The fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime has left a variety of factions fighting for power in Syria. Although none yet presents a clear threat of terrorism to the United States, the lack of stability leaves the country vulnerable to terror groups in the future. Western leaders should establish a foreign policy that balances non-intervention with support for anti-terror infrastructure in the region.

Three main players are currently jockeying for power in the leadership vacuum left by the Assad regime. First is the rebel group known as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a collection of Sunni Islamist groups that were the primary drivers of the recent offensive that ousted Bashar al-Assad from power. HTS was formerly known as the Al-Nusra Front, the Syrian branch of Al-Qaeda. HTS claims to have renounced its extremist views, although time will tell if that’s true. 

Second is the Syrian National Army (SNA), which, despite its name, is a rebel group fully backed by Turkey. They occupy territory in the northwest part of Syria and are fighting to take more territory, including territory held by the Kurds. 

The last contenders are the U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a primarily Kurdish group that occupies territory in northeastern Syria.

HTS currently controls most of the territory between the three. However, there are several critical reasons why Israel and the United States should think twice before recognizing HTS as the new official government of Syria. The first is that insurgent groups have a long history of becoming terrorist groups. The most notable example is how the Mujahideen went from opposing the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan to morphing into the Taliban and Al Qaeda. HTS itself already has a prior affiliation with Al Qaeda, a connection that potentially makes it even more dangerous. While it has renounced ties to Al Qaeda, the fact that HTS originated as part of one of the deadliest terror groups in the world should give policymakers a healthy dose of skepticism in dealing with them.

The SNA, meanwhile, is backed by Turkey, which is a member of NATO. This is not a point in the SNA’s favor, however, since Turkey has proven to be an unreliable NATO partner, recently sliding toward dictatorship and opposing Israel in its war against Hamas. Furthermore, unlike HTS, which has a formalized structure and leadership, SNA is a decentralized collection of groups. In the event of a breach between member factions, there is no guiding establishment to prevent terror groups from taking over and opposing Israel and threatening regional security.

That leaves the Kurds. While they have been reliable partners with the United States against ISIS, they control a small amount of territory in Syria. Any attempts to establish the Kurds as a primary power in Syria would be impractical. The majority Arab population would not accept a Kurdish-led government as legitimate. Yet, Israel and the United States should still offer financial and air support to Kurdish-led groups to maintain critical anti-terror infrastructure in Syria. 

It is in the West’s best interests for the SDF to maintain its power in the region. Civil war is likely to continue in Syria, as the formal integration of HTS, SNA, and SDF forces has not occurred. Meanwhile, the SNA is actively attacking SDF territory. As in Afghanistan and Iraq after the U.S. invasions, instability leaves the region vulnerable to the rise of Islamist terror groups. Both Israel and the United States need partners in the Middle East who can help counter these developments, and the Kurds have proven themselves dependable allies. The SDF is currently standing guard over thousands of former ISIS fighters who are in prisoner-of-war (POW) camps all over SDF-held territory. This is yet another reason why it is in the West’s best interest for the SDF to maintain its power: If the SDF is destroyed or weakened, these former fighters could revitalize the Islamic State.

The United States has had troops on the ground operating in support of Kurdish forces since 2014. It is well past time for them to come home, but the United States should continue its support of Kurdish forces in other ways. Israel should also recognize the importance of Kurdish forces in their own battle against terrorist forces and send the SDF military aid. With financial support from the United States and air support from the IDF, the Kurdish forces would be well-equipped to fight extremist groups on their own. Diplomatically, the United States must use its weight in NATO to keep Turkey from wiping the SDF off the map via its proxies. While Turkey vehemently opposes the nationalist aspirations of Syria’s Kurds due to its own sizable Kurdish population, it must also recognize the Kurds’ value in the fight against extremist militias. Political pressure, sanctions, and withholding military tech are just some of the tools President-elect Trump can use to pressure Turkey to end its war against the Kurds.

Some make the case that Turkey should be kicked out of NATO, but perhaps this move can be held as a trump card to keep Ankara in line when it comes to Syria. If the United States can get the SDF to agree not to encourage revolts by Kurds living in Turkey, then maybe Turkey will agree not to attack the Kurds in Syria.

The fall of Assad has created much uncertainty in Syria. For Israel, it has yet another unstable state for a neighbor. For the United States, it is another potential haven for terrorist groups. Both have the potential to make security gains through supporting the Kurdish-led SDF.

Matt Cookson is a contributor and a Middle East History and Policy Fellow with Young Voices. He also works in the supply chain for a U.S. Defense Contractor. His commentary has appeared in Real Clear Politics, the American Thinker, Providence Magazine, China Source, and the Idaho Freedom Foundation. You can follow him on X @MattCookson95. 

Image: Olmo Couto / Shutterstock.com.