Syria today, amid shifting regional and global dynamics, appears as a geo-strategic stage where the influence of three principal powers intersects, and perhaps pivots: the United States, Turkey, and Israel. Alongside them, Iran and Russia remain active and influential players in the equation.
Turkey as a Managed Partner
The United States is shaping its direct influence over Syrian territory by restraining Turkish ambitions while simultaneously empowering Israeli dominance. This necessarily involves undermining Iran’s reach and obstructing its movements across the region.
For Washington, Syria represents a space where policies are carried out at arm’s length. The country’s geo-strategic position gives it significance far beyond its borders, requiring close monitoring of the moves of every key actor and a clear understanding of their goals.
In this context, American scholar Joshua M. Landis of the University of Oklahoma explained that the United States has two central objectives in Syria. The first, he said, was voiced explicitly by President Donald Trump after meeting Syria’s new president, when Trump described Ahmad al-Sharaa as “a good man” and the best opportunity for rebuilding Syria and restoring stability to the wider region. According to Landis, Trump pledged that Washington was prepared to lift all sanctions to allow Syria to rise again, a move made in response to the urging of both Turkey and Saudi Arabia, America’s principal allies in the Middle East alongside Israel.
Speaking to +963, Landis added that Trump announced this policy during his visit to the Gulf, part of his effort to repair strained ties with Riyadh and Ankara following the turbulence of the Biden years. Both states, he noted, had pressed Washington to lift sanctions on Syria and open the door to engagement with Sharaa.
Landis stressed that Turkey and Israel form the twin pillars of America’s alliances in the region, and Washington is keen to avoid being forced into confrontation or into choosing between them. This is why, he explained, the US is pushing for a Syrian–Israeli border agreement.
Yet Trump, Landis observed, appeared reluctant to challenge Israeli strategy in the Levant, even when it clashed with US efforts to consolidate authority in Damascus and accommodate Turkish interests. This, he argued, was largely shaped by domestic American politics. Trump’s strategy hinged on betting on Netanyahu and aligning closely with Israel, a posture that deepened divisions within the Democratic Party over Israel and gave Trump an opportunity to court Jewish American constituencies long loyal to the Democrats, especially among business and financial elites.
When asked whether American diplomatic and political cover for Israeli strikes on Iranian positions in Syria forms part of a wider strategy to reinforce US influence, Landis was clear: Washington’s anti-Iran policy is driven far more by Israeli interests than by any Gulf Arab security concern, even if US politicians often present it as such. “That’s partly true,” he said, “but Israel is the primary driver, as was seen clearly during the Twelve-Day War.”
Read also: Does a Deep State Exist in Syria? History, Power, and the Transitional Era
Israel: The Fixed Axis of Washington’s Strategy
Landis went on to argue that Washington’s alignment with Israel springs above all from domestic political calculations. Yet this often damages America’s relationships with Arab and Muslim states, weakening rather than strengthening its position in the region. He cited US cooperation with Israel in strikes on Hamas leadership in Doha as one example, a move that directly strained Washington’s ties with Gulf states.
He concluded that the biggest challenge facing US foreign policy in Syria and the broader Middle East lies in balancing the Israeli alliance on one side with stable ties to Turkey and the Gulf on the other, without allowing these contradictions to undermine Washington’s influence.
Similarly, political analyst Burak Can told +963 that although fighting in Syria has quietened compared to past years, the geopolitical struggle remains unresolved. The current American presence, he argued, serves purposes that go far beyond regime change or counter-terrorism. It is primarily about managing Turkey’s operational ambitions, bolstering Israel’s security dominance, and curbing Iranian influence.
Washington no longer sees Syria merely as a civil war battleground or counter-terrorism front, he added, but rather as a chessboard where regional powers collide. The US plays its pieces carefully: restraining Turkey, empowering Israel, and containing Iran.
Turkey: A Controlled but Useful Ally
Since 2016, Turkey has launched successive military operations in northern Syria, making Ankara at once a threat and a pressure card for Washington. A threat, because unchecked Turkish expansion risks undermining America’s partnership with the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces. A pressure card, because Turkish presence limits Russian and Iranian influence.
