials partially reversed the decision.

Trump also deviated from his non-interventionist stance in 2017 when he ordered 59 cruise missiles to strike a Syrian airfield, in retaliation for Assad’s alleged chemical weapons attack that killed dozens of civilians. He also intensified sanctions against Syria’s leadership.

Waltz summed up the blurred lines of Trump’s “it’s not our fight” pledge: “That doesn’t mean he’s not willing to take decisive action.” As he explained to Fox News, “President Trump has no problem stepping in if the American homeland is threatened in any way.”

Adding to the potential for tension is another key figure: Tulsi Gabbard, whom Trump has nominated as director of national intelligence. The controversial former Democrat-turned-Trump ally met with Assad in 2017 on a “fact-finding” trip and criticized Trump’s policies at the time. Her nomination is expected to face intense scrutiny from U.S. senators, with accusations – which she denies – of being an apologist for Assad and Russia.

Concerns about the ongoing mission in Syria and the desire to end it are not limited to Trump.

In January, a drone strike by Iran-backed militias operating in Syria and Iraq killed three American soldiers at a U.S. base in Jordan, amid rising fears of the Israel-Hamas war spreading further in the region. This attack, along with others, has raised ongoing questions within the Biden administration about U.S. military presence and exposure in the area.

In fact, the positions of both the outgoing Biden administration and the incoming Trump administration on Syria align more than they differ.

Despite the differences in tone and rhetoric, both leaders aim for a Syrian government that aligns with U.S. interests. Both also want to capitalize on Iran and Russia’s setbacks in Syria.

Trump’s stance of “this is not our fight, let it play out” is his counterpart to Biden’s position that “this is a process that needs to be led by Syrians, not by the United States.” However, the key difference, which has raised significant concerns among Biden supporters, lies in Trump’s approach to U.S. troops on the ground and American support for the SDF, according to Bassam Barabandi, a former Syrian diplomat in Washington who assisted opposition figures fleeing Assad’s regime.

“Biden has more sympathy and connection with the Kurds. Historically, he was one of the first senators to visit Kurdish areas after Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait,” Barabandi said. “Trump and his people don’t care as much… they acknowledge the importance of not abandoning their allies, but their approach to implementation differs.”

Barabandi, who supports Trump’s non-interventionist rhetoric, believes the president-elect will withdraw U.S. troops “for sure,” but in a gradual manner with a clear plan. “It won’t be like Afghanistan, where everything is done in 24 hours,” he said. “He’ll set a deadline, like six months, or whatever time, for the withdrawal and to arrange everything.”

Much may depend on Trump’s discussions with Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, with whom he is believed to have a close relationship.

American support for the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) has long been a point of contention with Turkey, which views the People’s Defense Units (YPG), the Kurdish militia that forms the core of the SDF, as a terrorist group.

Since Assad’s fall, Turkey has been conducting airstrikes to push Kurdish fighters out of key areas, including the town of Manbij.

Trump may seek to strike a deal with his ally in Ankara that would allow for the withdrawal of U.S. troops, potentially strengthening Turkey’s position further.

However, the prospect of Turkish-backed groups taking control of certain regions raises concerns for many, including Wa’el Alzayat, the former U.S. State Department Syria expert.

“You can’t have different groups controlling different parts of the country and its resources,” he said.

“There’s either a political process, where I believe the U.S. has a role to play, or something else—and I hope they avoid that second option.”