Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response

Armed Conflict in Syria:
July 27, 2020
Overview and U.S. Response
Overview and U.S. November 8, 2022 Response Carla E. Humud,
As of 2020, Syria faces growing economic instability and pockets of renewed political
Coordinator
unrest, amid ongoing interventions by outside states and new public health challenges
Analyst in Middle Eastern
posed by the spread of the coronavirus (COVID-19). The government of Syrian
Affairs
President Bashar al Asad—backed by Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah—has recaptured most

areas formerly held by opposition forces but faces persistent challenges from fighters
Christopher M. Blanchard
linked to the Islamic State (IS, also known as ISIL/ISIS), as well as new protests
Specialist in Middle
stemming from deteriorating economic conditions. U.S.-backed local forces have
Eastern Affairs
recovered most territory formerly held by the Islamic State, but the group continues to

maintain a low-level insurgency.

U.S. policy toward Syria since 2014 has prioritized counterterrorism operations against the Islamic State, which
sought to direct external attacks from areas under the group’s control in northeast Syria. Since 2015, U.S. forces
deployed to Syria have trained, equipped, and advised local partners under special authorization from Congress
and have worked primarily “by, with, and through” those local partners to retake nearly all areas formerly held by
the Islamic State. As of July 2020, about 600 U.S. troops remain in Syria, where they continue to support local
partner force operations against Islamic State remnants.
In addition to counterterrorism operations against the Islamic State, the United States also has responded to
Syria’s ongoing civil conflict by providing nonlethal assistance to Syrian opposition and civil society groups,
encouraging diplomatic efforts to reach a political settlement to the civil war, and serving as the largest single
donor of humanitarian aid to Syria and regional countries affected by refugee outflows.
The Trump Administration has described U.S. policy towards Syria as seeking (1) the enduring defeat of the
Islamic State; (2) a political settlement to the Syrian civil war; and (3) the withdrawal of Iranian-commanded
forces.
 Enduring defeat of ISIS. U.S.-backed partner forces re-captured the Islamic State’s final
territorial strongholds in Syria in March 2019. However, U.S. military officials in 2020 assessed
that the group maintains a low-level insurgency in both Syria and Iraq and likely retains an intact
command and control structure. The Defense Department has not disaggregated the costs of
military operations in Syria from the overall cost of the counter-IS campaign in Syria and Iraq
(known as Operation Inherent Resolve, OIR), which had reached $40.5 billion by September 30,
2019.
 Political settlement to the conflict. The United States continues to advocate for a negotiated
settlement between the government of Syrian President Bashar al Asad and Syrian opposition
forces in accordance with U.N. Security Council Resolution 2254 (which calls for the drafting of
a new constitution and U.N.-supervised elections). However, the Asad government has retaken
most opposition-held areas by force, thus reducing pressure on Damascus to negotiate. U.S.
intelligence officials in 2019 assessed that Asad has little incentive to make significant
concessions to the opposition.
 Withdrawal of Iranian commanded forces. Administration officials state that the removal of
Iran from Syria is a political rather than military goal, and have emphasized that the United States
will seek to counter Iranian activities in Syria primarily through the use of economic tools such as
sanctions. The United States has on occasion conducted strikes on Iranian-backed militias in
Syria when such forces appeared to endanger U.S. or Coalition personnel.
Congressional Research Service

---

Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response

External Players. A range of foreign states have intervened in Syria in support of the Asad government or Syrian
opposition forces, as well in pursuit of their own security goals. Pro-Asad forces operating in Syria include
Lebanese Hezbollah, Iran, and Russia. The United States and a range of regional and European states have at
times backed select portions of the Syrian opposition, while also expressing concern about reported ties between
some armed opposition groups and extremist elements. Israel has acknowledged conducting over 200 military
strikes in Syria, mostly targeting Hezbollah and/or Iranian targets. In addition, Turkey maintains military forces in
northern Syria as part of a broader campaign targeting Kurdish fighters.
Humanitarian Situation. As of mid-2020, roughly half of Syria’s pre-war population remains internally
displaced (6.2 million) or registered as refugees in neighboring states (5.6 million). The United States has directed
more than $11.3 billion toward Syria-related humanitarian assistance since FY2012, and Congress has
appropriated billions more for security and stabilization initiatives in Syria and neighboring countries. In July
2020, the Security Council reauthorized cross border humanitarian aid into Syria for a period of one year. The
vote restricted aid to a single crossing point at Bab al Hawa following vetoes by Russia and China.
Public Health. Syria has struggled to provide adequate testing for the novel COVID-19 virus, and the extent of
the virus’s spread in the country is thought to exceed official health ministry counts. As of mid-July, Syria
reported less than 500 confirmed cases of COVID-19, as compared to over 86,000 cases in neighboring Iraq, and
over 267,000 cases in Iran. Syria contains numerous populations that are particularly vulnerable to infection,
including thousands of internally displaced persons and detainees living in overcrowded conditions and lacking
adequate access to sanitation facilities. Syria’s health care system also has been significantly degraded since the
start of the conflict in 2011 as a result of attacks by pro-regime forces on health care workers and infrastructure.
Additional Domestic Challenges. Syria faces an economic crisis, with the value of the Syrian pound dropping to
record lows, and the cost of basic staples increasing by over 100% since 2019. In 2020, the Asad government also
has confronted a resurgence of armed opposition in previously recaptured areas south of the capital, as well as
growing criticism from both domestic and external allies.
The 116th Congress has sought clarification from the Administration concerning its overall Syria policy, plans for
the withdrawal of U.S. military forces, the U.S role in ensuring a lasting defeat for the Islamic State, U.S.
investments and approaches to postconflict stabilization, the future of Syrian refugees and U.S. partners inside
Syria, and the challenges of dealing with the Iran- and Russia-aligned Asad government.
Congressional Research Service

---

link to page 6 link to page 11 link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 15 link to page 16 link to page 16 link to page 16 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 19 link to page 21 link to page 25 link to page 25 link to page 26 link to page 26 link to page 28 link to page 29 link to page 29 link to page 30 link to page 33 link to page 34 link to page 35 link to page 36 link to page 37 link to page 37 link to page 37 link to page 38 link to page 40 link to page 41 link to page 42 link to page 46 link to page 46 link to page 47 link to page 48 link to page 49 link to page 49 link to page 50 link to page 51 link to page 51 link to page 52 Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response

Contents
Background ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Issues for Congress .......................................................................................................................... 6
Syria Provisions in FY2020 Defense and Foreign Operations Legislation ............................... 9
FY2020 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 116-92) ............................................... 9
Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-94) ......................................... 10
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-93) ....................................................... 11
Select Syria-Related Legislation in the 116th Congress ........................................................... 11
Special Immigrant Status for U.S. Partner Forces ............................................................. 11
Military Developments .................................................................................................................. 12
Turkish Incursion into Northern Syria .............................................................................. 12
Islamic State: Ongoing Threats ......................................................................................... 14
Idlib Crisis ......................................................................................................................... 16
Political Developments .................................................................................................................. 20
Non-State Governance Structures ........................................................................................... 20
Political Negotiations .............................................................................................................. 21
The Geneva Process .......................................................................................................... 21
The Astana Process ........................................................................................................... 23
Humanitarian Situation .................................................................................................................. 24
Cross-Border Aid Endangered .......................................................................................... 24
Vulnerable Areas ............................................................................................................... 25
Public Health Developments ......................................................................................................... 28
U.S. Policy ..................................................................................................................................... 29
Trump Administration Statements on Syria Policy ........................................................... 30
U.S. Sanctions on Syria .................................................................................................... 31
U.S. Assistance to Vetted Syrian Groups ....................................................................................... 32
U.S. Military Operations; Train, Advise, Assist, and Equip Efforts ........................................ 32
U.S. Military Presence in Syria ......................................................................................... 32
U.S. Repositions Forces in 2019 ....................................................................................... 33
Syria Train and Equip Program ......................................................................................... 35
FY2021 Defense Funding Request ................................................................................... 36
U.S. Nonlethal and Stabilization Assistance ........................................................................... 37
Outlook & Challenges ................................................................................................................... 41
Consolidating Gains against the Islamic State .................................................................. 41
Preserving Relationships with Partner Forces .................................................................. 42
Countering Iran ................................................................................................................. 43
Addressing Humanitarian Challenges in Extremist-Held Areas ....................................... 44
Assisting Displaced Syrians .............................................................................................. 44
Preventing Involuntary Refugee Returns .......................................................................... 45
Managing Reconstruction Aid .......................................................................................... 46
Supporting a Political Settlement to the Conflict .............................................................. 46
Monitoring Destabilizing Economic and Political Trends ................................................ 47

Congressional Research Service

---

link to page 7 link to page 8 link to page 9 link to page 10 link to page 18 link to page 24 link to page 39 link to page 41 link to page 44 link to page 53 link to page 54 Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response

Figures
Figure 1. Syria: Map and Country Data .......................................................................................... 2
Figure 2. Syria Conflict 2011-2019 ................................................................................................. 3
Figure 3. Syria Areas of Influence 2020 .......................................................................................... 4
Figure 4. Syria Areas of Influence 2017 .......................................................................................... 5
Figure 5. Syria-Turkey Border ...................................................................................................... 13
Figure 6. Idlib and its Environs ..................................................................................................... 19

Tables
Table 1. Evolution of U.S. Military Presence in Syria .................................................................. 34
Table 2. Syria Train and Equip Program: Appropriations Actions and Requests .......................... 36
Table 3. Nonlethal and Stabilization Funding for Syria ................................................................ 39

Appendixes
Appendix. Syria Study Group Findings and Recommendations ................................................... 48

Contacts
Author Information ........................................................................................................................ 49

