By Dr. Adnan Bozan

At a historic turning point, the Syrian landscape shook to its core, marking the end of a regime that had ruled the country for decades and ushering in a transitional phase fraught with challenges and uncertainty. The fall of Assad's regime was not merely a domestic upheaval; it was a regional and international shift that shattered traditional power blocs and triggered new dynamics in global policy toward Syria. With Russia and Iran absent from the Syrian theater, the door opened to new political arrangements led by Washington, positioning itself as a "new guardian," not an occupier.

In this critical moment, U.S. President Donald Trump's speech was not a routine political statement but rather a document that revealed America's intention to reengineer post-war Syria—not as a failed or exhausted state, but as a unified, pluralistic country, governed by a new balance of international understandings, economic pressure, and social transformation.

What follows is a political analysis of this transformation, viewed through the lens of the new American discourse and Syria's evolving reality.

1. America Reengineers the Syrian File: From Collapse to Reconstruction

At a defining historical moment, the regime that had ruled Syria for five decades collapsed, signaling the end of traditional authoritarianism and the beginning of a turbulent transitional period led by Ahmad Al-Sharaa—a figure emerging from deep regional and international consensus, with a loosely Islamic identity. This shift was not purely internal; it culminated in a highly symbolic meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Ahmad Al-Sharaa in Riyadh, brokered directly by Saudi Arabia, aimed at reordering the Syrian file and broader regional equations through a renewed American-Israeli lens.

The meeting made clear that Washington sought to pull Al-Sharaa into its orbit, redirecting his geopolitical compass away from Turkey—viewed as a destabilizing actor in northern Syria—and away from Islamist political projects that risked recycling chaos in religious guise. The American-Israeli response was swift and decisive: a series of coordinated airstrikes targeting Iranian positions and proxies across the region—from Gaza to South Lebanon, through Syria, and into Yemen—in a clear attempt to diminish Iranian influence and neutralize its regional leverage accumulated over years of war.

This new arrangement paved the way for an unprecedented transitional phase, coinciding with the final withdrawal of Iran and Russia from Syria. The resulting geopolitical vacuum was quickly filled by a strategic American message articulated through Trump's speech: a comprehensive political document outlining the blueprint for post-Assad Syria—a reconstruction plan grounded in conditional American engagement, financial pressure tools, and carefully designed regional alliances.

2. No Military Victory... But a Geopolitical Settlement via Forced Exit of the Old Guard

The fall of the regime was not the product of a pure popular uprising, a domestic coup, or a decisive military defeat. Rather, it was the fruit of a complex international settlement negotiated behind closed doors, aligning U.S. interests with key regional capitals, and coinciding with a shift in political mood in Moscow and Tehran—both of which found themselves mired in an exhausting quagmire with no strategic return.

Thus, the withdrawal of Russia and Iran from Syria was not a tactical retreat but a forced recalibration to make way for new arrangements compatible with the post-war balance of power. When American rhetoric emphasizes Syria’s unity and stability, it does not defend classic sovereignty but rather seeks to reconstruct the state according to a modern American vision of institutional governance and political discipline.

3. Trump's Speech: Soft Guardianship in a Reformist Disguise

Trump’s speech and his decisions to ease sanctions were not emotional reactions to political change. Instead, they constituted a proactive American initiative to fill the strategic void left by the regime’s fall and the departure of its allies. Washington is acutely aware that any vacuum in Syria invites opportunistic moves by competing powers—whether China, extremist factions, or regional actors like Turkey. Hence, the speech carried two clear messages:

• The Syrian file remains under American guardianship.
• Washington will not permit the emergence of a new authoritarian regime, nor will it tolerate chaos or partitionist agendas.

In this sense, the American discourse represents a form of "soft guardianship"—presenting hegemony in the guise of stewardship, and imposing a conditional roadmap with clear red lines: no extremism, no fragmentation, no corruption, and no marginalization of minorities.

4. Ahmad Al-Sharaa: Transitional Leader or Cosmetic Change?

With Ahmad Al-Sharaa assuming the transitional presidency, it became evident that Washington endorsed a figure with minimum international acceptability, unlikely to provoke Syrians or alienate allies. Al-Sharaa is neither a radical revolutionary nor a relic of the discredited old guard. In Washington’s eyes, he is a "man of balance"—capable of mediating among domestic actors and responsive to American calibration through incentives and pressures.

Nevertheless, Washington is not granting Al-Sharaa a free hand. Continued support hinges on specific commitments: launching a comprehensive national dialogue, recognizing Kurds as political partners, reforming security institutions, and combating corruption as a gateway to development and investment.

5. The Kurds: From Military Tools to Political Stakeholders

One of the most striking developments in American rhetoric is the elevation of the Kurds from military partners in counterterrorism to political stakeholders in state-building. When Trump urged the new Damascus to assume responsibility for ISIS detention centers, he was signaling more than a security concern—he was laying the groundwork for integrating Kurdish structures into the fabric of the Syrian state.

Thus, the Kurdish project, long suspended between Damascus’ rejection and international indifference, is now officially part of the American vision for a solution. Political and constitutional recognition of the Kurds is no longer merely a bargaining chip; it has become a condition for Syria’s structural stability.

6. Turkey: The Unsettled Ally in a Tight Corner

Among all regional actors, Ankara appears the most unsettled by recent shifts. The departure of Iran and Russia, coupled with the fall of the Assad regime, stripped Turkey of its security justifications for intervention in northern Syria. Washington, which had previously tolerated Turkish behavior under the NATO umbrella, has adopted a stricter tone and clearer warnings:

"No influence on the ground. No safe zones. No flimsy security pretexts."

The message is twofold: first, Turkey must transform from a field actor into a diplomatic partner; second, it must relinquish its grip on the Kurdish file and accept a new balance of power overseen by Washington.

7. Sanctions: From Punitive Measures to Policy Instruments

For the first time, America is shifting away from purely punitive sanctions and instead using them as a positive pressure mechanism conditional on reform. Easing sanctions on Syria does not signal carte blanche for Ahmad Al-Sharaa’s government; rather, it is a strategic incentive tied to transparency, political openness, and domestic stability.

This reflects a new awareness in Washington: that Syria’s solution lies not in the gun, but in bread, justice, and infrastructure. Syrians need food before rhetoric, and local justice before ballots.

Conclusion: Post-Assad Syria Through the American Looking Glass

What is unfolding today is not merely a transfer of power, but a fundamental transformation of the Syrian state. For the first time in five decades, Syria faces the opportunity to redefine itself: as a pluralistic state immune to monopolization, a state of law rather than surveillance, and a space for partnership rather than foreign tutelage.

But this opportunity is conditional: it is not given—it must be earned. Trump’s recent speech offered no free promises but rather sketched the contours of a conditional roadmap:

• A unified but decentralized state.
• Pluralism within the framework of sovereignty.
• A pragmatic secularism that respects all identities.
• A productive economy, not one driven by clientelism.
• Internal partnerships instead of external occupations.

Washington does not want Assad back, but neither does it accept armed enclaves or secessionist projects. It is betting on a "smart state"—governed by balanced internal alliances and indirect international oversight.

The ball is now in the Syrians' court. Will they seize this moment to build a new homeland, or will they reproduce a softer version of the old authoritarianism?

Only time will tell. But as Trump declared clearly:

"We will not allow Syria to fall again—not from outside, and not from within."

Add comment