GOP hawks to Trump: Iran is the bigger threat in Syria

As reports emerged that he plans to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria, President Donald Trump hinted at why: “We have defeated ISIS in Syria, my only reason for being there during the Trump Presidency,” he wrote on Twitter.

But to some of Trump’s own national security advisers, the U.S. presence in Syria is really about another foe: Iran.

Story Continued Below

Instead of vanquishing the Islamic State, a job not yet done, some believe the more important mission in war-torn Syria is combating the creeping expansion of Tehran’s influence across the region — even if that means an indefinite U.S. deployment.

These Trump supporters were scrambling Wednesday to change Trump’s mind, insisting that removing U.S. troops from the Arab state could undermine his own “maximum pressure” campaign against the Islamist regime in Tehran, which the Trump administration has accused of empowering anti-Israel militant forces in Syria.

Taking troops out of Syria will “be seen by Iran and other bad actors as a sign of American weakness in the efforts to contain Iranian expansion,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a national security hawk and top Trump ally, said in a statement listing several reasons not to leave.

“When the U.S. pulls out of Syria, we are basically turning the country over to the Russians and to Iran, and primarily to Iran,” warned Republican Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.), another foreign policy hawk.

Since its start in 2011, the bloody conflict in Syria has expanded and drawn in outside players including the United States, Russia, Israel, Iran, Turkey and others, as the death toll has risen toward half a million people.

The U.S. officially has 2,000 forces there help local fighters battle the Islamic State, a small but strategic contingent that American officials and Trump-allied lawmakers paint as giving the U.S. at least some leverage in protecting its allies and pushing forward peace talks.

It’s been enough of an argument to convince Trump to keep some U.S. troops in Syria so far, despite his own conflicting impulses and mercurial nature.

At times the president has wanted to completely withdraw troops from Syria. But he’s also been willing to launch airstrikes against the Syrian regime of Bashar Assad over its use of chemical weapons, while also insisting he wants to eliminate the Islamic State, also known as ISIS.

But the U.S. troops have served another major purpose: counterweight to Iran and its influence operation in the country.

Tehran has devoted significant military resources to shore up the Assad regime, giving Assad, who’s also gotten a boost from Russia, an edge over rebels and other forces trying to end his brutal rule.

Iran’s presence has given the country’s proxies — among them the anti-Israel Shiite militia Hezbollah — more room to maneuver, build bases and keep weapons.

The cover offered to these groups has greatly aggravated Israel, a major U.S. ally that Trump has vowed to protect. The country has launched numerous airstrikes designed to curb Iranian and Iran-affiliated forces in Syria. The U.S. forces in Syria — even a relatively small number — are seen as a buffer of sorts to Israel as Iran slogs forward.

Iran’s moves in Syria also concern America’s Arab allies, such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, who fear the growing power of the Shiite Muslim-led theocracy in Tehran.

Trump has made countering Iran one of the biggest and clearest parts of his foreign policy. The Republican president has pulled out of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, imposed a massive number of sanctions on Tehran and is pressuring other countries to stop importing Iranian oil.

The Trump administration has demanded, among other things, that Iran withdraw all of the forces under its command from Syria, a demand Trump aides have repeatedly echoed.

Just this Monday, U.S. Special Envoy for Syrian Engagement James Jeffrey said of the Iranian presence in in Syria: “We see no reason to tolerate this. We see no reason for this to be there. … Our position is that they need to go.”

Three months earlier, White House national security adviser John Bolton suggested that the U.S. military presence in Syria could be indefinite because of Iran.

“We’re not going to leave as long as Iranian troops are outside Iranian borders and that includes Iranian proxies and militias,” he is reported to have said in New York.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, meanwhile, has conditioned future U.S. assistance to Syria on the departure of Iran. “If Syria doesn’t ensure the total withdrawal of Iranian-backed troops, it will not receive one single dollar from the United States for reconstruction,” he said in October.

These Trump aides and other supporters make clear that the U.S. has multiple interests in trying to bring peace to Syria.

The fight against terrorist groups in the country is not yet over, despite Trump’s claims. Remnants of the Islamic State are still fighting, and there are worries that the group will return as an insurgent force, even if it lacks control over any territory.

Similarly, there are concerns about Russia’s increased influence in the country if the U.S. withdraws completely, a concerning prospect given Russian President Vladimir Putin’s revanchist aspirations.

But given the president and his administration’s fixation on the Iranian threat, Trump’s willingness to consider a full withdrawal is especially startling. There is a growing sense among observers of the region that Tehran is more committed to Syria than Russia.

“The Iran hawk wing of the U.S. government’s foreign policy establishment ought to feel betrayed by this decision,” said Charles Lister, an analyst with the Middle East Institute.

In his comments Wednesday, Rubio pointed to another concern should the U.S. leave: “America looks unreliable,” he said. “Our partners in the region now view at America as a nation that’s looking to get out, not looking to stand by our commitments.

“They will compare us to Vladimir Putin, who has stuck by Assad the whole time. They will compare us to Iran, who has stuck by Assad at all times. And they will compare the United States to that and say ‘America is unreliable.’”