Congressional Research Service

---

Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response

Background
In March 2011, antigovernment protests broke out in Syria, which has been ruled by the Asad
family for more than four decades. The protests spread, violence escalated (primarily but not
exclusively by Syrian government forces), and numerous political and armed opposition groups
emerged. In In March 2022, the Syria conflict marked its 11th year. Analysts estimate that the conflict Analyst in Middle Eastern has kil ed over half a mil ion people (including combatants) and displaced half of Affairs Syria’s prewar population. Chal enges for U.S. policymakers in Syria include countering groups linked to Al Qaeda, responding to the threat posed by Islamic State (IS/ISIS) remnants and detainees, facilitating humanitarian assistance, and managing Russian and Iranian chal enges to U.S. operations. Conflict Status. In early 2022, United Nations (U.N.) Special Envoy for Syria Geir Pedersen described the conflict in Syria—between the Syrian government and its partners on one side and various opposition and extremist groups on the other side—as a “stalemate,” noting that “militarily, front lines remain unshifted” (see Figure 1). Pedersen stated that “any of a number of flashpoints could ignite a broader conflagration.” In 2022, incoming U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) commander General Michael Kuril a stated that the Asad government is “positioned to end the civil war militarily,” but noted that the underlying conditions driving the conflict (including political disenfranchisement, poverty, water scarcity, and economic instability) would likely persist. Islamic State. Despite the territorial defeat in Syria of the Islamic State (IS, also known as ISIS, ISIL, or the Arabic acronym Daesh) in 2019 by U.S.-backed Kurdish-led forces (known as the Syrian Democratic Forces, or SDF), IS fighters continue to operate as an insurgency. The SDF holds roughly 10,000 IS detainees—whom CENTCOM officials have described as “an ISIS army in waiting”—in detention facilities described as “overcrowded, ad-hoc structures that were not built to house detainees.” In January 2022, U.S. air and ground forces in Syria joined Kurdish partner forces in a lengthy battle to retake a prison seized by IS fighters, which renewed concern among policymakers regarding the security of IS detainees in SDF custody. External Actors. Five countries operate in or maintain military forces in Syria: Russia, Turkey, Iran, Israel, and the United States. U.S. and Russian forces operate in close proximity in northern Syria, and maintain a deconfliction channel to avoid inadvertent conflict between the respective forces. Turkey also maintains forces in northern Syria, at times targeting Kurdish elements of SDF forces that the Turkish government views as terrorists. Israel reportedly conducts regular air strikes inside Syria on Iranian, Syrian, and Hezbollah targets that the Israeli government views as threats to its security. Humanitarian Situation. According to the United Nations 2022 Humanitarian Needs Overview for Syria, 14.6 mil ion people are in need of humanitarian assistance, an increase of 1.2 mil ion from 2021. In 2014, the U.N. Security Council authorized the provision of cross-border humanitarian assistance into Syria via four approved crossing points; subsequent Russian vetoes have since reduced the U.N. authorization to a single crossing. In July 2022, the U.N. Security Council renewed its authorization for cross-border assistance into Syria for a period of 6 months, following a Russian veto of a 12-month extension. The new resolution is scheduled to expire on January 10, 2023. U.S. Policy. Biden Administration officials have stated that the United States seeks a political settlement to the conflict in Syria consistent with United Nations Security Council Resolution 2254 (2015). U.S. policy priorities in Syria include (1) defeating the Islamic State and Al Qaeda; (2) increasing access to humanitarian aid; (3) reducing violence by maintaining local cease-fires; and (4) promoting accountability for atrocity crimes committed during the course of the conflict. Congressional Research Service Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response U.S. Military Presence. Roughly 900 U.S. troops operate in Syria in support of counter-IS operations by local partner forces, as part of Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR). U.S. forces in Syria continue to face threats from Iran-backed militias, which have targeted U.S. positions in the country. Policy Debates. Policymakers are faced with a number of—at times competing—policy priorities in Syria. The Islamic State seeks to exploit deteriorating economic conditions in the country; however, projects to bolster economic activity in Syria may have the unintended effect of aiding the Asad government. Similarly, policymakers disagree on whether the benefits of efforts to al eviate economic conditions in neighboring Lebanon outweigh the risk that these efforts could benefit Asad. Policymakers also face the additional complications of regional states, including U.S. al ies, pursuing their own objectives in Syria, whether in the form of military operations or efforts to normalize diplomatic ties with the Asad government. Congressional Research Service link to page 5 link to page 7 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 12 link to page 13 link to page 14 link to page 15 link to page 15 link to page 16 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 18 link to page 18 link to page 19 link to page 20 link to page 20 link to page 20 link to page 22 link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 26 link to page 29 link to page 31 link to page 7 link to page 16 link to page 33 Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response Contents Evolution of Conflict and U.S. Policy ........................................................................... 1 Governance & Areas of Control ................................................................................... 3 Al Qaeda and the Islamic State .................................................................................... 5 Islamic State Detention Facilities ............................................................................ 5 External Actors ......................................................................................................... 7 Russia ................................................................................................................ 7 Iran .................................................................................................................... 8 Turkey ................................................................................................................ 9 Israel ................................................................................................................ 10 Humanitarian Situation............................................................................................. 11 Cross-Border Aid ............................................................................................... 11 Political Negotiations ............................................................................................... 12 Syrian Political Opposition .................................................................................. 13 U.S. Policy ............................................................................................................. 13 The FY2023 Request .......................................................................................... 14 U.S. Military Presence: Operation Inherent Resolve................................................. 14 Syria Train and Equip Program............................................................................. 15 Post-IS Stabilization ........................................................................................... 16 Humanitarian Assistance ..................................................................................... 16 U.S. Sanctions ................................................................................................... 16 Atrocity Crimes and Potential Avenues for Accountability ............................................. 18 Policy Debates and Issues for Congress....................................................................... 20 Protecting Local Partner Forces ............................................................................ 20 Islamic State Detainees ....................................................................................... 20 Economic Recovery............................................................................................ 22 Asad Government Finances ................................................................................. 25 Ongoing Chal enges ................................................................................................. 27 Figures Figure 1. Areas of Influence.............................................................................................. 3 Figure 2. Current and Former U.N. Border Crossings......................................................... 12 Contacts Author Information ....................................................................................................... 29 Congressional Research Service Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response Evolution of Conflict and U.S. Policy In March 2011, antigovernment protests broke out in Syria, which has been ruled by the Asad family for more than four decades. Violence escalated, and, in August 2011, President Barack Obama August 2011, President Barack Obama calledcal ed on Syrian President Bashar al Asad to on Syrian President Bashar al Asad to
step down. Over time, the rising death toll from the conflict, and the use of chemical weapons by step down. Over time, the rising death toll from the conflict, and the use of chemical weapons by
the Asad government, intensified pressure the Asad government, intensified pressure for the United States for the United States and others to assist the to assist the
opposition. In 2013, Congress debated lethal and nonlethal assistance to vetted Syrian opposition opposition. In 2013, Congress debated lethal and nonlethal assistance to vetted Syrian opposition
groups, and authorized the latter. Congress also debated, groups, and authorized the latter. Congress also debated, but did not authorize, the use of force in but did not authorize, the use of force in
response to an August 2013 chemical weapons attack.response to an August 2013 chemical weapons attack.
In 2014, the Obama Administration requested authority and funding from Congress to provide In 2014, the Obama Administration requested authority and funding from Congress to provide
lethal support to vetted Syrians for select purposes. The original request sought authority to lethal support to vetted Syrians for select purposes. The original request sought authority to
support vetted Syrians in “defending the Syrian people from attacks by the Syrian regime,” but support vetted Syrians in “defending the Syrian people from attacks by the Syrian regime,” but
the subsequent advance of the Islamic State organization from Syria across Iraq refocused the subsequent advance of the Islamic State organization from Syria across Iraq refocused
executive and legislativeexecutive and legislative deliberations onto counterterrorism. Congress authorized a Department deliberations onto counterterrorism. Congress authorized a Department
of Defense-led train and equip program of Defense-led train and equip program for select Syrian forces to combat terrorist groups active in Syria, defend the to combat terrorist groups active in Syria, defend the
United States and its partners from Syria-based terrorist threats, and “promote United States and its partners from Syria-based terrorist threats, and “promote the conditions for a the conditions for a
negotiated settlement to end the conflict in Syria.”negotiated settlement to end the conflict in Syria.”
1 In September 2014, the United States began air strikes in Syria, with the stated goal of preventing In September 2014, the United States began air strikes in Syria, with the stated goal of preventing
the Islamic State from using Syria as a base for its operations in neighboring Iraq. In October the Islamic State from using Syria as a base for its operations in neighboring Iraq. In October
2014, the Defense Department established Combined Joint Task Force-Operation Inherent 2014, the Defense Department established Combined Joint Task Force-Operation Inherent
Resolve (CJTF-OIR) to “formalize ongoing military actions against the rising threat posed by Resolve (CJTF-OIR) to “formalize ongoing military actions against the rising threat posed by
ISIS in Iraq and Syria.”ISIS in Iraq and Syria.”2 CJTF-OIR is “the military component” of the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS.3 In 2015, the United States deployed military forces to Syria to counter the Islamic State and train local partner forces. Coalition and U.S. gains against the Islamic State came largely through the assistance of Syrian Kurdish partner forces, but neighboring Turkey’s concerns about those Kurdish forces emerged as a persistent chal enge for U.S. policymakers. In 2019, Turkey launched a cross-border military operation attempting to expel Syrian Kurdish U.S. partner forces from areas adjacent to the Turkish border. President Trump ordered the withdrawal of some U.S. forces from Syria and the repositioning of others in areas of eastern Syria once held by the Islamic State. While U.S.-led coalition forces focused on defeating the Islamic State in northern and eastern Syria, support from Russian, Iranian, and Hezbollah forces enabled the Syrian government to retake many areas of the country formerly held by the opposition. In 2018, the U.S. intel igence community assessed CJTF-OIR came to encompass more than 70 countries, and bolstered the
efforts of local Syrian partner forces against the Islamic State. The United States also gradually
increased the number of U.S. personnel in Syria from 50 in late 2015 to roughly 2,000 by 2017.
President Trump in early 2018 called for an expedited withdrawal of U.S. forces from Syria,1 but
senior Administration officials later stated that U.S. personnel would remain in Syria to ensure the
enduring defeat of the Islamic State. Then-National Security Advisor John Bolton also stated that
U.S. forces would remain in Syria until the withdrawal of Iranian-led forces.2 In December 2018,
President Trump ordered the withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Syria, contributing to the
subsequent decision by Defense Secretary James Mattis to resign, and drawing criticism from
several Members of Congress. In early 2019, the White House announced that several hundred
U.S. troops would remain in Syria.
As the Islamic State and armed opposition groups relinquished territorial control inside Syria, the
Syrian government and its foreign partners made significant military and territorial gains. The
U.S. intelligence community’s 2018 Worldwide Threat Assessment stated that the conflict had that the conflict had
“decisively shifted in the Syrian regime’s favor, enabling Russia and Iran to further entrench
themselves inside the country.”3 Coalition and U.S. gains against the Islamic State came largely
through the assistance of Syrian Kurdish partner forces, but neighboring Turkey’s concerns about
those Kurdish forces emerged as a persistent challenge for U.S. policymakers. In 2019, Turkey
launched a cross border military operation attempting to expel Syrian Kurdish U.S. partner forces


1 Remarks by President Trump on the Infrastructure Initiative, March 30, 2018; Remarks by President Trump and
Heads of the Baltic States in Joint Press Conference, April 3, 2018.
2 “Bolton: U.S. forces will stay in Syria until Iran and its proxies depart,” Washington Post, September 24, 2018.
3 Worldwide Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community, February 13, 2018.
Congressional Research Service

1

---

link to page 9 link to page 10 link to page 36
Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response

from areas adjacent to the Turkish border. In conjunction with the operation, President Trump
ordered the withdrawal of some U.S. forces from Syria and the repositioning of others in areas of
eastern Syria once held by the Islamic State.
Territorial gains by the Syrian government have pushed remaining armed opposition forces
(including Al Qaeda affiliates) into a progressively shrinking geographic space that is also
occupied by roughly 3 million Syrian civilians. (Figure 3 and Figure 4 show how territory held
by Syrian opposition forces was significantly reduced between 2017 and 2020.) The remaining
opposition-held areas of Idlib province in northwestern Syria have faced intensified and ongoing
Syrian government attacks since 2019. Unrest in southern areas recaptured by the government in
2020 suggests that security conditions nationwide may remain fluid.
The U.N. has sponsored peace talks in Geneva since 2012, but it appears unlikely that the parties
will reach a political settlement that would result in a transition away from Asad. With many
armed opposition groups weakened, defeated, or geographically isolated, military pressure on the
Syrian government to make concessions to the opposition has been reduced. U.S. officials have
stated that the United States will not fund reconstruction in Asad-held areas unless a political
solution is reached in accordance with U.N. Security Council Resolution 2254.4 In June 2020, the
Trump Administration began implementing congressionally enacted sanctions on the Asad
government and its financial backers as part of a campaign to deny it revenue to compel Syrian
leaders to end the war (see “U.S. Sanctions on Syria”). Some observers have warned of possible
unintended effects of new sanctions given fragile economic conditions prevailing in the country.5
Figure 1. Syria: Map and Country Data

Sources: CRS using data from U.S. State Department; Esri; CIA, The World Factbook; and the United Nations.


4 State Department, “Joint Statement on the Ninth Anniversary of the Syrian Uprising,” March 15, 2020.
5 “Will more Syria sanctions hurt the very civilians they aim to protect?” War on the Rocks, June 10, 2020.
Congressional Research Service

2

---

Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response

Figure 2. Syria Conflict 2011-2019

Source: CRS.
Note: For more information, see CRS In Focus IF11080, Syria Conflict Overview: 2011-2018, by Carla E. Humud.
Congressional Research Service

3

---

Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response

Figure 3. Syria Areas of Influence 2020
As of May 25, 2020

Sources: CRS using area of influence data from IHS Conflict Monitor, last revised May 25, 2020. All areas of
influence approximate and subject to change. Other sources include U.N. OCHA, Esri, and social media reports.
Note: U.S. military officials have acknowledged publicly that U.S. forces are operating in select areas of eastern
Syria to train, advise, assist, and equip partner forces.
Congressional Research Service

4

---

Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response

Figure 4. Syria Areas of Influence 2017
As of January 3, 2017

Sources: CRS using area of influence data from IHS Conflict Monitor. All areas of influence approximate. Other
sources include U.N. OCHA, Esri, and social media reports.
Note: U.S. military officials have acknowledged publicly that U.S. forces are operating in select areas of eastern
Syria to train, advise, assist, and equip partner forces.


