Follow us on social

US to bring troops home from Iraq, but why not from Syria, too?

US to bring troops home from Iraq, but why not from Syria, too?

Time to let the neighborhood keep ISIS in check and region in balance

Analysis | Middle East

Despite the claims of Vice President Kamala Harris that there are no U.S. troops in active combat zones today, many remain deployed abroad in dangerous and unsustainable positions across the world. This includes both Iraq and Syria.

The United States and Iraq, however, have apparently reached a deal to begin the removal of 2,500 U.S. forces still stationed in that country. Staged over the course of 2025 and to conclude in 2026, the plan would, if successful, put an end to the U.S. military presence in a nation where many of the internal problems have a direct relationship to the invasion of 2003.

Next door to Iraq is Syria, a country whose own brutal and long-running civil war has also seen over a decade of U.S. intervention, from the ill-conceived Operation Timber Sycamore, the largest known C.I.A. arm and equip program in history, to direct U.S. occupation via bases of significant parts of the east of the country. Meanwhile, a long coordinated regime change campaign targeting President Bashir al-Assad failed after exacerbating the situation on the ground.

Operation Timber Sycamore was later exposed as having helped a rebel movement that was disproportionately Islamist and often linked to informal or even explicit alliances with al-Qaida affiliates. The goals of these movements often included the imposition of a theocratic government and the forced conversion or even extermination of sectarian minority groups. Barely more than a decade after 9/11, the U.S. was undermining its own self-proclaimed "War on Terror" in order to conduct regime change.

Out of this chaotic mess would come the rise of ISIS, something unlikely to have gotten so much traction without all the non-state actors that grew up in the wake of both Iraq and Syrian wars.

But while the U.S. played a supporting role, it was actually a complex patchwork of local forces and Iranian-backed militias that did the majority of the anti-ISIS fighting in the last decade. The U.S. strongly supported the Kurds while opposing to the Syrian government which was also fighting ISIS at the time. Meanwhile, in Iraq, the U.S. worked with Iranian-supported militias against ISIS only to then fear their influence.

It is, so the U.S. government says, to prevent the resurgence of this terror network that U.S. bases have remained in Syria and Iraq. There are reportedly 900 U.S. troops still in Syria today. They are also serving as a counter to the very Iranian influence which keeps ISIS at bay. A hornet’s nest of regional actors swarm about these remote bases, and so the purpose and sustainability of the deployments grow ever more questionable.

The problem with being a counter in a slice of territory surrounded by governments friendly to Iran is that these small forces are effectively tripwires. They are attacked frequently, resulting in American casualties continuing through this summer, but do not exist in numbers great enough to meaningfully change the balance of power with local actors.

Both of the Iraqi and Syrian governments — who, despite their issues, remain the most powerful forces in their respective countries — are friendly with Iran. As the Gaza War further inflames tensions, including Israeli airstrikes on Syria proper, the risks only increase. Sanctions, meanwhile, have done immense damage to Syria’s economy but failed to undermine the government or achieve any opportunities for U.S. diplomacy.

There is no excuse for risking the lives of American servicemen in what is increasingly a series of failed interventions passed from one generation to another. If Iran is to be contained it will be by other more local countries containing it, not a smattering of vulnerable and isolated American bases. These bases, frankly, could only be made relevant with a massive infusion of reinforcements that the American public is unlikely to ever support, considering the rapidly souring mood towards interventions abroad.

Furthermore, with the welcome news of U.S. forces pulling out of Iraq, the only land access to the bases in Syria will be via Jordan. This could leave their supply lines even more under threat than they are now. It thus makes perfect sense that if Iraq is to be evacuated by U.S. forces, Syria should be as well.

Knowing all of this, it is time to bring the U.S. intervention in Syria to a close in tandem with the intervention in Iraq.


