The peaceful Syrian revolution which started from Daraa in 2011 soon spread onto the entire Syrian horizon before the government turned the tide in its favor with the help of Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah. Towards the end of 2016, the government had retaken Aleppo  (the once industrial hub of Syria), Palmyra and several other important areas and with the start of 2017 government is now taking aim at Raqqa, the de-facto capital of the Islamic State. The assertive and renewed push from the government forces and the withdrawal of opposition from the several keys areas points to a trend of Bashar’s increasing power.  This trend has been further boosted by the Trump’s election promise that he will forge close ties with the Syrian president to defeat Islamic extremism in general and ISIS in particular. Now that Donald Trump is the president of United States, how he will align his policy with election rhetoric and what are his options? We are going to explore some of them.

The first option is that the government of Donald Trump will carry on with the policy of Barack Obama of backing local groups with arms, military expertise and aerial strikes. This is a possibility but with a more likely changing vigor on the increase of military strikes and even the deployment of American troops on the frontline. This strategy will have massive fallouts and repercussions for America in the form of Turkish antagonism who consider YPG as an extension of its own insurgent group, PKK. Secondly, what about those elements of rebels who are more Islamists in their nature? The likes of Ahrar Ul Sham, Ansar Ul Islam, Jaysh Ul Islam and even the Al-Qaeda affiliate, Jaish-Ul-Fatah, who have massive funding support from the Gulf monarchies. Will Donald Trump strike them or not is a big question to be asked.

The second option is that Donald Trump will side with the Syrian government against the rebels irrespective of the nature of rebels. This will further weaken American position in the conflict because there is every possibility that America will lose Saudi Arabia and other allies in the Gulf, Turkey, and even the battle-hardened Kurds. This will prove catastrophic for the American interests in the region because it will give a dominating role to Russia and Iran in the conflict. Another important angle is the souring of American relations with its longtime ally and staunch opponent of Bashar, Israel.

Will Trump be able to handle that?

The third option is that Donald Trump will order military action of ground forces of America in the Syrian conflict. This will create more problems for America in the form of military spending and loss of lives. This will also support the dormant narrative of “crusaders involvement” in the Muslim countries, attracting more Muslims towards the Islamic State, the same entity which Trump wants to defeat. Apart from this, the creation of safe zones, as was promised by Trump, will require a large American force to keep the rebels and government forces in check from advancing. Will this not require extra funds?

Donald Trump’s government can exercise these three options with varying level of dependence on the regional powers and local factors but we must keep in mind that America has lost much of its influence in the conflict due to the passive policy of Obama as evident from the recent negotiations between rebels and the Syrian government. In order to regain some sort of influence in the conflict, Trump has to use his bargaining power to the best of his ability to reach some sort of a lasting solution.