Congressional Research Service

5

---

Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response

Issues for Congress
Prior to the 2019 Turkish military incursion and U.S. withdrawal decisions, the 116th Congress
had been considering the Administration’s FY2020 requests for defense and foreign aid
appropriations, which presumed continued counterterrorism, train and equip, and humanitarian
operations in Syria. Members debated legislative proposals that would have extended and
amended related authorities and made additional funding available to continue U.S. efforts,
including stabilization programs. Following President Trump’s withdrawal and redeployment
decisions, Congress enacted revisions to the underlying authority for U.S. military train and equip
efforts in Syria and appropriated additional funds to continue related operations.
Congress may further consider what, if any, revised defense and foreign assistance needs may be
appropriate in connection with revised U.S. plans and any forthcoming changes to U.S. military
deployments in Syria or in neighboring Iraq. Similarly, Members may consider how, if at all,
Congress should increase, decrease, or reallocate defense, humanitarian, and stabilization
resources for FY2021 and what, if any, new or revised oversight mechanisms ought to be
employed.
Specific issues for congressional consideration could include the following.
U.S. military operations and authorities
U.S. forces have operated inside Syria since 2015 pursuant to the 2001 and 2002 Authorizations
for Use of Military Force (AUMF),6 despite ongoing debate about the applicability of these
authorizations to current operations in Syria.7 In December 2018, President Trump declared the
Islamic State “defeated,” raising questions about the authorities underlying a continued U.S.
military presence in Syria. Defense and State Department officials continue to highlight the
ongoing threat posed by the Islamic State, including to the U.S. homeland.8 Islamic State attacks
continue in areas of eastern Syria, and oversight reporting suggests that Administration officials
believe the group could resurge if military pressure on its remnants lessens.9 Nevertheless, some
observers have argued that some U.S. military outposts in Syria (such as the U.S. garrison at At
Tanf) appear primarily designed to stem the flow of Iranian-backed militias into Syria.10 In June
2020, President Trump reported to Congress that
United States Armed Forces are conducting a systematic campaign of airstrikes and other
necessary operations against ISIS forces in Iraq and Syria and against al-Qa'ida in Syria. A


6 At a December 11, 2019, hearing before the House Armed Services Committee, Defense Secretary Esper stated that,
“[ ... ] we think we have sufficient authorities right now under the ’01 and ’02 AUMFs to conduct what we—to do what
we need to do in Syria.” Similarly, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Milley stated, “[ ... ] the ’01 AUMF
allows us to conduct offensive strike operations against terrorists, Al Qaeda, etc. ISIS, we should all remember, is a
direct derivative of Al Qaeda, and it is Al Qaeda in Iraq rebranded as ISIS.”
7 During a December 11, 2019, hearing on U.S. Syria policy by the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Smith
stated, “ ... I don't think it’s a good idea for us to be relying on the 2001 and 2002 AUMF in 2019. We could talk about
what’s in the 2001 AUMF and how it applies to now. I think that thing has been stretched beyond all recognition. But
the 2002 AUMF, it’s just ridiculous that we're still saying that this is an authority. I was here, and I voted for that. The
2002 AUMF was to remove Saddam Hussein from power and stop the threat that he posed.”
8 Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Milley before the House Armed Services Committee, December 11, 2019.
9 See reports (issued quarterly) by the Lead Inspector General for Operation Inherent Resolve.
10 “U.S. Considering Plan to Stay in Remote Syrian Base to Counter Iran,” Foreign Policy, January 25, 2019.
Congressional Research Service

6

---

Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response

small presence of United States Armed Forces remains in strategically significant locations
in Syria to conduct operations and secure critical petroleum infrastructure, in partnership
with indigenous ground forces, against continuing terrorist threats emanating from Syria.11
Future of U.S.-SDF Partnership
Following the October 2019 Turkish incursion into northern Syria, the U.S.-backed Syrian
Democratic Forces (SDF) sought protection from the Asad government. U.S. Special
Representative for Syria Engagement and the Special Envoy to the Global Coalition to Defeat
ISIS Ambassador James Jeffrey stated that the SDF and the Asad government reached “an
agreement in some areas to coordinate.”12 In December 2019, senior U.S. military officials
acknowledged “dialogue” between the SDF and the Syrian military, but in 2020 have testified
that U.S. forces continue to conduct combined operations with the SDF.13 U.S. officials have not
publicly elaborated on the scale of coordination and/or dialogue between the Syrian military and
the SDF, or on how this may impact U.S. interactions with, or funding for, the group.
Who are the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF)?
Since 2014, U.S. armed forces have partnered with a Kurdish militia known as the People’s Protection Units (YPG)
to counter the Islamic State in Syria. In 2015, the YPG joined with other Syrian groups to form the Syrian
Democratic Forces (SDF), comprising the SDF’s leading component. Turkey considers the YPG to be the Syrian
branch of the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party), a U.S.-designated terror group that has waged a decades-long
insurgency in Turkey. Ankara has strongly objected to U.S. cooperation with the SDF. U.S. officials have
acknowledged YPG-PKK ties, but generally consider the two groups distinct.14
The Syrian Arab Coalition. Roughly 50% of the SDF is composed of ethnic Arab forces, according to U.S.
officials;15 this component sometimes is referred to as the Syrian Arab Coalition (SAC). In 2018, the U.S. military
assessed that the SAC probably is unable to conduct counter-IS operations on its own without the support of the
SDF’s primary component, the YPG.16 In 2018, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) described the SAC as “a
patchwork of Arab tribal militias, military councils, and former opposition groups recruited by the YPG initially as
a ‘symbolic’ move to help attract western support and training.”17 In 2020, DIA assessed that the YPG maintains
control over leadership and decision-making positions within the SDF and SDC-led institutions, demonstrating an
“unwil ingness to share power with Arabs, even in the Arab-majority regions of the northeast where Arab fighters
probably represent a majority of the SDF’s front line forces.”18


11 President Donald Trump, Letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and President Pro Tempore of the
Senate, June 9, 2020.
12 Ambassador James Jeffrey, State Department Special Representative for Syria Engagement and Special Envoy to the
Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, October 22, 2019.
13 Defense Under Secretary for Policy John Rood before the Senate Armed Services Committee, December 5, 2019;
CENTCOM Commander Gen. McKenzie before the Senate Armed Services Committee, March 12, 2020.
14 See, for example, “US admissions of PYD-PKK links growing,” Anadolu Agency, February 15, 2018.
15 Ambassador Jeffrey before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, October 22, 2019.
16 2018 assessment referenced in “Lead Inspector General for Operation Inherent Resolve, “decisively shifted in the Syrian regime’s favor.”4 Remaining armed opposition forces (including groups linked to Al Qaeda) were pushed into a shrinking geographic space around Idlib, a province in northwestern Syria in which roughly 3 mil ion Syrian civilians live. 1 For additional background, see CRS Report R46796, Congress and the Middle East, 2011-2020: Selected Case Studies, coordinated by Christopher M. Blanchard. 2 Operation Inherent Resolve Combined Joint T ask Force (CJT F-OIR), “Who We Are: History,” https://www.inherentresolve.mil/WHO-WE-ARE/History/. 3 CJT F-OIR, Fact Sheet, https://www.inherentresolve.mil/Portals/14/Documents/Mission/20210915%20Updated%20Mission%20Statement%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf.pdf?ver=5OLdNQ7T rF7R4YjokCHosQ%3D%3D. 4 Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Worldwide Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community: 2018. Congressional Research Service 1 link to page 7 Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response The United Nations (U.N.) has sponsored peace talks in Geneva since 2012. However, with many armed opposition groups weakened, defeated, or geographical y isolated, military pressure on the Syrian government to make concessions to the opposition has been reduced. In 2022, U.N. Special Envoy for Syria Geir Pedersen described the conflict as a “stalemate,” noting that “militarily, front lines remain unshifted” (see Figure 1).5 5 U.N. Security Council, “Amid Stalemate, Acute Suffering in Syria, Special Envoy T ells Security Council Political Solution ‘Only Way Out,’” Meetings Coverage, SC/14807, February 25, 2022, available at https://www.un.org/press/en/2022/sc14807.doc.htm. Congressional Research Service 2 Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response Figure 1. Areas of Influence Source: Created by CRS using area of influence data from IHS Conflict Monitor, last revised October 3, 2022. Al areas of influence approximate and subject to change. Base information from “The Operating Environment in Syria,” in Lead Inspector General for Operation Inherent Resolve | Quarterly Report to the United States Congress | April 1, 2022-June 30, 2022, p. 55, and press reports. Governance & Areas of Control While the Asad government has recaptured most areas of Syria formerly held by opposition forces, a number of other groups have asserted varying levels of control outside of government- Congressional Research Service 3 link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 7 Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response held areas. Groups that exercise territorial control over parts of Syria, as of October 2022, are described below. The Asad Government The Asad government—backed by Russia, Iran, and aligned militia forces—controls about two-thirds of Syria’s territory (shown in green in Figure 1), including most major cities. Pockets of armed resistance to Asad rule remain, particularly in the south. Over 60% of the 14.6 mil ion people in Syria who need humanitarian assistance live in government-controlled areas.6 Kurdish-Arab Military and Civilian Authorities Following the defeat of the Islamic State by the U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), Kurdish authorities affiliated with the SDF and their Arab partners in northeast Syria established the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES), also known as the Self Administration of Northeast Syria (SANES)—shown in yel ow in Figure 1. The SDF and its political wing (the Syrian Democratic Council, SDC) play a leading role in the AANES, whose leaders have stated that it is not aligned with either the Asad government or with opposition forces. Opposition and Extremist Forces Opposition-held areas of northwest Syria (shown in light blue in Figure 1) are administered by the Syrian Salvation Government (SSG). The SSG was established in 2017 and is affiliated with Hayat Tahrir al Sham (HTS), which the United States has designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) due to its links to Al Qaeda. Roughly 3 mil ion Syrian civilians also reside in Idlib, many displaced from areas of Syria now under Asad control. An estimated 75% of Idlib residents depend on U.N. assistance to meet their basic needs.7 Turkish Forces and Aligned Militias Turkish-held areas of northern Syria (shown in dark blue in Figure 1) include territories occupied in three military operations by Turkish forces in cooperation with Syrian Arab proxy forces known as the Syrian National Army (SNA). In these areas, Turkey has established local councils subordinate to the Turkish provinces they border, with Turkish provincial governments overseeing the provision of some basic services. Many of the original inhabitants of Turkish-held areas remain in camps for internal y displaced persons (IDPs) in AANES-held areas. The Syrian Interim Government (SIG), established by opposition groups in 2013, is headquartered in Turkish-held northern Syria (Azaz, Aleppo province). The SNA is formal y part of the SIG, but the SIG lacks authority over SNA forces, which are composed of rival factions and beset by infighting.8 6 Natasha Hall, Rescuing Aid in Syria, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), February 2022, p. 32. 7 Ibid, p. 18. 8 T he Carter Center, The State of the Syrian National Army, March 15, 2022. Congressional Research Service 4 Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response Al Qaeda and the Islamic State Al Qaeda Since 2014, the United States has conducted air strikes in northwest Syria—outside the framework of Operation Inherent Resolve—targeting Al Qaeda linked groups. In 2022, U.S. military officials reiterated that, “Al Qaeda-aligned militants use Syria as a safe haven to coordinate with their external affiliates and plan operations outside of Syria.”9 Al Qaeda-linked groups in Syria include Hayat Tahrir al Sham (HTS) and Hurras al Din. The rival groups, both designed by the United States as FTOs, operate in Idlib. In June 2022, CENTCOM announced that it had conducted a strike on a senior leader of Hurras al Din in Idlib province.10 Islamic State In March 2019, the SDF—with coalition air support—captured the Islamic State’s final remaining territorial outpost in Syria. In October 2019, IS leader Abu Bakr al Baghdadi died in a U.S. raid on his compound in Idlib.11 He was succeeded by Abu Ibrahim al Hashimi al Qurayshi, who died after detonating an explosive device during a U.S. raid on his compound (also in Idlib), in February 2022.12 In March 2022, the group named a new leader. Some reports identified him as Juma Awad al Badri, an Iraqi national and brother of former IS leader Baghdadi.13 While the Islamic State no longer controls territory outright in Syria and Iraq, U.S. military officials warn that it maintains a low-level insurgency and has worked to expand its global presence via a burgeoning number of affiliate groups. The 2022 Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. intel igence community (IC) stated that “ISIS leaders remain committed to their vision of building a self-styled global caliphate headquartered in Iraq and Syria and are working to rebuild capabilities and wear down opponents until conditions are ripe for seizing and holding territory.”14 Islamic State Detention Facilities Since the 2019 defeat of the Islamic State, the SDF has held about 10,000 IS detainees (roughly 5,000 Syrians, 3,000 Iraqis, and 2,000 foreign fighters) at detention facilities across northern Syria;15 U.S. officials have described these facilities as “overcrowded, ad-hoc structures that were not built to hold detainees.”16 U.S. officials have emphasized that repatriation of detainees is the 9 U.S. Central Command, “Strike conducted in Syria,” press release, June 27, 2022. 10 Ibid. 11 U.S. Department of Defense, “ Central Command Chief Gives Details on Baghdadi Raid,” press release October 30, 2019. 12 U.S. Department of Defense, “ Leader of ISIS Dead Following U.S. Raid in Syria,” press release, February 3, 2022. 13 Reuters, “New Islamic State leader is brother of slain caliph Baghdadi—sources,” March 11, 2022. 14 Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community, February 2022, available at https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/AT A-2022-Unclassified-Report.pdf. 15 Lead Inspector General for Operation Inherent Resolve (LIG-OIR), Quarterly Report to the Quarterly Report to the
United States CongressUnited States Congress,” October 1, 2019-December 31, 2019, p. 43.
17 Ibid.
18 Lead Inspector General for Operation Inherent Resolve |, July 1, 2022-September 30, 2022, p. 58. 16 LIG-OIR, Quarterly Report to the United States Congress Quarterly Report to the United States Congress |, January 1, January 1,
2020 – March 31, 20202022-March 31, 2022, p. 68. .
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

