لماذا وسّعت أمريكا نطاق الحرب على الإرهاب؟

The Syrian security forces are preparing to launch a wide campaign against ISIS and the terrorist cells infiltrating security institutions, following the bloody incident that claimed the lives of two American soldiers and a civilian translator in Palmyra.

First Practical Test

The incident comes at a moment that represents the first practical test for expanding American military cooperation in Syria beyond the areas controlled by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). For years, the American presence and field coordination have been limited to the northeastern part of the country, where the SDF has been the main partner for Washington in the fight against ISIS, within a relatively stable operational model that has limited direct risks to American forces through clear lines of control and a cohesive partnership structure.

This model was, in essence, an extension of the framework adopted by the international coalition to combat ISIS since its establishment in 2014, when it was launched by the United States with the participation of dozens of countries at the height of the organization's expansion and control over vast areas in Syria and Iraq.

At that stage, the coalition relied on the principle of airstrikes, intelligence support, and partnering with local allies to avoid direct ground involvement, which later made the eastern Euphrates one of the last pockets where this model continued in its clearest forms.

More Limited Missions

However, the coalition, which reached the peak of its activity between 2015 and 2018, has seen a gradual decline in momentum following the collapse of the ISIS "state" and the fall of major urban centers that the organization controlled. Several countries withdrew or reduced their participation, and the coalition's role shifted from large-scale combat operations to more limited missions focused on training, information sharing, and preventing the organization's resurgence. The United States remained the almost sole key player capable of managing this framework, with an increasing reliance on local partners in various areas of influence.

In this context, the American shift to central Syria, particularly Palmyra, represents a qualitative change in the nature of military engagement, as it effectively moves the coalition's operations from a model of working through local partners to a model of direct cooperation with the Syrian state institutions themselves. This expansion has opened a new path for coordination with agencies that are still undergoing a deep restructuring process following the fall of the previous regime, whether at the leadership level, combat doctrine, or patterns of deployment and control.

The Palmyra Incident and Containing the Threat

The American losses in the Palmyra attack have raised genuine questions within political and military circles in Washington about the possibility of slipping into a new pattern of security attrition. However, these concerns have not yet translated into an actual inclination towards withdrawal or retreat; on the contrary, it seems that the Palmyra incident has reinforced a growing conviction among American decision-makers that the old formula of the coalition, based on spheres of influence and fragmented coordination, is no longer sufficient to contain the threat. Leaving a security vacuum in central Syria or maintaining military and geographical divisions provides the most suitable environment for the return of extremist organizations.

From this perspective, the carefully considered expansion of military cooperation, despite its obvious risks, is seen as an attempt to redefine what remains of the international coalition against ISIS; as a framework that is more integrated with the new Syrian state. This is a choice that Washington views as less costly than retreating and allowing the scene to disintegrate again, which could later impose a broader and more complex intervention.

Notably, the terrorist organization is no longer confined to its traditional areas in the eastern part of the country or the Syrian desert; it has expanded its operations into deeper areas within the interior, as revealed by the Idlib operation where four Syrian security personnel were killed.

Preventing the Exploitation of Tension

In a broader context, the Syrian desert has formed a focal point for the organization, as it is a rugged area that is difficult to comb militarily and is open to the strongholds of the organization during its peak, such as Deir ez-Zor, the Syrian-Iraqi border, the Hamad region, and Palmyra, extending to the Tlouls al-Safa overlooking Sweida. The international coalition understands that complete control over this area and preventing the organization's activity there within a year is not an easy task for the Syrian government. Therefore, it is not unlikely that any attacks carried out by the organization could pose challenges, especially since the Syrian government has reinforced its military presence in that area and has conducted several operations near Tlouls al-Safa to prevent the organization from exploiting the existing tension in Sweida.

ISIS relies on a set of interconnected factors for its resurgence, the most prominent of which is the stagnation of the political process: the divisions within Syria (the Syrian army, the SDF, Sweida) that have created gaps exploited by the organization. Additionally, the gradual American withdrawal, reducing forces from 2,000 soldiers to 1,400 by the end of 2025, with plans for further reductions by 2026, has weakened the backbone of the international coalition, providing the organization with a rare opportunity to exert its terror.

Local and International Strategy

If a joint local and international strategy to confront it is not established, Syria may once again enter a spiral of terrorism that threatens the region. Perhaps the quickest path to containing the momentum of the terrorist organization is to build on comprehensive Syrian consensus, based on a vision that everyone shares to build a stable state looking towards prosperity. It is not hidden that the speed of the Syrian response to eliminate ISIS and thwart its plan for resurgence will close many doors to external interventions.

The previous Syrian experience in the long internal war has proven that the most dangerous collapse in Syria was the spread of terrorism and its control over vast lands in Syria and Iraq, which turned the country into an international arena for gathering terrorists.

The current data indicates that the current government in Damascus will not allow this gap to widen, which Washington is aware of. This reinforces the theory of the American-Syrian need for more cooperation, coordination, and support at the security level, as hinted at by Syrian officials in discussions about the necessity of strengthening and empowering the new Syrian state.