Syria’s Shifting Sands: Assessing the US Withdrawal and the Future of ISIS
The United States’ withdrawal from Syria, completed in early 2026, has reshaped the geopolitical landscape and raised critical questions about the ongoing fight against the Islamic State (ISIS). Initial assessments suggest the withdrawal has not unfolded as strategically envisioned, despite prior arguments for a shift in US policy. This analysis examines the current situation, revisiting the 2024 arguments for withdrawal, and evaluating the outcomes to date.
The 2024 Argument for Withdrawal
In February 2024, Thanassis Cambanis argued in “Leave Syria, Keep Fighting the Islamic State” that the US should withdraw from Syria, allowing the Syrian government to assume primary responsibility for countering ISIS within its borders. Cambanis advocated for a concurrent investment in sustainable counter-terrorism measures, shifting the focus from maintaining a military presence to targeted operations and regional partnerships. The core premise was that a continued US presence risked escalating conflicts and diverting resources from the primary objective: degrading and ultimately defeating ISIS.
The Reality of Withdrawal: A Less Orderly Transition
The actual withdrawal, culminating in the handover of al-Tanf to the Syrian government, has been marked by challenges and unintended consequences. Cambanis, revisiting his 2024 assessment, notes that the withdrawal lacked the strategic finesse needed to enhance US relationships with Iraq and minimize disruption to counter-ISIS operations. Instead, it created power vacuums and instability.
Specifically, the Syrian government swiftly moved to reassert control over areas previously held by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), effectively conquering the Kurdish enclave. The transition was “bungled,” raising concerns about the potential escape of high-risk ISIS detainees – the exact number remains unknown. The US gained limited political capital from either Syria or Iraq as a result of the withdrawal. While Syria likely appreciates the removal of a barrier to its territorial ambitions, Iraq’s acceptance of ISIS detainees transferred from Syria was viewed as a favor to Washington, rather than a reciprocal benefit.
The Assad Regime’s Consolidation and the ISIS Threat
Since the withdrawal, the Assad regime has continued to consolidate its power across Syria. This has altered the dynamics of the conflict and the strategies required to combat ISIS. The regime’s control, while providing a degree of stability, does not necessarily equate to an effective counter-terrorism strategy.
Despite territorial losses, ISIS remains a threat. As noted in a 2017 analysis by Thanassis Cambanis , even at the height of its decline, the group demonstrated resilience and an ability to adapt. The potential for resurgence remains, particularly in ungoverned spaces and among marginalized populations. A credible counterterrorism policy, as highlighted by The Century Foundation , must prioritize good governance, rights, and human dignity, alongside targeted military action.
Looking Ahead: A Revised Strategy
The US withdrawal from Syria underscores the complexities of counter-terrorism operations in fragile states. While the initial rationale for withdrawal – reducing risk to US forces and focusing on the core mission of defeating ISIS – remains valid, the execution has fallen short of expectations. A successful strategy moving forward requires a nuanced approach that combines continued investment in counter-terrorism measures with a commitment to addressing the underlying political and economic factors that fuel extremism. This includes supporting regional partners, promoting good governance, and upholding human rights – elements crucial to preventing the resurgence of ISIS and ensuring long-term stability in Syria and beyond.