7

5

---

Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response
only long-term solution.17 In February 2022, incoming CENTCOM commander General Kuril a described the 10,000 IS detainees in SDF detention as “an ISIS army in waiting.”18 2022 IS Prison Attack. In January 2022, IS forces launched an attack on the SDF-run Ghuwayran Detention Facility in Hasakah province, sparking a 10-day battle. U.S. military officials reported that the SDF “were able to repel the attack and recapture many detainees, but only with significant Coalition ground and air support.”19 It was the largest U.S. military engagement with the group since 2019. The facility was guarded primarily by the SDF Provincial Interior Security Forces (PrISF), which receive U.S. funding.20 Following the attack, the SDF replaced the entire guard force at Ghuwayran. The U.S. Special Operations Task Force is working to rebuild the guard force at the facility.21 Al Hol IDP Camp. Built to house a maximum of 10,000 persons, the Al Hol camp for IDPs houses roughly 56,000 people as of October 2022—94% of whom are women and children—most of whom fled the Islamic State’s final outpost in eastern Syria in 2019.22 Security conditions at the camp, which is managed by the SDF, have reportedly continued to deteriorate.23 CENTCOM leaders have stated that the slow repatriation of individuals in SDF-run IDP camps and detention facilities remains “the biggest impediment to ensuring the enduring defeat of ISIS.”24 CENTCOM leaders have expressed concern about IS indoctrination efforts inside the camp, and stated that, unless the IDPs at Al Hol are repatriated to their home countries, “we’re going to face ISIS 2.0 down the road.”25 Al Hol is run by the AANES; the U.S. Department of State funds essential services at the camp including maintenance of physical infrastructure and the provision of food, water, and other assistance.26 In September 2022, the Department of State’s Counterterrorism Bureau announced that it would oversee a new interagency Al-Hol Working Group to “improve coordination of U.S. efforts to address the security and humanitarian situation in northeast Syria.”27 17 Department of Defense T ranscript, “CENT COM Commander Gen. Frank McKenzie Holds a Press Briefing, March 18, 2022.” 18 U.S. Congress, Senate Armed Services Committee, Hearings to Consider the Nomination of Lieutenant General Michael E. Kurilla, USA to be General and Com m ander, United States Central Com m and , February 8, 2022. 19 LIG-OIR,
Security of U.S. Forces in Syria
Syrian government forces, with the support of Russia, expanded their operations and presence in
some areas of eastern Syria evacuated by U.S., Coalition, and SDF forces in 2019. The expanded
presence of Syrian government forces in these areas may increase the potential for interactions
between remaining U.S. personnel and Syrian or Russian forces, with uncertain implications for
force protection and potential conflict. The Syrian government continues to refer to U.S. forces as
occupiers and has warned that “resistance” forces might target U.S. personnel.19 In July 2020,
CENTCOM Commander Gen. McKenzie stated, “Over time, [Syrian President] Bashar al-Assad
is probably going to turn to the east and increase pressure on us, and we’ll deal with that as it
happens.”20
Syrian officials have specifically called for the United States to end what they describe as the
“illegal” presence of U.S. forces at Syrian oilfields.21 The Defense Department has stated that
U.S. forces in Syria maintain “the inherent right to self-defense against any threat, includ[ing]
while securing the oil fields.”22 President Trump stated in October 2019 that, “we may have to
fight for the oil. It’s okay. Maybe somebody else wants the oil, in which case they have a hell of a
fight.”23 Vice President Pence stated the following month that U.S. troops in troops in Syria will
“secure the oil fields so that they don’t fall into the hands of either ISIS or Iran or the Syrian
regime.”24
In February 2020, pro-regime forces manning a checkpoint in Qamishli opened fire on Coalition
forces conducting a patrol; no Coalition injuries were reported.25 In early 2020, media reports
highlighted increasingly frequent “standoffs” between U.S. and Russian personnel along
highways in northeast Syria.26 U.S. officials have described these incidents as occurring along a
road that is shared by U.S., Russian, and Syrian forces operating in adjacent areas of the
northeast, particularly around Qamishli.27 In March, CJTF-OIR reported that Russian ground and
air incursions into areas of U.S. operations in Syria continued to occur on a regular basis.28
U.S. forces also may face threats from Islamic State remnants. In 2020, armed drones have
targeted U.S. military personnel operating near Syrian oil fields; military officials stated that a
March 2020 drone attack was “probably” conducted by the Islamic State using modified
commercially available drones.29


19 Syrian President Asad interview with Russia 24 and Rossiya Sevodnya, Syria Report, November 15, 2019.
20 CENTCOM news transcript, “MEI engagement with General Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr.” June 11, 2020.
21 Louay Falouh, Chargé d'affaires of the Permanent Mission of the Syrian Arab Republic to the United Nations,
SC/14061, December 19, 2019.
22 Lead Inspector General for Operation Inherent Resolve, Quarterly Report to the United States CongressQuarterly Report to the United States Congress, January, October 1,
2019-December 31, 2019, p. 43.
23 Remarks by President Trump on the Death of ISIS Leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, October 27, 2019.
24 Remarks by Vice President Pence in a Press Gaggle | Erbil Air Base, November 23, 2019.
25 OIR Spokesman Col. Myles B. Caggins III, statement posted to Twitter (@OIRSpox), February 12, 2020, 6:58 AM.
26 “U.S. Troops in Standoffs With Russian Military Contractors in Syria,” Wall Street Journal, February 5, 2020.
27 Department of State transcript, “Ambassador Jeffrey on the Situation in Syria,” February 5, 2020.
28 Lead Inspector General for Operation Inherent Resolve | Quarterly Report to the United States Congress | January 1,
2020 – March 31, 2020, p. 9.
29 CENTCOM Commander Gen. McKenzie, AFRICOM Commander Gen. Townsend, and Acting ASD for
Congressional Research Service

8

---

Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response

Syria Provisions in FY2020 Defense and Foreign Operations
Legislation
FY2020 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 116-92)
The FY2020 NDAA (P.L. 116-92) extended the Syria Train and Equip program’s authority until
the end of 2020, and modified the program’s purposes. Changes under Section 1222 of the act
include
 specifying the program’s beneficiaries to include “appropriately vetted Syrian
groups and individuals,” striking previous language referencing Syrian
opposition forces;30
 amending the program objectives to include securing territory formerly
controlled by the Islamic State and supporting the temporary detention and
repatriation of IS detainees;
 eliminating some of the details previously reported to congressional committees
(such as the concept of operations, timelines, and types of training, equipment,
stipends, sustainment, construction, and supplies to be required), while
preserving broader reporting requirements on the goals and objectives of
authorized assistance, and on the number and role of U.S. military personnel
involved;
 removing the previously existing requirement for the Defense Department to use
prior approval reprogramming procedures to obligate funds for the Syria T&E
program and substituting a more frequent prior notification system (requiring
reports no later than 15 days before the expenditure of each 10% increment of
FY2019 and FY2020 funds);
 adding new reporting requirements on (1) the relationship between program
recipients and civilian governance authorities; (2) U.S. stabilization activities in
IS-liberated areas; and (3) IS detainees held by vetted Syrian groups; and
 restricting the provision of U.S. weapons to small arms.
Section 1224 of the act requires the president to identify or designate a senior-level coordinator
responsible for the long-term disposition of IS members currently in SDF custody. The
congressionally mandated Syria Study Group highlighted the lack of such a coordinator in its
September 2019 final report.
The Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act of 2019
The FY2020 NDAA also incorporates the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act of 2019 (Title
LXXIV). Section 7411 of the act requires the Secretary of the Treasury to make a determination
within 180 days of enactment on whether the Central Bank of Syria is a financial institution of
primary money laundering concern. If so, the Secretary would be required to impose one or more


International Security Affairs Kathryn Wheelbarger before the House Armed Services Committee, March 10, 2020.
30 This change may reflect a gradual U.S. shift from supporting Syrian opposition forces (now largely defeated by the
Syrian government) to a greater reliance on Syrian Kurdish groups (which oppose the Islamic State but not necessarily
the Asad government).
Congressional Research Service

9

---

link to page 36 Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response

of the special measures described in Section 5318A(b) of title 31, United States Code, with
respect to the Central Bank of Syria.
Section 7412 directs the President to impose sanctions on any foreign person who the President
determines is knowingly providing significant financial, material, or technological support to the
government of Syria or to a foreign person operating in a military capacity inside Syria on behalf
of the governments of Syria, Russia, or Iran. It also makes eligible for sanctions foreign persons
who knowingly sell or provide (1) goods, services, technology, or information that significantly
facilitates the maintenance or expansion of the government of Syria’s domestic production of
natural gas, petroleum, or petroleum products; (2) aircraft or spare aircraft parts that are used for
military purposes in Syria in areas controlled by the Syrian government or associated forces;( 3)
significant construction or engineering services to the government of Syria.
Section 7413 requires the President to determine the areas of Syria controlled by the governments
of Syria, Iran, and Russia, and to submit a strategy to deter foreign persons from entering into
contracts related to reconstruction in those areas. The bill includes several suspension and waiver
authorities for the President, including for nongovernmental organizations providing
humanitarian assistance. Its provisions would expire five years after the date of enactment.
The Trump Administration announced the first designations under the Caesar Syria Civilian
Protection Act in June 2020 (see “U.S. Sanctions on Syria” below).
Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-94)
The FY2020 State and Foreign Operations Appropriation Act (Division G of the Further
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, P.L. 116-94) contains several Syria-related provisions:
 Section 7033(c) makes ESF funds available notwithstanding any other provision
of law for assistance for ethnic and religious minorities in Iraq and Syria.
 Section 7035(a) makes NADR funds available for the Counterterrorism
Partnerships Fund (CTPF) for programs in areas liberated from the Islamic State.
 Section 7041(i) makes not less than $40 million in ESF, INCLE, and PKO funds
appropriated by this act available, notwithstanding any other provision of law, for
nonlethal stabilization assistance for Syria—of which, not less than $7 million
shall be made available for emergency medical and rescue response, and
chemical weapons use investigations. These funds may not be used for activities
that support Iran or Iranian proxies, or that further the strategic objectives of
Russia. They also may not be used in areas of Syria controlled by the Asad
government or associated forces.
 Section 7065(a) states that not less than $200 million of funds appropriated under
ESF, INCLE, NADR, PKO, and FMF shall be made available for the Relief and
Recovery Fund for assistance for areas liberated or at risk from, or under the
control of, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, other terrorist organizations, or
violent extremist organizations, including for stabilization assistance for
vulnerable ethnic and religious minority communities affected by conflict.
 This section also states that, of the funds made available for the Relief and
Recovery Fund, not less than $10 million shall be made available for programs to
promote accountability for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes,
including in Iraq and Syria.
 Title V of the bill, known as the Global Fragility Act of 2019, establishes a new
fund titled the Prevention and Stabilization Fund, and authorizes $200 million to
Congressional Research Service

10

---

Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response

be appropriated to the fund for each of the fiscal years 2020 through 2024. These
funds are authorized be used to support stabilization of conflict affected areas,
and to provide assistance to areas liberated from the Islamic State or other
terrorist organizations—as well as to support vulnerable ethnic and religious
minority communities affected by conflict. This new fund will replace the Relief
and Recovery Fund designation applied in recent appropriations acts.
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-93)
The Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2020 (Division A of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2020, P.L. 116-93 ) makes $1.195 billion in the Counter ISIS Train and Equip
Fund (CTEF) available to counter the Islamic State globally, including to provide training,
equipment, logistics support, infrastructure repair, and sustainment to countries or irregular forces
engaged in counter-IS activities. No specific amount is designated for Syria in the act, but the
accompanying explanatory statement allocates $200 million for Syria programs, $100 million less
than the Administration’s request. Section 9019 states that no funds made available by the act
may be used for the “introduction of United States armed or military forces into hostilities in
Syria, into situations in Syria where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by
the circumstances, or into Syrian territory, airspace, or waters while equipped for combat.”
Select Syria-Related Legislation in the 116th Congress
Special Immigrant Status for U.S. Partner Forces31
The October 2019 Turkish military incursion into northern Syria targeted Syrian Kurdish forces
that had worked closely with the United States to secure the territorial defeat of ISIS. The same
month, three bills were introduced that would each establish a special immigrant visa (SIV)
program for certain Syrians32 who had worked with U.S. military forces or the U.S. government.
These programs would provide a new avenue under the U.S. immigration system for eligible
individuals to be considered for admission to the United States. Upon admission, these
individuals would become U.S. lawful permanent residents. Although the particular criteria in the
three proposed SIV programs differ, all three would require applicants to obtain a favorable
recommendation regarding their work with the U.S. government and be determined to be
admissible to United States, which requires clearance of background checks and security
screening, among other screening. All three programs would be subject to annual numerical
limits, which would apply to the principal applicants but not to their accompanying spouses or
children.
Syrian Allies Protection Act (S. 2625). Introduced by Senator Warner, the bill would authorize
the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide special immigrant status to a Syrian national who
had worked directly with U.S. military forces as a translator or in another role deemed “vital to
the success of the United States military mission in Syria,” as determined by the Secretary of
Defense, for a period of at least six months between September 2014 and October 2019.


