Statements about an imminent U.S. withdrawal from Syria are becoming more frequent amid rapidly shifting developments in the country and a noticeable de-escalation on the ground.
In parallel, understandings have begun to take shape between the transitional government led by Ahmad Al-Sharaa and the Autonomous Administration in northeast Syria. The U.S. has played a central role in mediating these agreements, between the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and Damascus, and also between the SDF and Ankara.
On the ground, Washington is redeploying its forces in preparation for a reduction in troop numbers in select locations, part of a broader withdrawal that has been floated by President Donald Trump since his first term.
Just days ago, Yedioth Ahronoth reported that U.S. security officials had informed Israeli defence officials that the gradual pullout from Syria would begin in about two months.
The looming U.S. decision has raised concerns in Israel about potential instability and the emergence of hostile elements near its borders, the newspaper noted.
Read also: Renewed Warnings Over ISIS Resurgence in Syria
Media reports suggest the U.S. is planning to consolidate and reduce its forces in Syria over the coming weeks and months, possibly cutting troop levels by half. Currently, around 2,000 American troops are stationed in Syria, mainly in the northeast. These forces have worked alongside local SDF partners to prevent a resurgence of ISIS, which seized large swaths of Syria and Iraq in 2014 before being driven back.
Meanwhile, Israel’s security establishment is pushing back against the plan, urging Washington to delay the withdrawal over concerns that Turkey could take control of more strategic assets in post-conflict Syria, according to Yedioth Ahronoth.
The paper adds that Trump’s withdrawal intentions are not new. He has long advocated for an isolationist foreign policy, partly influenced by Vice President J.D. Vance. After the fall of the Assad regime, Trump wrote on Truth Social: “This is not our war.”
Washington is now preparing to implement its withdrawal plan while keeping Israel closely informed. Israeli officials reportedly fear that Turkey could use the opportunity to expand its military footprint, raising alarm in Tel Aviv.
Withdrawal After Achieving Strategic Goals
Political analyst Jawdat Al-Jiran, speaking from Germany to +963, says there’s no doubt the U.S. is seriously weighing a military withdrawal from Syria, especially after achieving the major strategic goal of bringing down the Syrian regime, which has fundamentally altered the regional power dynamics.
Read also: US Policy on Syria: Balancing Political Transition and Sanctions Strategy
He adds that with the regime’s collapse, the operational need for U.S. troops in areas like the northeast has diminished. Previously, their presence helped contain Iranian and Russian influence and limited the regime’s ability to reassert control.
Al-Jiran emphasizes that the withdrawal decision is not purely based on battlefield conditions, it is driven by broader political calculations. These include ensuring the safety of its Kurdish allies (the SDF), securing long-term deconfliction arrangements, and supporting agreements like the Manbij Dam pact between the SDF and the Syrian state, backed and guaranteed by both the U.S. and Turkey.
He notes that Washington remains committed to curbing Iran’s regional influence and preventing it from exploiting any potential power vacuum.
One of the top U.S. conditions for withdrawal, Al-Jiran explains, is safeguarding Israel’s security, especially in the south, and avoiding a direct clash between Turkey and Israel, while signaling to Russia and Turkey that the U.S. remains a strategic actor in the region.
According to Al-Jiran, Washington’s direct notification to Israel about its withdrawal plan reflects the depth of strategic coordination between the two. It also aims to reassure Israel that Washington will not leave a vacuum for adversaries to fill.
This advance notice gives Israel time to adjust to the new security landscape and possibly step up its airstrikes to prevent hostile forces from gaining ground. It also sends messages to Moscow, Tehran, and Ankara that Israel will not be left alone, and that alternative security arrangements, such as shifting intelligence or operational responsibilities to Israel or regional allies, are being prepared.
He further explains that the U.S. presence in Syria has served as a strategic deterrent against Iran and Russia, a bargaining chip in regional negotiations with Ankara and others, and a platform for counterterrorism operations, especially against ISIS in Deir ez-Zor and Al-Hasakah.
Crucially, he adds, the American presence has acted as a protective barrier against further Iranian entrenchment in southern Syria and the Golan, effectively blocking Iran’s vision of a land corridor from Tehran to Beirut. A full withdrawal, therefore, could deprive Israel of a key operational partner in a highly volatile environment.
Read also: Nagel Committee: Turkey Now a Greater Threat Than Iran
Are Conditions Ripe for Withdrawal?
The political analyst explains that for the United States to withdraw from Syria without incurring strategic losses, several key conditions must be met. One of the most important is ensuring that the power vacuum left behind is not filled by hostile states or extremist groups like ISIS. Additionally, the presence of reliable local allies is crucial, including, potentially, the Syrian government forces, provided they meet Washington’s list of demands and reach mutual understandings with both Turkey and Russia.
He further stresses that one of the most critical conditions is the establishment of comprehensive security coordination with Israel to prevent any threats along its northern border. Moreover, regional understandings regarding Syria’s future must be in place, possibly through new political arrangements that ensure long-term stability.
Meanwhile, Marco Massad, a Washington-based international relations researcher with the Middle East Policy Institute, told +963 that Trump’s plans for withdrawal are not new, having been proposed as far back as 2018 and 2019, though never fully implemented.
Massad says the current talk centres on reducing troop numbers could create a security vacuum in SDF-held areas, a territory Israel sees as free from Iranian influence, thus making it a potential source of concern.
He adds that a U.S. pullback from northern and eastern Syria could allow the Syrian government to reassert control over vast areas, raising uncertainty for Israel, which has no clear understanding of Damascus’s future direction.
While Washington may be motivated by cost-saving concerns and its lack of formal ties with Damascus, the move would put Israel face-to-face with Turkey, possibly increasing tensions, despite American promises to divide spheres of influence between them, a plan that has yet to materialize.
Massad concludes that the U.S. must mediate between Ankara and Tel Aviv to prevent conflict, warning that any withdrawal without clear diplomatic groundwork could lead to direct confrontations between Israel and Turkey.
