By Caroline Rose, Colin Clarke – FA-
One year after the overthrow of the longtime Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, Syria—now governed by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS)—is confronting a new wave of instability. Sectarian clashes, Israeli strikes, and internal disputes already threaten the fragile post-regime landscape. Compounding these challenges is the renewed rise of the Islamic State (ISIS), which is exploiting the chaotic environment to rebuild and reassert itself across the country.
Although ISIS has lost the vast territorial control it achieved during its 2014 peak—when it ruled roughly a third of Syria and fielded up to 100,000 fighters—the organization has proved remarkably resilient. Today, with an estimated 2,500 fighters, it no longer governs land but is conducting a broader, more sophisticated insurgency. Since Assad’s fall in 2024, ISIS has carried out a sustained terror campaign targeting the new Syrian government, Christian and Shiite minorities, Kurdish communities, and security forces.
The scale and precision of recent ISIS attacks highlight the seriousness of the threat. In June, a suicide bomber linked to ISIS struck a Greek Orthodox church in Damascus, killing 25 worshippers and injuring 63. Two months later, ISIS launched more than two dozen attacks in northeastern Syria, using ambushes, improvised explosive devices, assassinations, and targeted attacks on military vehicles and checkpoints. In 2024 alone, ISIS claimed responsibility for 294 attacks—more than double its 2023 tally—while independent monitors suggest the real number is even higher.
These attacks directly undermine the new government’s attempts to establish stability. Sectarian tensions remain acute, with frequent confrontations among Sunni, Alawite, and Druze communities. As ISIS violence intensifies, public confidence in the government’s ability to safeguard minorities erodes. A renewed large-scale insurgency could push Syria back toward widespread conflict.
The situation is poised to worsen if the United States follows through on its plan to withdraw its remaining 2,000 troops from Syria. Since 2014, the U.S. military has been the backbone of the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS, providing intelligence support, airpower, training, and coordination with local partners such as the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). Without a U.S. presence, the coalition’s effectiveness will diminish, and local actors—especially the SDF, now formally merging with the Syrian state—may be unable to stem an ISIS resurgence.
U.S. troop levels are already declining. Washington has reduced its Syria deployment from 2,000 to 1,400 and transferred several bases to the SDF. Parallel reductions are underway in Iraq, where the U.S. plans to end the coalition mission by late 2026. These moves raise serious questions about the coalition’s future and Syria’s capacity to prevent ISIS’s return.
ISIS leaders are keenly aware of this strategic vacuum. Their recruitment efforts and propaganda portray the new Syrian administration as illegitimate, weak, and beholden to foreign powers. In its weekly newsletter, circulated globally among jihadists, ISIS routinely attacks Syria’s new president, Ahmed al-Shara—formerly a jihadist himself—and brands HTS as collaborators with the United States and Israel. ISIS claims that Shara is secretly aligned with Israel’s Mossad and refers to HTS as apostates. Such messaging is intended to delegitimize the government and inspire defections among its soldiers.
ISIS has also taken advantage of sectarian violence to escalate its operations. In March, following clashes between Sunni and Alawite groups in Latakia, ISIS launched attacks against the SDF. In May, after violence south of Damascus between security forces and Sunni and Druze factions, ISIS executed another coordinated wave of bombings. The group has even begun attacking forces well inside government-controlled territory, including a bombing of a Syrian army vehicle that killed seven soldiers—the first such attack since Assad’s fall.
As ISIS grows more assertive, the withdrawal of U.S. forces risks creating opportunities for other destabilizing actors, including Iran-backed militias such as Hezbollah. Israel’s repeated strikes and incursions into Syrian territory—aimed at weakening Iranian influence—further contribute to the instability ISIS hopes to exploit.
For Washington, the stakes remain high. When President Donald Trump met with President Shara in May, it marked a historic shift in U.S.–Syrian relations. The Trump administration’s renewed engagement reflects its aim to withdraw from the region, but only if Syria proves capable of independently countering ISIS. To that end, the United States has assisted in thwarting at least eight ISIS attacks and has pressed the Syrian government to accelerate reconstruction and national unity initiatives, including integrating the SDF into state structures.
Syria’s stability—and the region’s—depends partly on continued U.S. involvement. A premature military withdrawal could undermine the fragile security gains of the past decade, leaving Syria vulnerable to renewed ISIS advances and triggering deeper factional conflict. Worse, an ISIS resurgence would have spillover effects across the Levant and beyond.
Therefore, the United States must maintain at least a residual troop presence in Syria past 2026. Several hundred U.S. personnel would be needed to provide intelligence, reconnaissance, and training—functions that Syrian forces cannot yet sustain alone. Additionally, Washington should prevent actions by U.S. allies, including Israeli strikes, that inadvertently fuel the disorder ISIS seeks.
Ultimately, despite ISIS’s military defeat, Syria’s post-regime transition has created vulnerabilities that the group is exploiting to return. U.S. disengagement at this juncture would likely accelerate ISIS’s revival. Washington should therefore delay withdrawal, continue supporting Syrian security forces, and reinforce the coalition’s long-term mission.
In conclusion: only when Syria can independently prevent ISIS and other extremist groups from regaining strength should the United States consider ending its military presence. Until then, maintaining a strategic foothold is essential for regional stability and global security.
__________
Summarized from:
