Over the weekend, U.S. forces unleashed an extensive strike on the Islamic State terrorist group (widely known as ISIS) in Syria, which was a part of a larger retaliatory strike on the group that began in December in order to avenge the deaths of two U.S. Army soldiers and a U.S. civilian interpreter. The strikes came amid wider instability in the country as Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) fighters withdrew from the city of Aleppo on Sunday after days of fighting with government forces.

As reported by The New York Times, Saturday’s U.S. strike involved 20 Air Force planes along with MQ-9 Reaper drones and Jordanian F-16 fighter jets, which fired over 90 bombs and missiles at 35 targets. “The targets included weapons caches, supply routes and other infrastructure” used by ISIS.

The attack followed an even larger U.S. strike that occurred on December 19, when over 100 munitions were fired at 70 suspected ISIS targets in central Syria, “including weapons storage areas and other operational-support buildings.” The strikes were in response to the killings of two Iowa National Guard soldiers and a civilian interpreter, who were ambushed in Palmyra, Syria by a single ISIS gunman, according to the U.S. Department of War.

The U.S. military action signaled the ongoing instability occurring within Syria, where Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa has struggled to secure the vast territory and unify the disparate forces that control different regions of the country, following the downfall of former dictator Bashar al-Assad after al-Sharaa’s Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) paramilitary forces overthrew al-Assad’s government in December 2024. President Donald Trump has since shown strong support for al-Sharaa, despite his previous ties to Islamist terrorist groups. Al-Sharaa made an historic visit to the White House in November and has since agreed to enter Syria into an international coalition to fight ISIS.

However, al-Sharaa’s government has had trouble unifying different factions that control large swaths of the country beyond Damascus. Over the weekend, Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which control roughly a quarter of the country’s territory mostly concentrated in the northeast, withdrew from the city of Aleppo after refusing to merge with the national army. At least 23 people were killed in the clashes between the SDF and government forces before a deal between the SDF and al-Sharaa’s government allowed Kurdish fighters to evacuate to northeastern Syria.

The conflict stems from the fact that factions within al-Sharaa’s new army originate from insurgent groups previously backed by Turkey, who have an extensive history of clashing with the SDF. As noted by ABC News, “Turkey considers the SDF a terrorist organization because of its association with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, which has waged a long-running insurgency in Turkey.”

But the Kurds, who control the Democratic Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (DAANES), have long been one of the few stabilizing forces present in Syria and have served as the U.S.’s main partner in the region in the fight against ISIS.

Experts like Lt. Col. (Ret.) Bob Maginnis, who serves as senior fellow for National Security at Family Research Council, say that al-Sharaa should not be given unconditional U.S. support due to his terrorist background and that his inability to partner with the Kurds is cause for concern.

“The new Syrian authority has failed to reconcile with the Kurds, whose forces remain among the most reliable partners the United States has ever had in the fight against Islamic State,” he told The Washington Stand. “Continued clashes between Kurdish units and government forces suggest that al-Sharaa either lacks the capacity or the will to build an inclusive postwar order. This raises serious doubts about his ability to unify Syria, protect minorities, or prevent extremist factions from reasserting influence under a new banner.”

“That said, rejecting engagement altogether would be strategically imprudent,” Maginnis continued. “The United States has an interest in preventing state collapse, renewed civil war, and an ISIS resurgence. Al-Sharaa may be usable as a transactional interlocutor, but only under strict conditions. Any U.S. engagement should be limited, closely monitored, and explicitly tied to measurable benchmarks: cessation of hostilities with Kurdish forces, demonstrable action against jihadist networks, protection of minorities, and genuine power-sharing arrangements. Support without conditions would risk legitimizing another authoritarian strongman with Islamist roots and repeating past American mistakes.”

As to the path forward for the Trump administration regarding Syria, Maginnis advised a measured approach.

“Donald Trump can best contribute to Syrian stabilization by pursuing a disciplined strategy that prioritizes security, leverage, and restraint rather than ambitious nation-building,” he contended. “The first imperative is to sustain relentless pressure on ISIS. Continued U.S. strikes and intelligence-driven operations are essential to prevent the group from exploiting political disorder and territorial gaps. A small but capable American military presence — focused on counterterrorism, intelligence, and partner support — remains the most effective way to deny ISIS a comeback.

Maginnis went on the emphasize “firmly backing Kurdish security and political rights while encouraging negotiations between Kurdish leaders and Damascus,” conditioning “reconstruction assistance and sanctions relief on concrete reforms,” and promoting regional diplomacy through coordination “with Turkey, Gulf states, and European partners,” which “can reduce proxy competition and prevent Syria from again becoming a battlefield for rival powers.”

“In sum,” Maginnis concluded, “President Trump’s most stabilizing course is a sober one — contain ISIS, protect proven partners, apply conditional leverage on Damascus, and avoid the illusion that Syria can be quickly remade. Stability, not perfection, should remain the objective.”