According to Can, American policy does not seek to exclude Ankara, but to render it a “manageable partner” on the ground. Recent Turkish operations, he noted, fell within limits tacitly accepted by Washington, reflecting a calibrated strategy that ensures Ankara remains influential but contained.
Israel: Washington’s Strategic Constant
By contrast, Israel occupies a wholly different place in US strategy. Its strikes against Iranian assets in Syria, from Revolutionary Guard bases to Hezbollah convoys and logistics hubs near Damascus, have continued unabated, facing little international pushback thanks to the cover provided by Washington.
These operations not only guarantee Israel’s security but also reinforce American deterrence across the region. In effect, Israel serves as Washington’s low-cost military arm against Iranian entrenchment in Syria. This “shadow war” is thus a cornerstone of US hegemony in the Middle East: it both entrenches Israeli superiority and indirectly protects American regional assets.
Iran: The Ever-Present Target
Can argued that Washington views Iran’s presence in Syria as a strategic threat, not only to Israel but also to wider US interests. Tehran’s ambition to build a “Shia corridor” to the Mediterranean directly challenges American dominance. Israeli strikes, with US backing, repeatedly disrupt this project. In this sense, American and Israeli interests are not just aligned but intertwined.
US policy, he explained, operates along two tracks: “towards Turkey, a partner whose operations are tolerated but constrained; towards Israel, a fixed strategic ally, fully backed and institutionally protected.”
This dual strategy allows Washington to control the balance of power in Syria without deep entanglement, while consolidating its regional position.
Ultimately, America’s Syria policy is not built on ideals of peace or stability but on strict realpolitik. Turkey is the managed partner; Israel is the entrenched pillar. Washington’s diplomatic shield for Israeli strikes on Iran is not just about defending Tel Aviv but forms the very foundation of its Middle East stance.
Syrian researcher Taha Abdel Wahid, speaking to +963, added that Trump’s administration does indeed aim to push Syria towards stability. He pointed to two priorities: resolving the question of the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces to block any Turkish military incursion, and restraining Israel by halting its strikes under the pretext of residual Iranian factions. He stressed, however, that this responsibility should fall to Syrian authorities, who must prevent Iran-linked actors from exploiting Syrian territory against Israel.
Abdel Wahid argued that Trump approaches international affairs with the eye of a merchant, measuring profit and loss. He predicted that Trump sees contributing to Syria’s stability as a move that would ultimately yield greater dividends.
Dr. Khayri Omar, speaking to +963, noted that Syria’s new foreign policy provides a clear example in its handling of Turkey. He argued that American policy seeks to strike a balance between Turkish and Israeli influence inside Syria. Yet the nature of Washington’s relationship with the two states differs: while the US aims to grant Turkey only a limited, controlled role, it works in parallel to shape the Syrian system into one that is aligned with, or at least not hostile to, Israel.
In this regard, the Middle East specialist explained that such a direction reflects Washington’s attempt to bring Syrian policies closer to those of Israel, both politically and in terms of security, so that they become largely compatible. Comparing the two cases, he added that US policy currently gives clear priority to the Israeli component, ensuring it becomes the most accepted and influential actor within Syria. By contrast, Turkey’s role is welcomed only within boundaries that prevent it from shaping the regime or determining its future.
Dr. Omar concluded that American strategy, dating back to before the Assad era and through the civil war, has always aimed at restructuring influence in the Middle East. It is not simply about confronting Iran or reducing its presence in Syria. Rather, Washington’s goal is to ensure that the dominant force in the country is tied to American interests, not merely to exclude another power. In other words, the US positions itself as the principal distributor of political resources, the actor that decides who wields influence in Syria and beyond.
He added that Washington’s reception of Ahmad al-Sharaa can be read as a step towards building a new Syrian entity more closely aligned with US policy than with regional or local ties. Thus, America seeks to ensure that the new system’s legitimacy is not in conflict with Israel but rather moving towards harmony with it. This direction is evident in recent security agreements, such as the Paris Agreement and follow-up talks two months ago, and in subsequent security arrangements.
Dr. Omar concluded that American policy is not confined to balancing Turkish and Israeli influence in Syria. It goes further: to transform Syrian-Israeli relations into ones that are not only “acceptable” but perhaps even convergent, ensuring that Washington remains the central axis in shaping the region’s political and security order.
