Croaky Explains: How Trump Got Rid of Assad Without Firing a Shot

The Irony of Trump’s Syrian Withdrawal and Assad’s Fall

The Irony of Trump’s Syrian Swan Song: How America’s Departure Toppled Assad

All actions, especially in the realm of foreign policy, are fraught with unintended consequences—a reality as ancient as diplomacy itself. What is initially hailed as strategic brilliance can devolve into unmitigated disaster, and what is vilified as reckless folly may, through the peculiar alchemy of historical forces, yield surprisingly salutary outcomes. Consider, for example, the shifting sands of American engagement under Donald J. Trump, a man whose self-styled image as the “master dealmaker” often collided with his role as a veritable agent of chaos on the world stage, bearing a flair for the theatrical not seen since the days of poorly written Bond villains.

Take the Doha Agreement, Trump’s pièce de résistance of diplomatic hubris, which promised peace in Afghanistan while unwittingly engineering the collapse of its government and the strategic resurrection of the Taliban—now stronger and more emboldened than ever. On the opposite end of the spectrum lies his decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria, a move that provoked the resignation of General James Mattis, the last redoubt of sober military counsel in the administration. That decision, lambasted as a betrayal of allies and a boon to regional despots, has ironically contributed to the ongoing destabilization of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, an unintended yet tangible boon to those who have long sought his ouster.

The irony here is palpable: a president lauded for upending the foreign policy establishment managed, in his erratic improvisations, to stumble into an outcome that the interventionists themselves have long coveted. What was once decried as an abdication of America’s moral leadership now stands as a lesson in the unpredictable outcomes of geopolitical disengagement. Irony thy name is Donald Trump.

Trump’s Syrian Gamble

When Trump abruptly announced the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Syria in 2018, it was framed as a decisive rejection of America’s penchant for “endless wars.” Critics howled. Kurdish allies cried betrayal. Assad, Russia, and Iran presumably toasted the good fortune of American abdication. What could go wrong, after all, when you leave a power vacuum in one of the world’s most volatile regions?

Well, quite a lot, apparently—but not in the way anyone expected.

Assad’s Hollow “Victory”

Initially, Trump’s withdrawal seemed like a gift to Assad. Freed from the pesky meddling of U.S. forces, Assad quickly absorbed the now abandoned Kurdish regions into his patchwork of control. But this so-called victory was Pyrrhic at best. Assad’s reliance on Kurdish fighters to secure parts of Syria only deepened the sectarian divisions that had long plagued his regime. When your governance is already viewed by the populous as not being representative of the majority you fall into the problems of legitimacy. The Sunnis—already chafing under an Alawite ruler—saw his alliance with another minority group as confirmation that Assad would cling to power at any cost, even if it meant fracturing the nation further.

The Kurdish alliance also revealed Assad’s dependence on transactional relationships rather than genuine domestic legitimacy. When the Kurds inevitably grew tired of his empty promises and his other allies—namely Russia and Iran—became distracted by their own crises, Assad’s regime began to resemble a Potemkin village: grand in appearance but structurally unsound. In fact one can argue the other reason his allies began to see him as a sunk cost was due to this obvious erosion in legitimacy of the Assad government. You can’t govern over a decade of rampant civil war and be seen making opportunistic deals and begging for foreign support without your legitimacy taking a loss. I’ll be posting another article on legitimacy later today with a Machiavelli twist for the nerds that are paying for subscription, and to spare the non-nerds from having to read me rambling forever.

Rebels: From Proxies to Patriots

Here’s where Trump’s unintentional genius comes into play. By withdrawing U.S. support, he forced Syrian rebels to grow up. Bereft of American backing, they shed their image as foreign proxies and emerged as localized opposition movements, driven by genuine grievances rather than international agendas. For the West the idea of a Jihadist terrorist organization being in the rebellion seems sketchy, but to locals it’s viewed as being organic and authentic even when they don’t agree with the goals. This is why so many foreign backed movements traditionally fail to maintain dominance as we’ve seen in both Iraq and Afghansitan. Trump, in one fell swoop, transformed the rebels from caricatures of “Western puppets” into symbols of grassroots resistance.

This newfound legitimacy was a nightmare for Assad. Unlike his foreign sponsors, the rebels were embedded in the local fabric, speaking the language of the disaffected masses. Their message was simple and devastating: Assad is not Syria’s savior; he is its oppressor. And for once, the majority of Syrian people seemed to agree. They may all plan different outcomes, but the overall sense of Assad as illegitimate became more apparent, even to his foreign allies which brings us to:

Russia and Iran: Fair-Weather Friends

Assad’s foreign patrons were discovering the limits of their largesse. Russia, bogged down in its Ukraine quagmire, found itself unable to prop up Assad indefinitely and saw no need to continue throwing money into a hole when Assad was losing favor by the day. Iran, beset by sanctions, domestic unrest, and stepping into their own problems with Israel based on their own misguided hubris had its own fires to extinguish. Add to it that Israel had been targeting supply lines in their war against Hezbollah that impacted Assad’s own supplies having been a beneficiary of Iranian support in these lines. Suddenly, Assad was left standing alone, his once-iron grip slipping through his fingers like sand.

Trump’s decision to withdraw from Syria may have been derided as reckless, but in retrospect, it was the masterstroke of unintentional statecraft. By removing the U.S. as a convenient scapegoat, Trump forced Assad to answer for his own failings—and the verdict was damning.

The Irony of It All

And so, we arrive at the delicious irony: Trump’s actions, derided as a betrayal of U.S. principles and allies, inadvertently achieved what years of direct intervention could not. By dismantling the scaffolding of foreign influence, he allowed the Syrian conflict to resolve itself on terms that Assad could no longer manipulate. The rebels, stripped of Western patronage, became the authentic voice of Syrian opposition. Assad, stripped of his veneer of stability, became just another despot clinging to a crumbling throne.

I do wonder if Trump, in his current Mar-a-Lago staging ground for his next administration, has the faintest inkling of the historical irony he has wrought. Or perhaps he’ll tweet (or truth, or whatever it is he plans on doing now) something like: “Biggest WIN in the Middle East! Assad OUT thanks to ME. No one else could’ve done it!” It would, of course, miss the point entirely, but when has that ever stopped him? Also he would be right.

Trump’s Intentions: America First, Always

Trump’s guiding principle—if we dare use the term—has always been transactional nationalism. His obsession with withdrawing U.S. troops from “endless wars” wasn’t about Syria’s future or Assad’s fate; it was about optics. Trump wanted to fulfill his campaign promise to “bring the troops home,” shroud himself in the mantle of anti-interventionism, and proclaim victory over ISIS, all while minimizing America’s entanglement in foreign affairs. A noble goal, even if for ignoble purposes.