Virginia National Guard Soldiers assigned to the Norfolk-based 1st Battalion, 111th Field Artillery Regiment, 116th Infantry Brigade Combat Team reunite with loved ones and fellow Soldiers Dec. 3, 2022, in Richmond, Virginia, after serving on federal active duty in Iraq since March 2022. (U.S. Army National Guard photo by Terra C. Gatti)

Analysis | Middle East
Trump ASEAN
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump looks at Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., next to Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim when posing for a family photo with leaders at the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 26, 2025. Vincent Thian/Pool via REUTERS

‘America First’ meets ‘ASEAN Way’ in Kuala Lumpur

Asia-Pacific

The 2025 ASEAN and East Asia Summits in Kuala Lumpur beginning today are set to be consequential multilateral gatherings — defining not only ASEAN’s internal cohesion but also the shape of U.S.–China relations in the Indo-Pacific.

President Donald Trump’s participation will be the first by a U.S. president in an ASEAN-led summit since 2022. President Biden skipped the last two such summits in 2023 and 2024, sending then-Vice President Harris instead.

keep readingShow less
iran, china, russia
Top photo credit: Top image credit: Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov and and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi shake hands as Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu looks on during their meet with reporters after their meeting at Diaoyutai State Guest House on March 14, 2025 in Beijing, China. Lintao Zhang/Pool via REUTERS

'Annulled'! Russia won't abide snapback sanctions on Iran

Middle East

“A raider attack on the U.N. Security Council.” This was the explosive accusation leveled by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov this week. His target was the U.N. Secretariat and Western powers, whom he blamed for what Russia sees as an illegitimate attempt to restore the nuclear-related international sanctions on Iran.

Beyond the fiery rhetoric, Ryabkov’s statement contained a message: Russia, he said, now considers all pre-2015 U.N. sanctions on Iran, snapped back by the European signatories of the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) — the United Kingdom, France, Germany — “annulled.” Moscow will deepen its military-technical cooperation with Tehran accordingly, according to Ryabkov.

This is more than a diplomatic spat; it is the formal announcement of a split in international legal reality. The world’s major powers are now operating under two irreconcilable interpretations of international law. On one side, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany assert that the sanctions snapback mechanism of the JCPOA was legitimately triggered for Iran’s alleged violations. On the other, Iran, Russia, and China reject this as an illegitimate procedural act.

This schism was not inevitable, and its origin reveals a profound incongruence. The Western powers that most frequently appeal to the sanctity of the "rules-based international order" and international law have, in this instance, taken an action whose effects fundamentally undermine it. By pushing through a legal maneuver that a significant part of the Security Council considers illegitimate, they have ushered the world into a new and more dangerous state. The predictable, if imperfect, framework of universally recognized Security Council decisions is being replaced by a system where legal facts are determined by political interests espoused by competing power blocs.

This rupture followed a deliberate Western choice to reject compromises in a stand-off with Iran. While Iran was in a technical violation of the provisions of the JCPOA — by, notably, amassing a stockpile of highly enriched uranium (up to 60% as opposed to the 3.67% for a civilian use permissible under the JCPOA), there was a chance to avert the crisis. In the critical weeks leading to the snapback, Iran had signaled concessions in talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Cairo, in terms of renewing cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s inspectors.

keep readingShow less
On Ukraine and Venezuela, Trump needs to dump the sycophants
Top Photo Credit: (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)

On Ukraine and Venezuela, Trump needs to dump the sycophants

Europe

While diplomats labored to produce the Dayton Accords in 1995, then-Secretary of Defense Bill Perry advised, “No agreement is better than a bad agreement.” Given that Washington’s allies in London, Paris, Berlin and Warsaw are opposed to any outcome that might end the war in Ukraine, no agreement may be preferable. But for President Trump, there is no point in equating the illusion of peace in Ukraine with a meaningless ceasefire that settles nothing.

Today, Ukraine is mired in corruption, starting at the very highest levels of the administration in Kyiv. Sending $175 billion of borrowed money there "for however long it takes" has turned out to be worse than reckless. The U.S. national sovereign debt is surging to nearly $38 trillion and rising by $425 billion with each passing month. President Trump needs to turn his attention away from funding Joe Biden’s wars and instead focus on the faltering American economy.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.