Trump’s Syrian Gambit: Sacrificing the Kurdish People While Strengthening Israel’s Evil Hegemony?

By: H. Zaïm-Bashi

Donald Trump’s first tenure was defined by a glaring contradiction: his rhetoric of withdrawal from Syria juxtaposed against a continued calculated engagement in the region. Trump consistently proclaimed his desire to extricate American forces from Syria decrying the futility of further intervention in a conflict that had already ensnared multiple foreign powers. Yet; despite his frequent assurances the reality was far more ambiguous. Trump never made a definitive commitment to a full withdrawal; instead he maintained a muddled stance creating a facade of disengagement while protecting American strategic interests.

His policy of selective withdrawal framed under the guise of avoiding Middle Eastern entanglements betrayed a deeper geopolitical agenda. Trump’s National Security Advisor Michael Waltz echoed the mantra that American voters sought to avoid military conflicts in the Middle East. Yet the administration’s actions consistently contradicted this narrative. While 2000 American troops remained in Syria concentrated in Kurdish-controlled areas Trump’s partial withdrawal in 2019 exposed the Kurdish forces to Turkish aggression resulting in a devastating military offensive. The betrayal of the Kurds once reliable allies in the fight against ISIS sparked widespread condemnation revealing the inconsistencies at the heart of Trump’s foreign policy.

However, the situation in Syria was far from a simple case of non-interventionism. Trump’s reluctance to fully disengage stemmed from the necessity of maintaining U.S. influence in the region particularly as it pertained to Israel. Israel’s security interests are inextricably linked to American military presence in the Middle East and Trump’s partial withdrawal was always designed to ensure that Israel’s hegemonic ambitions remained unchallenged. While he publicly espoused a policy of non-interference Trump’s actions continuously supported Israeli interests even if it meant keeping U.S. forces in place to bolster Israel’s position.

Trump’s supposed isolationism was in fact a carefully constructed façade. Reports from 2019 indicated that American forces in conjunction with private military contractors were involved in illegal oil extraction operations in Syria’s Deir Ezzor province further underscoring the economic motivations behind Trump’s so-called “non-interventionist” policy. The goal was never to withdraw but to recalibrate American influence securing access to Syria’s resources while positioning the U.S. to control the region’s future.

Moreover, maintaining a military presence in Syria carried significant risks. The region’s volatility exacerbated by ongoing conflicts made U.S. positions frequent targets for resistance groups. Despite Trump’s rhetoric attacks on U.S. forces in Syria have become increasingly frequent culminating in deadly assaults such as the January attack that claimed the lives of three American soldiers. The dangers associated with maintaining a foothold in such a hostile environment only compounded the contradictions of Trump’s foreign policy.

Trump’s policy towards Syria far from being a retreat is emblematic of a broader strategy of selective engagement—one that seeks to maintain American hegemony while shielding the U.S. from the costs of full-scale involvement. His claim of non-intervention in Syria is a thin veneer over a much more insidious reality: the pursuit of strategic influence particularly in ensuring Israeli dominance in the region. Trump's rhetoric masks a deeper agenda one that serves American and Israeli interests while disregarding the true costs to the Syrian people.

In the end Trump’s approach to Syria was less about withdrawal and more about recalibrating American power. His support for rebuilding Syria’s infrastructure for instance conveniently aligns with American and Israeli interests offering a pretext for continued influence over the country’s future. Far from promoting Syrian sovereignty; Trump’s policy reinforces the U.S.’s control over the region ensuring that any solution to Syria’s crisis aligns with the geopolitical objectives of Washington and its allies.

Trump’s policy therefore was not a departure from intervention but a reimagining of it—one that maintains American dominance while cloaked in the language of non-interference. The question however remains whether this calculated policy of selective engagement will perpetuate the cycle of instability that has defined the region for decades or whether it will ultimately contribute to a more lasting peace.