 "President-elect Donald Trump and and his pick for Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, may disagree on the stand on Syria. File Image/Reuters")
Donald Trump’s decision to take a hands-off approach to Syria following the collapse of Bashar Assad’s regime is already sparking debate within the Republican Party, including potential clashes with his own secretary of state nominee.
Trump has made it clear he wants the US to “have nothing to do with” the insurgency that toppled Syria’s government.
But Marco Rubio, his hawkish pick for secretary of state, is likely to push for a more active US role in the war-torn country. Rubio’s stance could set up a clash with Trump and Vice President-elect JD Vance, a staunch advocate of Trump’s non-interventionist foreign policy, Semafor reported.
The intraparty divide was evident as lawmakers weighed in on the roughly 900 US troops still stationed in Syria, where their primary mission has been to constrain the Islamic State. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., a vocal non-interventionist, urged Trump to withdraw the troops “on Day One.”
“It’s a terrible idea to have any soldiers there,” Semafor quoted Paul as saying. “Soldiers serve as a target for terrorists, they serve as a tripwire to get us involved in a messy civil war.”
Trump’s approach to Syria aligns with his broader reluctance to engage in overseas conflicts, a position he has iterated often during his campaign.
However, some Republicans warn that withdrawing US troops could embolden adversaries like Iran and Russia, whose influence in Syria has grown over the past decade.
David Schenker, a former assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs under Trump, said the debate mirrors discussions during Trump’s first term.
Impact Shorts
More Shorts“There were several people who opposed a withdrawal from Syria, believing — and I think correctly so — that it was a relatively low-cost, high-impact deployment,” Schenker said. “But for many in MAGA world, it’s yet another part of the forever wars.”
The fall of Assad’s regime, forced by a rebel group the US designates as a terrorist organisation, adds urgency to the debate. Trump’s decision could have implications not just for Syria, but for other foreign policy challenges, including whether to continue arming Ukraine and how to counter Iran’s regional ambitions.
Washington may face a repeat of the policy tug-of-war that defined Trump’s first term. While Trump’s ultimate decision on Syria will likely hinge on his non-interventionist instincts, the influence of Rubio and other hawkish voices in his administration remains an open question.