31 Andorra Bruno, Specialist in Immigration Policy, contributed to this section. For related information, see CRS
Report R43725, Iraqi and Afghan Special Immigrant Visa Programs.
32 Two of the bills also reference stateless persons habitually residing in Syria, as Syrian government policy for the past
several decades has denied Syrian citizenship to the majority of Kurdish residents.
Congressional Research Service

11

---

Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response

Applicants would need to obtain a written recommendation from a general or flag officer. The
SIV program would be capped at 250 principal applicants per fiscal year.
Syrian Partner Protection Act (H.R. 4873). Introduced by Representative Crow, the bill would
authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide special immigrant status to a Syrian
national or stateless person habitually residing in Syria who worked for or with the U.S.
government in Syria “as an interpreter, translator, intelligence analyst, or in another sensitive and
trusted capacity” for an aggregate period of not less than one year after January 2014. The
individual’s “service to United States efforts against the Islamic State” would need to be
documented in a positive recommendation or evaluation. The SIV program, which would be
temporary, would be capped at 4,000 principal applicants per year for five fiscal years.
Promoting American National Security and Preventing the Resurgence of ISIS Act of 2019
(S. 2641). Section 203 of S. 2641, as reported by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, would
authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide special immigrant status to a Syrian or
stateless Kurd habitually residing in Syria who is or was employed by or on behalf of the U.S.
government “in a role that was vital to the success of the United States’ Counter ISIS mission in
Syria,” as determined by the Secretary of State in consultation with the Secretary of Defense. The
individual must have been so employed for a period of at least one year after January 2014 and
must obtain a favorable written recommendation from a senior supervisor. In addition, the
applicant must have experienced or must be “experiencing an ongoing serious threat as a
consequence of the alien’s employment by the United States Government.” The SIV program
would be capped at 400 principal applicants per fiscal year.
The Syrian SIV programs proposed by these bills are generally modeled on the existing
temporary SIV programs for Iraqis and Afghans who have worked for or on behalf of the U.S.
government, although there are some key differences. For example, under both the Iraqi and
Afghan SIV programs, the recommendation or evaluation (attesting to valuable service) that an
applicant is required to submit must be accompanied by approval from the appropriate Chief of
Mission. The Syrian SIV bills would not require applicants to obtain Chief of Mission approval,
although S. 2641 would require an applicant’s recommendation to be approved by a senior
foreign service officer designated by the Secretary of State. S. 2641 is also the only one of the
three bills to require an applicant to show that he or she has experienced or is experiencing a
serious threat as a result of employment by the U.S. government; this is a requirement under both
the Iraqi and Afghan SIV programs. In addition, all three Syrian SIV bills include provisions that
do not have counterparts under the Iraqi and Afghan programs that would provide for the
protection or relocation of applicants who are in imminent danger or whose lives or safety are at
risk.
Military Developments
Turkish Incursion into Northern Syria
Operation Peace Spring (2019)
On October 9, 2019, Turkey’s military (and allied Syrian opposition groups) entered northeastern
Syria in a military operation targeting Kurdish People’s Protection Unit (YPG) forces. Dubbed
Operation Peace Spring (OPS) by Turkey, the operation followed a call between President Trump
and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. After the phone call, President Trump ordered a
pullback of U.S. forces from the area of the anticipated Turkish incursion. (28 Special Forces
Green Berets located along Turkey’s initial “axis of advance” were withdrawn prior to the
Congressional Research Service

12

---

link to page 18
Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response

Turkish operation.)33 This drew accusations among many, including some Members of Congress,
that the Administration had offered a tacit “green light,” to the Turkish operation, a charge
strongly denied by Administration officials who described the U.S. decision to withdraw forces as
a matter of personnel safety.34 President Trump said in a statement, “The United States does not
endorse this attack and has made it clear to Turkey that this operation is a bad idea.”35
Figure 5. Syria-Turkey Border
As of May 25, 2020

Source: CRS, using areas of influence data from IHS Conflict Monitor.
Note: This map does not depict precisely or comprehensively all U.S. bases or operating locations in Syria.
A subsequent U.S.-brokered ceasefire in mid-October allowed for the withdrawal of SDF forces
from the Turkish zone of incursion, roughly corresponding to the area between the towns of Tell
Abiad and Ras al Ayn (see Figure 5). It also created a Turkish “safe zone” stretching between the
two towns, extending to a depth of 32km inside Syria. Separately, Turkey and Russia negotiated


33 Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Milley before the House Armed Services Committee, December 11, 2019.
34 At a December 11, 2019, hearing before the House Armed Services Committee, Defense Secretary Esper stated, “[ ...
] when you look at the situation at the time we faced maybe one or two scenarios. One would have been to allow our
troops to stand there in the face of a [ ... ] Turkish onslaught which both Chairman Milley and I agreed wasn’t worth
risking our soldiers’ lives. Option two would have been an un-credible option, which would be fighting a long-standing
NATO ally.”
35 “Turkey’s Syria invasion was a ‘bad idea,’ Trump says,” Defense One, October 10, 2019.
Congressional Research Service

13

---

Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response

security zones east and west of the OPS area, from which SDF forces were also expected to
withdraw (to a depth of 30km from the border). These latter areas are being patrolled by a mix of
Turkish, Russian, and Syrian forces.
Following the Turkish operation, U.S. forces withdrew from outposts in northern Syria (including
Manbij and Ayn Issa); Syrian and Russian forces moved in “to fill the void created by departing
U.S. forces.”36 The State Department also moved its Syria Transition Assistance Team personnel
inside Syria (START-Forward) out of the country. In the same period, the SDF redoubled its
dialogue with the Asad government and reached an agreement to coordinate in some areas.
2020 Developments
In March, Defense Department officials reported that conditions in the Turkish area of incursion
(also known as the OPS area) have “stabilized for the time being.”37 However, Turkey reportedly
has moved hundreds of people from Turkish-controlled areas of western Syria (known informally
as the Euphrates Shield Area) to the newly established OPS area in central Syria, in what some
media reports have described as “population transfers.”38 The moves have raised questions
regarding whether the previous inhabitants of the OPS area will be permitted to return, and
whether the demographics of the area will be permanently altered. In June 2020, U.S.
CENTCOM officials stated that U.S. training efforts were on a “COVID pause” and U.S.
personnel were awaiting a political decision concerning the future of U.S. forces in the country.39
Islamic State: Ongoing Threats
In March 2019, the Islamic State lost its final territorial stronghold in Syria, as a result of
Coalition operations in partnership with the SDF. In October 2019, a U.S. airstrike killed IS
leader Abu Bakr al Baghdadi.40 Nevertheless, U.S. military officials warn that the group has not
been eliminated, and that it continues to pose a significant threat to local and regional stability. In
January 2020, U.S. officials estimated that the Islamic State retained about 14,000-18,000 IS
fighters active between Syria and Iraq—similar to estimates provided in mid-2019.41
A year after the Islamic State lost its final territorial stronghold in Syria, U.S. military officials
stated that the group continued to maintain a low-level insurgency, conducting primarily small
arms and improvised explosive device (IED) attacks against SDF and Syrian military targets.42
CJTF-OIR reported that “al Baghdadi’s death did not result in any degradation of ISIS
capabilities in Syria, and ISIS likely retains an intact command and control structure, and a


36 Ibid.
37 Lead Inspector General for Operation Inherent Resolve | Quarterly Report to the United States Congress | January 1,
2020 – March 31, 2020, p49.
38 “Turkey's occupation of northern Syria includes population transfers,” Al Monitor, May 7, 2020.
39 Brig. Gen. Duke Pirak, Comments to Middle East Institute, June 23, 2020.
40 Lead Inspector General for Operation Inherent Resolve, Quarterly Report to the United States Congress, July 1,
2019-October 25, 2019.
41 News conference with Special Envoy for the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS Ambassador James F. Jeffrey, January
23, 2020; Briefing by Special Envoy for the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS Ambassador James F. Jeffrey and
Counterterrorism Coordinator Ambassador Nathan A. Sales, August 1, 2019.
42 Lead Inspector General for Operation Inherent Resolve | Quarterly Report to the United States Congress | January 1,
2020 – March 31, 2020, p. 10.
Congressional Research Service

14

---

Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response

presence in rural regions of Coalition operating areas in Syria.”43 In July 2020, CENTCOM
Commander Gen. McKenzie stated,
The long term future for ISIS, particularly in Syria, is going to be related to our ability to
establish local security organizations that can prevent ISIS from growing. There's always
going to be a low level ISIS problem. I believe that's going to be endemic. I don't think it's
going to go away. But what we want to do in areas where we can control with our SDF
partners, is we want to ensure that local security organizations are put in place that can
ensure that the responses will be local and they will not require external assistance.44
Turkey’s October 2019 incursion into Kurdish-held areas of northern Syria temporarily disrupted
joint operations with the SDF against the Islamic State.45 While joint operations had resumed by
late 2019, military officials in March 2020 noted that ongoing tension between Turkey and the
SDF “continued to divert SDF attention and resources away from the fight against ISIS.”46
Islamic State Detainees
The capture of the final Islamic State stronghold in Syria in March 2019 led to the surrender of
thousands of IS fighters, as well as their spouses and children. Since then, the SDF has retained
custody of roughly 10,000 IS militants (including approximately 2,000 foreign fighters) at several
makeshift prisons in northern Syria. Wives and children of IS fighters (some of whom also may
be radicalized) are held at separate IDP camps. The largest of these is Al Hol, which houses about
66,000 individuals, 96% of whom are women or children.47 Media reports suggest that the Islamic
State continues to operate and recruit within the camp.48 Military assessments also have described
displacement camps as a “relatively permissive operating environment” for IS supporters.49
The SDF has stated that it is unable to assume long-term responsibility for IS detainees and their
families, and the United States has urged countries to repatriate their citizens. To date, many
countries have been reluctant to do so, citing concerns about their inability to prosecute or
successfully monitor individuals who may have been radicalized. Some countries also have
stripped IS fighters and/or family members of their citizenship.
The security of facilities housing IS fighters and family members continues to be a significant
concern. The Islamic State has urged its followers inside Syria to launch operations to free IS
detainees, and U.S. military assessments have noted that the SDF is unable to provide more than


43 Ibid, 50.
44 CENTCOM news transcript, “General Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr. interview with VoA during a recent tour of the
region,” July 16, 2020.
45 Lead Inspector General for Operation Inherent Resolve, Quarterly Report to the United States Congress, July 1,
2019-October 25, 2019.
46 Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Milley before the House Armed Services Committee, December 11, 2019;
Lead Inspector General for Operation Inherent Resolve | Quarterly Report to the United States Congress | January 1,
2020 – March 31, 2020, p6.
47 UN OCHA Syrian Arab Republic, North East Syria: Al Hol camp, January 13, 2020. Among the population, 46% are
Iraqis (30,724), 39% are Syrians (25,780), and 15% are third country nationals (TCNs) (9,597).
48 “Guns, Filth and ISIS: Syrian Camp Is ‘Disaster in the Making,’” New York Times, September 3, 2019.
49 Lead Inspector General for Operation Inherent Resolve | Quarterly Report to the United States Congress | January 1,
2020 – March 31, 2020, p. 6.
Congressional Research Service

