The uneasy honeymoon between U.S. President Donald Trump and Syrian leader Ahmad al-Shara faced a serious test yesterday. Near the historic city of Palmyra (Tadmur) in central Syria, three Americans—two soldiers and one interpreter—were killed in an ISIS attack. The attacker, who was also a member of Syrian security forces, was killed immediately after the incident.
According to social media accounts closely monitoring the region, the attacker joined ISIS in 2014 and operated within the organization in Raqqa and Homs provinces until the fall of the Assad regime. After the regime’s collapse, he reportedly traveled to Idlib with a group of ISIS members, joined security units formed under Shara’s leadership, and was later deployed to Palmyra.
It is reported that the attacker initially planned to carry out the attack inside a meeting hall. However, when he was stopped by American soldiers before reaching the venue, he detonated himself. Following the attack, other individuals who had traveled with him to Idlib and later joined the security units were detained on suspicion of having ISIS ties.
Palmyra, located in Homs province, is a historic city in the middle of the Syrian desert. The area is not fully controlled either by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which dominate northeastern Syria, or by Syria’s central authorities.
This security vacuum has allowed ISIS to maintain numerous active and sleeper cells in the region. The United States, through the international coalition formed to combat ISIS, regularly conducts operations in this area. Just last month, Syrian leader Ahmad al-Shara announced Syria’s participation in this coalition following his meeting with President Trump in the United States. The attack occurred during a joint U.S.–Syrian patrol against ISIS.
As the first major attack targeting U.S. security forces in Syria since the fall of the Bashar al-Assad regime, the incident immediately shifted attention to how President Trump would respond.
Trump, however, refrained from placing any blame on Shara. He described the attack as an act directed against both the United States and Syria, carried out in a highly dangerous region that Syria does not fully control. According to Trump, the Shara administration is not responsible for the attack. He emphasized that Shara was “deeply saddened” by the incident and stressed that Syrian forces are fighting alongside U.S. troops. Trump also underlined that Shara was “extremely angry and disturbed” by the attack.
With these statements, Trump effectively preempted potential criticism directed at both himself and Shara.
During Trump’s first term, the United States reduced its troop presence in Syria. In his second term, however, Washington has begun to increase the number of U.S. troops again, albeit cautiously.
The main U.S. base in Syria is al-Tanf, located at the tri-border area between Syria, Iraq, and Jordan. This base is primarily used for operations against ISIS. In addition, the United States maintains smaller outposts in areas controlled by the SDF.
Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), led by Shara, along with its allied factions, has been in the process of being integrated into Syria’s army and security apparatus since the fall of the Assad regime.
However, the fact that many members of these security units—including Shara himself—have past affiliations with al-Qaeda or ISIS has long been a source of concern for the international community.
The latest attack demonstrates that these concerns are not unfounded. Nevertheless, Western countries—led by the United States—appear to calculate that there is currently no viable alternative to Shara if Syria is to avoid becoming a second Afghanistan. For this reason, they are attempting to draw Shara into the international system.
In turn, Shara has been careful to avoid radical positions and particularly to refrain from harsh rhetoric against Israel, in order to secure the support of President Trump and the broader international community.
Yet ISIS is only one of many security challenges Shara faces. Others include the failure to fully integrate the SDF into a centralized national army, the independent actions of militias under Turkish control, the high number of radical elements within the army and security forces, the incomplete integration of former militias into state institutions, and the potential for clashes among these groups.
