The outgoing President Joe Biden and his successor, Donald Trump, now face a critical geopolitical puzzle: what to make of Abu Mohammed al-Jolani, the rebel militia leader who has toppled Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad and now holds Syria’s future in his hands. Will he liberate the country or plunge it into deeper chaos? What exactly does this man want, and can he deliver it? Most importantly, what—if anything—can the United States do to influence the outcome?

For over a decade, the U.S. has oscillated between action and inaction in Syria, haunted by its past missteps. The Obama administration’s infamous “red line” moment, where it hesitated to intervene after Assad used chemical weapons, solidified a narrative of American withdrawal. Then came Trump, who not only abandoned Kurdish allies to the mercy of Turkish aggression but also declared with typical brashness that Syria was “not our fight.” Now, as Assad cowers in Russia and Syria faces yet another crossroads, the U.S. finds itself sidelined, its power in the Middle East further eroded, humiliated by its inability to influence events dominated by Israeli and Saudi interests.

Since the Arab Spring erupted in 2011, the U.S. has wrestled with the dual nightmare of Assad’s brutality and the spectre of extremist groups filling any potential power vacuum. Washington’s strategy—or lack thereof—has been one of cautious disengagement, oscillating between half-hearted support for rebel factions and airstrikes against ISIS targets. It’s the same tired refrain: the U.S. fears a “catastrophic success” as much as it fears failure. What if deposing Assad merely empowers a new, equally hostile regime?

Enter al-Jolani, the leader of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a group born from the chaos of Syria’s civil war. Once a lieutenant in Al-Qaeda, Jolani has spent 13 years transforming his organisation, shedding alliances with extremists like ISIS and preaching a more moderate version of Islamist governance. While HTS remains designated a terrorist organisation by the U.S., Jolani has attempted a PR makeover, granting interviews to outlets like CNN and PBS to insist that his group poses no threat to the West and could even be a potential partner against common enemies like Iran and Russia.

Jolani’s overtures are a challenge to American foreign policy orthodoxy. Should Washington treat him as a rehabilitated pragmatist or cynical opportunist seeking legitimacy? Either way, the stakes are high. Syria is a shattered nation, and its post-Assad trajectory could either alleviate or exacerbate the suffering of millions. Jolani’s governance of HTS-controlled territories has been notably less draconian than the Taliban’s rule in Afghanistan, but his promises of moderation require scrutiny. Can he truly unify the factions vying for power, or will Syria collapse into a Libyan-style anarchy?

The U.S. has no easy answers. Trump’s instinct to pull out of the Middle East entirely resonates with war-weary Americans but ignores the strategic vacuum such a retreat would create. Meanwhile, the lack of clear, actionable policies has undermined Biden’s emphasis on diplomacy. The U.S. abandoned the Kurds, stood by as Assad bombed civilians with Russian support, and has largely allowed regional powers like Saudi Arabia and Israel to dictate the Middle Eastern agenda.

The fall of Assad could be a pivotal moment—a rare chance to stabilise Syria, weaken Iranian and Hezbollah influence, and perhaps even integrate Sunni nations into a broader security framework involving Israel. Yet the risk of failure is immense. If the U.S. mishandles this moment, Syria could descend into deeper chaos, prolonging a conflict that has already claimed hundreds of thousands of lives and displaced millions.
The Biden and Trump camps must work together despite their political animosity to avoid repeating past mistakes. A unified approach—backed by the willingness to engage Jolani and HTS in pragmatic, conditional terms—could yield dividends. This would mean suspending HTS’s terrorist designation while keeping it as leverage, offering aid to support humanitarian efforts, and using military force only as a last resort.

However, despite a coordinated approach, the U.S. faces a daunting challenge: its credibility in the region is tatters. Years of inconsistent policies have eroded trust among key players. Washington is no longer viewed as a reliable partner, and its diminished influence leaves it dependent on the goodwill of regional powers that often pursue their own agendas.
One critical unknown is HTS’s stance on Israel. Historically, hostility towards Israel has been a unifying theme for many Sunni Islamist groups. The rise of HTS has been welcomed by Hamas, another Sunni organisation, raising questions about whether the group will adopt a confrontational posture towards Israel or prioritise consolidating power within Syria. The answer will shape the region’s future dynamics and test whether HTS’s claimed moderation is genuine or tactical.
For now, the U.S. must tread carefully, recognising that its actions—or inactions—will resonate far beyond Syria’s borders. In this volatile moment, missteps could ensure that America’s declining influence becomes irreversible.