15

---

Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response

“minimal security” at Al Hol.50 Military officials have warned of the risk of a “mass breakout”
from IS detention facilities, and described IS prisoners as “one of the most significant risks to the
success of the [defeat-ISIS] mission.”51 In March 2020, IS prisoners temporarily seized control of
part of a prison in Hasakah; SDF forces reported that they contained the uprising and that no IS
prisoners escaped.52
Securing IS Detainees: The U.S. Role
The Defense Department has stated that U.S. military forces do not operate within IS detention facilities or within
IDP camps for displaced IS family members.53 The Department also has reported that security at IS detention
facilities is provided by the U.S.-trained Provincial/Regional Internal Security Forces (PRISF).54 The Administration’s
FY2021 defense budget request seeks continued support to the PRISF as part of its request for $200 mil ion in
CTEF funds for the Syria Train and Equip Program.
Various parts of the FY2021 defense budget request could be used, directly or indirectly, to support the security
of detention facilities and IDP camps. The request includes $15 mil ion for basic life support services at detention
facility sites. It also includes funds for stipends for local forces, infrastructure repair, and sustainment.
In 2020, CJTF-OIR reported that it had established the Northeast Syria Coordination Group (NESCG) to replace
its former dedicated prison support mission in Syria. The NESCG, which is not permanently based inside Syria, wil
coordinate with local and international partners on detainee issues.55
Idlib Crisis
Northern areas of Idlib province are the only remaining area of Syria still under the control of
armed opposition groups actively seeking the removal of Syrian President Asad. Armed groups
operating in Idlib represent the remnants of armed opposition groups that have challenged Asad’s
rule since 2011, as well as extremist groups that emerged during the course of the conflict—some
of which are affiliated with Al Qaeda and embrace an external operations agenda.
A Syrian government offensive and related fighting displaced nearly a third of the population of
Idlib between December 2019 and February 2020, in what U.S. officials described as “the largest
internal displacement of people that we’ve seen in such a short period of time in Syria in the
whole war.”56 At the same time, ongoing fighting in Idlib province in early 2020 between
opposition groups (backed by Turkey), and Syrian government forces (backed by Russia and Iran)
resulted in the deaths of dozens of Turkish soldiers. The attacks on Turkish soldiers, some of
which may have been conducted by Russia or with Russian involvement, raised the possibility


50 Lead Inspector General for Operation Inherent Resolve, 1, 2022-March 31, 2022, p. v (Message from the Lead Inspector General). 20 Ibid, p.68. 21 Ibid, p.68. 22 U.N. Security Council, Report of the Secretary-General on Implementation of Security Council resolutions 2139 (2014), 2165 (2014), 2191 (2014), 2258 (2015), 2332 (2016), 2393 (2017), 2401 (2018), 2449 (2018), 2504 (2020), 2533 (2020) and 2585 (2021), S/2022/492, June 16, 2022. 23 Ibid. 24 LIG-OIR, Quarterly Report to the United States Congress, January 1, 2022-March 31, 2022, p. 22. 25 Department of Defense T ranscript, “CENT COM Commander Gen. Frank McKenzie Holds a Press Briefing, March 18, 2022.” 26 LIG-OIR, Quarterly Report to the United States Congress, July 1, 2022-September 30, 2022, p. 63. 27 Remarks by Ian Moss, State Department Deputy Coordinator for Countering Violent Extremism and T errorist Detentions, Bureau of Counterterrorism, September 29, 2022. Congressional Research Service 6 Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response External Actors Russia Russian military involvement in Syria dates back to the 1950s. Soviet and Russian Federation naval forces have accessed a facility at the Syrian port of Tartus since the early 1970s, using it as a logistical hub to enable longer Mediterranean operations. While Russian personnel have since been based in Syria to maintain Russia military equipment and train Syrians, their numbers have fluctuated over time. Since the onset of unrest in 2011, Russia has provided sustained political and military support to the Syrian government. In 2015, Russia began a gradual buildup of personnel, combat aircraft, and military equipment inside Syria, before beginning air strikes inside the country that enabled pro-Asad forces to reverse most opposition gains by 2018.28 Russia also deployed private military companies (PMCs) to Syria.29 Russia repeatedly used its veto at the Security Council to block council resolutions on Syria; according to U.S. officials, Russia vetoed 17 Security Council resolutions on Syria between 2011 and 2022.30 Russia also expanded its economic presence in Syria over the course of the conflict. In 2019, Syria’s parliament approved a plan for the U.S.-sanctioned Russian company Stroytransgaz to manage, expand, and operate Syria’s largest port at Tartus for 49 years.31 In 2020 and 2021, Russia reportedly extended two loans totaling $1 bil ion to Syria with the condition that the funds be used to make payments to specific Russian companies—including to those owned by oligarchs sanctioned by the United States for facilitating Russian military operations in Ukraine.32 There has been occasional tension between U.S. and Russian personnel operating in Syria.33 U.S. officials have stated that Syria remains “the one area in the world where U.S. and Russian forces operate in close proximity on a daily basis.”34 The two countries have maintained a deconfliction channel to reduce the chance of conflict between their forces; in March 2022, then-CENTCOM commander General Kenneth F. “Frank” McKenzie stated, “over the three years of my command at CENTCOM we have general y had a brisk, professional de-confliction relationship with the Russians in Syria. They—we can always contact them if we have a problem, they’l always pick up the phone. And we feel that we respond in kind to them.”35 General McKenzie added that “we have no evidence that the Russians are intent on escalating anything in Syria” as a result of ongoing events in Ukraine. 28 “What has Russia gained from five years of fighting in Syria?” Al Jazeera, October 1, 2020. 29 Candace Rondeaux, “ Decoding the Wagner Group: Analyzing t he Role of Private Military Security Contractors in Russian Proxy Warfare,” New Am erica, November 7, 2019. 30 Ambassador Richard Mills, Deputy U.S. Representative to the United Nations, Remarks at a U.N. General Assembly Meeting Following Russia’s Veto of a UN Security Council Resolution on the Syria Cross-Border Humanitarian Mechanism , July 21, 2022. 31 Agence France Presse, “ Syria parliament okays Russian lease of T artus port: state media,” June 12, 2019. 32 Michael Weiss, “ How Russia Evades Sanctions via Syrian Loan Schemes,” New Lines Magazine, April 5, 2022. 33 See, for example, T homas Gibbons-Neff, “ How a 4-Hour Battle Between Russian Mercenaries and U.S. Commandos Unfolded in Syria,” New York Tim es, May 24, 2018. 34 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, The Path Forward On U.S.-Syria Policy: Strategy And Accountability, hearing, 117th Cong., 2nd sess., June 8, 2022. 35 Department of Defense T ranscript, “CENT COM Commander Gen. Frank McKenzie Holds a Press Briefing, March 18, 2022.” Congressional Research Service 7 Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response In early 2022, media reports suggested that some Russian personnel in Syria had repositioned and consolidated to enable possible redeployment to Russia.36 In June 2022, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Dana Stroul testified that, “we have not seen a notable change in Russian activities in Syria, nor in its commitment to backing Asad.”37 In August, Russia transferred an S-300 anti-aircraft battery from Syria to southern Russia, reportedly to bolster its air defenses against Ukraine; Russia continued to reinforce its existing military positions in northern Syria.38 Iran Since 2011, Iran has provided technical, training, and financial assistance both to the Syrian government and to proregime Shia militias operating in Syria. The Asad government is a key Iranian al y, permitting the use of its territory as a transshipment point for the flow of weapons from Iran to Lebanese Hezbollah. In 2012, the U.S. Department of the Treasury designated the Iranian Ministry of Intel igence and Security (MOIS) for providing substantial technical assistance to Syrian intel igence, noting that MOIS also participated in multiple joint projects with Hezbollah.39 Treasury also designated the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force (IRGC-QF) for training Syrian forces. Iran-backed miltias. Hezbollah has provided training, advice, and logistical support to the Syrian government since at least 2012.40 Iran-backed Iraqi Shi’a militias—such as Kata’ib Hezbollah (KH) and Kata’ib Sayyid Shuhada (KSS)—also have fought in Syria on behalf of the Asad government, and have at times threatened U.S. forces in both Syria and Iraq. U.S. Air Strikes The Biden Administration has conducted air strikes on Iranian or Iran-backed forces in Syria on at least three occasions:  February 2021: On February 25, U.S. air strikes “destroyed multiple facilities located at a border control point used by a number of Iranian-backed militant groups, including Kait’ib Hezbollah (KH) and Kait’ib Sayyid al-Shuhada (KSS).”41 The strikes were authorized “in response to recent attacks against American and Coalition personnel in Iraq, and to ongoing threats to those personnel,” according to the same statement.  June 2021: On June 27, U.S. military forces “conducted defensive precision airstrikes against facilities used by Iran-backed militia groups in the Iraq-Syria border region. The targets were selected because these facilities are utilized by Iran-backed militias that are engaged in unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) attacks against U.S. personnel and facilities in Iraq.... Several Iran-backed militia groups, 36 Walid Al Nofal, “Amid war in Ukraine, Russia withdraws and Iran expands in Syria,” Syria Direct, May 4, 2022; Tim es of Israel, “ Russia said to pull troops from Syria to bolster forces in Ukraine,” May 8, 2022; T iina Hyyppä an d Aaron Pilkington, “How the Ukraine crisis could make the Syrian civil war worse,” Monkey Cage (blog), Washington Post, May 24, 2022. 37 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, The Path Forward On U.S.-Syria Policy: Strategy And Accountability, hearing, 117th Cong., 2nd sess., June 8, 2022. 38 LIG-OIR, Quarterly Report to the United States Congress, July 1, 2022-September 30, 2022, p. 54. 39 Department of the Treasury, press release, February 16, 2012. 40 U.S. Department of T reasury, E.O. 13582, August 10, 2012. 41 U.S. Department of Defense, “U.S. Conducts Defensive Precision Strike,” press release, February 25, 2021. Congressional Research Service 8 link to page 7 Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response including Kata'ib Hezbollah (KH) and Kata'ib Sayyid al-Shuhada (KSS), used these facilities.”42  August 2022: On August 23, the U.S. military carried out strikes in eastern Syria on “infrastructure facilities used by groups linked to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps” in retaliation for attacks on U.S. bases in Syria on August 15.43 On August 24, rockets struck U.S. facilities in Deir ez Zor, prompting an additional round of U.S. retaliatory strikes.44 Turkey The United States and Turkey have some competing priorities in Syria, with the former largely focused on countering the Islamic State and preventing its resurgence, and the latter focused on the perceived threat posed by Kurdish forces along the Turkish border. Turkey conducted three major military operations in Syria between 2016 and 2019, aiming to prevent the Syrian Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) from establishing an autonomous area along Syria’s northern border with Turkey. Turkey views the YPG as an offshoot of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which both Turkey and the United States classify as a terrorist group.45 The YPG is the primary component of the SDF, which CENTCOM has described as “the only reliable and effective partner in Syria.”46 As of mid-2022, Turkey controls two major swaths of territory inside northern Syria, spanning parts of Aleppo, Raqqah, and Hasakah provinces (see Figure 1). Turkish forces operate alongside various Syrian militias known as the Syrian National Army (SNA). In May 2022, Turkey’s president announced plans to build homes in Turkish-held areas of Syria for up to 1 mil ion Syrian refugees currently residing in Turkey.47 Potential Turkish Military Expansion. In May 2022, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan stated that Turkey was considering a military operation to expand areas of Turkish control in Syria as a means of countering YPG influence.48 In response, the U.S. State Department spokesperson recognized Turkey’s “legitimate security concerns” but condemned any escalation and said that the United States supports maintenance of the current cease-fire lines to avoid destabilization and putting U.S. forces at risk in the campaign against the Islamic State.49 U.S. 42 Department of Defense, “Statement by the Department of Defense,” press release, June 27, 2021. 43 Sirwan Kajjo, “ Experts: Military Facilities T argeted by US in Syria Were Vital for Iran,” Voice of America, August 24, 2022; White House, “ Letter to the Speaker of the House and President pro tempore of the Senate consistent with the War Powers Resolution (P.L. 93-148),” press release, August 25, 2022. 44 Jared Malsin, “ U.S. Helicopter Gunships Hit Iran-Backed Militia in Syria,” Wall Street Journal, August 25, 2022. 45 Sources citing links between the PKK and YPG (or PKK affiliates in Syria) include U.S. State Department, Country Reports on Terrorism 2020, Syria; International Crisis Group, “ T urkey’s PKK Conflict: A Regional Battleground in Flux,” February 18, 2022; and Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Ascent of the PYD and the SDF, April 2016. 46 Posture Statement of General Kenneth F. McKenzie, Jr., Commander, United States Central Command before the Senate Armed Services Committee, March 15, 2022. 47 Ben Hubbard and Elif Ince, “ T urkey’s Plan to Draw Refugees Back to Syria: Homes for 1 Million,” New York Times, May 4, 2022. 48 Reuters, “Syrian rebels says ready to back T urkish-operation in northeast,” May 29, 2022. 49 State Department Press Briefing, May 24, 2022. T he United States and Russia established separate arrangements with T urkey in October 2019 for managing certain areas of northeast Syria. White House, “T he United States and T urkey Agree to Ceasefire in Northeast Syria,” press release, October 17, 2019; State Department, “Special Representative for Syria Engagement James F. Jeffrey Remarks to the T raveling Press,” October 17, 2019; President of Russia, “Memorandum of Understanding Between T urkey and the Russian Federation,” October 22, 2019. Congressional Research Service 9 Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response military officials also expressed concern over the impact of such an operation on the counter-IS campaign, “because it could draw off potential SDF personnel to move away from the counter ISIS fight.”50 In June 2022, Turkey announced plans for military operations that involve areas west of the Euphrates River away from U.S. forces, which are concentrated on the river’s east side.51 In August, Turkey began negotiations with the Asad government, reportedly at Russia’s request; the Defense Intel igence Agency assessed that these talks likely delayed a Turkish ground operation.52 Israel Israel has largely stayed out of the civil conflict between Syrian government and opposition forces, but regularly conducts air strikes in Syria against Iranian and Hezbollah targets it views as a threat to its security. In the early years of the Syria conflict, Israel primarily employed air strikes to prevent Iranian weapons shipments destined for Hezbollah in Lebanon. Later, as the Asad government reacquired control of large portions of Syria’s territory, Israeli leaders expressed intentions to prevent Iran from constructing and operating bases or advanced weapons manufacturing facilities in Syria. In 2019, Israeli Lieutenant General Gadi Eisenkot, then chief of the general staff of the Israel Defense Forces, stated, “In January 2017 we began attacking the infrastructure the Iranians were building in Syria. The critical mass was from mid-2017. We began attacking systematical y a number of times each week. Without making any statements. Beneath the radar.”53 Eisenkot added that Israel carried out “thousands” of attacks in Syria, stating that in 2018 alone Israel dropped 2,000 bombs on Iranian targets. In 2021, the deployment of some Iranian air defense systems in Syria prompted Israel to start sending larger aircraft formations to reduce the chances of having an aircraft downed.54 On occasion, Israeli strikes against Iranian targets in Syria appear to have resulted in retaliatory Iranian strikes against U.S. personnel in Syria. In October 2021, unnamed U.S. officials stated that an armed drone strike on the U.S. garrison at At Tanf in southeast Syria was Iranian retaliation for Israeli air strikes in Syria.55 The strike on At Tanf, which U.S. officials described as a “deliberate and coordinated attack,” was reportedly conducted by Iranian proxy forces.56 In March 2022, then-CENTCOM commander General McKenzie stated, “I do worry about these exchanges between Iran and Israel because many times, our forces are at risk, whether we’re in Iraq or in Syria.”57 In June 2022, Syrian officials stated that Damascus International Airport had suspended operations as a result of Israeli strikes that heavily damaged the facility’s infrastructure.58 50 Department of Defense T ranscript, “Pentagon Press Secretary John F. Kirby Holds a Press Briefing,” May 26, 2022. 51 Nazlan Ertan, “ Erdogan announces military operations in Syria’s Manbij, T al Rifaat,” Al Monitor, June 1, 2022. 52 LIG-OIR, Quarterly Report to the United States Congress Quarterly Report to the United States Congress, July 1, 2022-September 30, 2022, p. 53. 53 Anshel Pfeffer, “Smash the bases, spare the men—Israel’s invisible war in Syria” Sunday Times, January 13, 2019. 54 Anna Ahronheim, “ Iran has used advanced air defense bat teries against Israel in Syria,” Jerusalem Post, March 7, 2022. 55 Eric Schmitt and Ronen Bergman, “ Strike on U.S. Base Was Iranian Response to Israeli Attack, Officials Say ,” New York Tim es, November 18, 2021. 56 White House Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jen Psaki, October 22, 2021. 57 Department of Defense T ranscript, “CENT COM Commander Gen. Frank McKenzie Holds a Press Briefing, March 18, 2022.” 58 Sarah Dadouch, “ Syria says Damascus airport operations suspended after Israeli strikes,” Washington Post, June 14, 2022. Congressional Research Service 10 link to page 16 Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response Humanitarian Situation The humanitarian crisis in Syria is one of the most serious and widely dispersed in the world, with an estimated 6.9 mil ion internal y displaced persons and roughly 5.6 mil ion registered refugees in neighboring countries.59 The U.N. humanitarian assessment in Syria for 2022 found that more people are in need than at any time since the start of the conflict, with as many as 14.6 mil ion people dependent on humanitarian assistance.60 More than 90% of Syrians live below the poverty line, and approximately 12.4 mil ion people—nearly 60% of Syria’s population—are now considered food insecure.61 The World Food Programme in August 2022 stated that the number of Syrians facing food insecurity was “51 percent more than in 2019.”62 Cross-Border Aid Cross-line convoys (between government-held and opposition-held areas) have provided humanitarian assistance and protection services to mil ions of people across Syria’s 14 provinces. In 2014, U.N. Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 2165 authorized the provision of cross-border humanitarian assistance into Syria via four approved crossing points (see Figure 2). Cross-border aid deliveries conducted under this authority, which must be renewed annual y by the Security Council, require notification to (but not consent from) the government of Syrian President Bashar al Asad. In 2019, Russia used its veto at the Security Council to reduce the U.N. authorization to two crossings and then, in 2020, to a single crossing at Bab al Hawa.63 59 United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, “2022 Humanitarian Needs Overview: Syrian Arab Republic,” February 2022; Data on registered Syrian refugees available at https://data.unhcr.org/en/situations/syria. 60 UNOCHA, “ 2022 Humanitarian Needs Overview: Syrian Arab Republic,” February 2022. 61 U.N. Security Council Report , “December 2021 Monthly Forecast,” November 30, 2021; U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, “Message from the United Nations humanitarian, refugee, and development chiefs on the situation in Syria and the region,” May 10, 2022. 62 World Food Programme, “Syrian Arab Republic,” at https://www.wfp.org/countries/syrian-arab-republic. 63 Center for Strategic and International Studies, “T he Implications of the UN Cross-Border Vote in Syria,” June 4, 2021. Congressional Research Service 11 Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response 2022 Renewal. On July 12, 2022, the Security Council renewed its authorization for Figure 2. Current and Former U.N. cross-border assistance (UNSCR 2642) for a Border Crossings period of six months, following a Russian veto of a 12-month extension. The new resolution is to expire on January 10, 2023. A U.S. official stated that the shortened mandate and uncertain renewal have undermined procurement efforts for humanitarian assistance, as these orders must be placed months in advance.64 Political Negotiations Since 2012, the Syrian government and some elements of the opposition have participated in U.N.-brokered peace negotiations known as the Geneva process. As part of the Geneva Source: Created by CRS. process, UNSCR 2254 (2015) endorsed a Notes: Of the four crossing points authorized by road map for a political settlement in Syria, the Security Council in 2014, one (Bab al Hawa) is including the drafting of a new constitution currently authorized as of 2022. and the administration of U.N.-supervised elections.65 Negotiations exclude some of the most powerful armed local actors in Syria: the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which control large areas of northeast Syria, and Islamist armed groups linked to Al Qaeda, which control parts of Syria’s northwest. Geneva talks instead focus on negotiations between the Asad government and Turkey-based political opposition figures, which do not control territory inside Syria and exert little, if any, influence over Syrian armed groups, including armed groups Turkey uses as proxies inside areas it controls in northern Syria. Constitutional Committee. Since 2019, the U.N. has facilitated the meetings of the Syrian Constitutional Committee (SCC), which was formed to draft a new Syrian constitution as cal ed for by UNSCR 2254.66 In 2021, Syria held presidential elections under the framework of the country’s existing constitution; U.N. observers were not present. A U.S. official described the election, in which President Asad won a fourth seven-year term with a reported 95% of the vote, as “an insult to democracy.”67 Some have criticized what they describe as a disproportionate focus on the SCC at the expense of broader political negotiations to resolve the conflict. According to one analyst, “The constitutional committee has been consuming political capital and bandwidth that are disproportionate to its value add. The committee was not meant to be in itself ‘the political process’, it was intended to be a gate opener to more political tracks. Instead, it has been the sole avenue for intra-Syrian talks.”68 64 Ambassador Robert Wood, United States Mission to the United Nations, “ Remarks at a UN Security Council Briefing on Syria,” October 25, 2022. 65 U.N. Security Council Resolution 2254 (2015), S/Res/2254 (2015), December 18, 2015. 66 “Syria’s Constitutional Committee: T he Devil in the Detail,” Middle East Institute, January 6, 2021. 67 Ambassador Richard Mills, U.S. Deputy Representative to the United Nations, “Remarks at a UN Security Council Briefing on Syria,” May 26, 2021. 68 Barbara Bibbo, “ Syria constitutional talks fail again in Geneva,” Al Jazeera, March 25, 2022. Congressional Research Service 12 Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response Syrian Political Opposition National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, aka Etilaf, Syrian Opposition Coalition (SOC) The SOC was established in 2012 in Doha, Qatar, as an umbrel a group encompassing an ideological y diverse range of political , April 1,
2019-June 30, 2019, p. 5.
51 Lead Inspector General for Operation Inherent Resolve | Quarterly Report to the United States Congress | January 1,
2020 – March 31, 2020, pp6-8.
52 “Kurdish-led forces put down revolt by ISIS detainees at prison in Syria,” Washington Post, March 30, 2020.
53 Lead Inspector General for Operation Inherent Resolve | Quarterly Report to the United States Congress | January 1,
2020 – March 31, 2020
54 Justification for FY 2021 Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), Counter-ISIS Train and Equip Fund (CTEF),
February 2020.
55 Lead Inspector General for Operation Inherent Resolve | Quarterly Report to the United States Congress | January 1,
2020 – March 31, 2020
56 State Department, “Background Briefing With Senior Administration Official,” Special Briefing, February 14, 2020.
Congressional Research Service

16

---

Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response

that conflict in Syria between two major powers could escalate.57 Turkey, which publicly blamed
the Syrian government for the deaths, launched what it dubbed Operation Spring Shield against
Syrian military forces, downing three Syrian military aircraft.
Idlib Ceasefire. On March 5, Russian President Putin and Turkish President Erdogan reached an
accord to prevent further clashes between their forces. The agreement contains three main
provisions: a ceasefire along the “line of contact” in the Idlib de-escalation area, the
establishment of a security corridor (6km deep to the north and 6km deep to the south from the
M4 highway), and joint Russian-Turkish military patrols along the M4 from the settlement of
Trunba to Ain al Hawr (see Figure 6, below). 58 Turkish and Russian military personnel continue
to conduct joint awareness patrols pursuant to the agreement. U.S. officials in June 2020 stated
that the ceasefire was holding, despite some “minor shelling back and forth.”59 Turkey reportedly
has increased its military presence in Idlib since the agreement was signed, and expressed a
willingness to renew operations if necessary.60
Key Players
State Actors. Military forces from five countries currently operate or maintain forces in or around
Idlib, a province in northwest Syria that shares a border with Turkey and is slightly larger than the
state of Delaware. These include:
 Syria. Syrian military forces operating in Idlib have sought to 1) protect regime strongholds
in neighboring Lattakia from attack by Idlib-based rebels, and 2) reassert control over Syria’s
primary north-south (M5) and east-west (M4) highways, both of which transit through Idlib.61
 Russia. Russian aircraft have enabled Syrian ground operations in Idlib.62 In some
areas, Russian ground forces also have been used to occupy areas captured from anti-
Asad forces and to deter counteroffensives.
 Turkey. Turkey maintains twelve formal observation posts in or near Idlib
established as part of 2018 negotiations with Russia, as well as numerous informal
military posts.
 Iran. Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) forces have supported Syrian
military operations in Idlib, according to U.S. officials.63
 United States. The United States does not maintain military forces in Idlib, but since
2014 has conducted airstrikes in the province targeting Al Qaeda linked groups.



57 “Deciphering Turkey’s darkest night in Syria,” Al Monitor, February 28, 2020.
58 Additional Protocol to the Memorandum on Stabilization of the Situation in the Idlib De-Escalation Area, March 6,
2020 (as released by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, 432-06-03-2020.
59 Special Envoy to the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS James Jeffrey on the Virtual Meeting of Ministers of the Global
Coalition to Defeat ISIS Small Group, June 5, 2020.
60 Silencing the Guns in Syria’s Idlib, International Crisis Group, May 14, 2020.
61 Ibid.
62 State Department, “Senior State Department Official on the Situation in Syria,” Special Briefing, February 28, 2020.
63 “Escalation of Violence in Idlib,” Press Statement, Secretary of State Michael Pompeo, February 4, 2020.
Congressional Research Service

17

---

Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response

Non-State Actors. A variety of non-state actors operate in Idlib, including armed groups
opposed to the Asad government as well as extremist groups who oppose the Asad
government but may also embrace an external operations agenda against U.S. or
European targets. These include:
 Hayat Tahrir al Sham (HTS). HTS is the successor group to the Nusra Front,
which was established in late 2011 as Al Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria. In 2019, HTS
captured most of Idlib province from other rebel groups, and it runs a local
government in the area. U.S. officials estimate that 7,000-10,000 HTS members
operate in Idlib, while a U.N. committee estimates that the group has 12,000-
15,000 fighters.64
 Hurras al Din (HD). Also identified by the U.S. intelligence community as
linked to Al Qaeda, HD maintains an estimated 3,500-5,000 fighters in Idlib,
according to U.N. estimates—up to half of whom are foreign fighters.65 HD has
been described as the successor to the Khorasan Group, an Al Qaeda cell
composed of foreign operatives that sought to use Syria as a launching pad for
attacks against the West, before being largely eliminated by U.S. airstrikes.66 A
U.S. drone strike in Idlib in June 2020 killed HD leader Khaled al Aruri.
 Syrian National Army (SNA). U.S. officials have described the SNA as “Syrian
opposition forces fighting against the Assad regime who are supported and
supplied and commanded to some degree by Turkey.”67
 Hezbollah. Lebanese Hezbollah fighters have operated in Syria in support of the
Asad government since at least 2013 and as of 2020 were operating in Idlib
province, according to U.S. officials.68
 Other Iran-backed militias. Iran-backed fighters of various nationalities
reportedly have been killed in Idlib, including members of the Zainabiyoun
Brigade (Pakistani Shi’a militia) and the Fatemiyoun Brigade (Afghan Shi’a
militia).69
 Islamic State. A limited number of Islamic State fighters are believed to operate
in Idlib. A U.S. airstrike in Idlib in October 2019 killed Islamic State leader Abu
Bakr al Baghdadi.



64 Ambassador James Jeffrey at a press briefing on February 5, 2020; U.N. Security Council Report S/2020/53, January
20, 2020.
65 U.N. Security Council Report S/2020/53, January 20, 2020.
66 “U.S. Used Missile With Long Blades to Kill Qaeda Leader in Syria,” New York Times, June 24, 2020.
67 State Department Special Briefing, “Senior State Department Official Previewing the Upcoming D-ISIS Ministerial
and Syria Small Group Meetings,” November 12, 2019.
68 “Escalation of Violence in Idlib,” Press Statement, Secretary of State Michael Pompeo, February 4, 2020.
69 “IRGC trained militias suffer losses in northwest Syria,” FDD’s Long War Journal, February 14, 2020.
Congressional Research Service

18

---

Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response

Figure 6. Idlib and its Environs
As of May 25, 2020

Source: CRS, using areas of influence data from IHS Conflict Monitor.
Notes: Areas of influence approximate and subject to change.
Congressional Research Service

19

---

Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response

Political Developments
Non-State Governance Structures
Governance varies widely across Syria, both within and outside of government controlled areas.
While the Asad government has recaptured most areas formerly held by opposition forces, in
limited cases it has permitted local governance committees to operate in recaptured areas, due in
part to financial and manpower shortages.70 Meanwhile, a number of other groups have asserted
varying levels of control (ranging from de-facto to largely aspirational) outside of government-
held areas. These include:
Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES). The AANES was established
by PYD-linked Kurdish authorities in northeast Syria following the area’s liberation from the
Islamic State. The area administered by the AANES (roughly a third of the country), is the largest
area of Syria that remains outside of Asad government control. Primary components include the
U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) as well as the SDF’s political wing, known as the
Syrian Democratic Council (SDC). AANES leaders have stated that the body is not aligned with
either the Asad government or with opposition forces.71
Syrian Salvation Government. The SSG was established in late 2017 and is closely affiliated
with Hayat Tahrir al Sham (HTS)—which the United States has designated as a Foreign Terrorist
Organization due to its links to Al Qaeda. The SSG administers most areas of Idlib province that
remain outside of Syrian government control. The SSG consists of a self-designated prime
minister and roughly a dozen ministries. It provides services—such as utilities— but also has
imposed restrictions on residents, particularly women.72 The U.N. has stated that HTS in Idlib has
“systematically imposed rules and codes of conduct on civilians living in areas under its control
that are fundamentally contrary to human rights.”73
National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, aka Etilaf, Syrian
Opposition Coalition, SOC). The SOC was established in 2012 in Doha, Qatar, as an umbrella
group encompassing an ideologically diverse range of political groups opposed to the Asad groups opposed to the Asad
government. In late 2012government. In late 2012, the the Obama Administration recognized the SOC as “the legitimateObama Administration recognized the SOC as “the legitimate
representative of the Syrian people in opposition to the Asad regime,”representative of the Syrian people in opposition to the Asad regime,”7469 without conferring upon without conferring upon
the group the legal authority of a state.the group the legal authority of a state.7570 Based in Turkey, the SOC does not control territory Based in Turkey, the SOC does not control territory
inside Syria. The group frequently has served as an interlocutor with international actors, and inside Syria. The group frequently has served as an interlocutor with international actors, and
plays a leading role in U.N.plays a leading role in U.N. -brokered peace talks with the Syrian government. However, it exerts brokered peace talks with the Syrian government. However, it exerts
little, if any, influence over armed little, if any, influence over armed groups operating inside Syria.groups operating inside Syria.
Syrian Interim Government (SIG). In 2013, the SOC established the SIG to serve as a politicalIn 2013, the SOC established the SIG to serve as a political
institution capable of assuming power following what many at the time hoped would be the institution capable of assuming power following what many at the time hoped would be the
imminent imminent fall fal of the Asad regime. Its founders also sought—unsuccessfully—to establish the SIG of the Asad regime. Its founders also sought—unsuccessfully—to establish the SIG
as a civilian authority over Syrian as a civilian authority over Syrian armed groups via the body’s self-appointed defense ministry. armed groups via the body’s self-appointed Defense Ministry.


70 “Bridging the Gap: Local Governance Committees in ‘Reconciled’ Areas of Syria,” Chatham House, April 2020.
71 Testimony of Ms Ilham Ahmed, Executive President, Syrian Democratic Council, before the House Oversight and
Reform National Security Subcommittee, October 23, 2019.
72 “The Best of Bad Options for Syria’s Idlib,” International Crisis Group, March 14, 2019.
73 Report of the U.N. Secretary General to the U.N. Security Council, April 23, 2020, S/2020/327.
74 “Obama Recognizes Syrian Opposition Group,” ABC News, December 11, 2012.
75 “U.S. Will Grant Recognition to Syrian Rebels, Obama Says,” New York Times, December 11, 2012.
Congressional Research Service

20

---

Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response

The SIG continued to operate even as the Asad government regained territory and the likelihoodThe SIG continued to operate even as the Asad government regained territory and the likelihood
of a political transition began to appear more remote. The SIG maintained offices in Idlib, until it of a political transition began to appear more remote. The SIG maintained offices in Idlib, until it
was forced out following the establishment of the HTS-affiliated SSG in 2017. Over time, the was forced out following the establishment of the HTS-affiliated SSG in 2017. Over time, the
SIG became increasingly affiliated with the Turkish government; currently it operates out of SIG became increasingly affiliated with the Turkish government; currently it operates out of
Turkish-Turkish-controlledcontrol ed areas of areas of Aleppo province. One Aleppo province. One report described this arrangement as follows:
The SIG is formallyanalyst has noted that the SIG “is formal y the authority managing the areas taken over by armed groups funded the authority managing the areas taken over by armed groups funded
and armed by Turkey, namely the Euphrates Shield Area (ESA), which covers areas north
and northeast of Aleppo; the Olive Branch Area, around Afrin northwest of Aleppo; and
the Peace Spring area, which was taken recentlyand armed by Turkey.. . In practice, however, it is the Turks that . In practice, however, it is the Turks that
control these regions through their various proxies, including armed groups and civilian
entities.76
Political Negotiations
The Geneva Process
Since 2012, the Syrian government and opposition have participated in U.N.-brokered
negotiations under the framework of the Geneva Communiqué. Endorsed by both the United
States and Russia, the Geneva Communiqué calls for the establishment of a transitional governing
body with full executive powers. According to the document, such a government “could include
members of the present government and the opposition and other groups and shall be formed on
the basis of mutual consent.”77 The document does not discuss the future of Asad.
Subsequent negotiations have made little progress, as both sides have adopted differing
interpretations of the agreement. The opposition has said that any transitional government must
exclude Asad.78 The Syrian government maintains that Asad was reelected (by referendum) in
2014, and notes that the Geneva Communiqué does not explicitly require him to step down. The
Syrian government position is that a transitional government can be achieved by simply
expanding the existing government to include members of the opposition. Asad has stated that a
comprehensive solution to the current conflict must begin by “striking at terrorism” (which his
government defines broadly to include most opposition groups) and by ending external
interference in Syria.79
Who is the Syrian government negotiating with?
The Syrian opposition is diverse and fractured, and the specific groups involved in negotiations with the Asad
government have fluctuated over time. At present, the Syrian opposition is represented at U.N. sponsored talks
by the Syrian Negotiations Commission (SNC). The SNC was established in 2017, expanding the existing High
Negotiations Committee which had been formed in 2015 under Saudi auspices. The most significant change was
the inclusion within the SNC of political groups (notably the Moscow platform and the Cairo platform) which are


76 “Use of Turkish Lira to be Expanded in Northern Areas,” Syria Report, December 18, 2019.
77 Action Group for Syria, Final Communiqué, June 30, 2012, http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/Syria/
FinalCommuniqueActionGroupforSyria.pdf.
78 Lara Seligman, Colum Lynch, “As Assad Gains Ground, New Syria Talks Offer Little Hope of Peace,” Foreign
Policy, November 12, 2019.
79 Interview of Syrian President Asad by Syrian state TV, October 31, 2019. Transcript by state news agency SANA,
accessible on Syria Report.
Congressional Research Service

21

---

Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response

viewed by some oppositionists as having ties to the Asad government or its external backers.80 The SNC
continues to be headed by Naser Hariri of the SOC, who also led the HNC. As with its previous iteration, the
SNC does not include representatives from Kurdish-led SDF forces that control the northern third of Syria,
reportedly at Turkey’s request.81 However, the SDF has negotiated separately with the Asad government,
particularly fol owing Turkey’s October 2019 incursion into northern Syria.
As part of the Geneva Process, U.N. Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 2254, adopted in
2015, endorsed a “road map” for a political settlement in Syria, including the drafting of a new
constitution and the administration of U.N.-supervised elections. U.S. officials continue to stress
that a political solution to the conflict must be based on the principles of UNSCR 2254.
While the United States continues to call for a political settlement to the conflict, the U.S.
intelligence community since 2018 has assessed that Asad is “unlikely to negotiate himself from
power”82 or make meaningful concession to the opposition:
The regime’s momentum, combined with continued support from Russia and Iran, almost
certainly has given Syrian President Bashar al-Asad little incentive to make anything more
than token concessions to the opposition or to adhere to UN resolutions on constitutional
changes that Asad perceives would hurt his regime.83
In October 2019, Ambassador Jeffrey testified that the United States continues to support U.N.-
led political negotiations in Geneva pursuant to UNSCR 2254.84 State Department officials have
identified three points of leverage that the United States and its foreign partners could use to
encourage the Asad regime to accept a political settlement: the withholding of reconstruction
assistance, barring Syria’s re-entry into the Arab League, and refusing to restore diplomatic
relations with Damascus.85
United States officials have repeatedly expressed its view that Geneva should be the sole forum
for a political settlement to the Syria conflict, possibly reflecting concern regarding the Russia-led
Astana Process (see below). However, the United States supported efforts by the U.N. Special
Envoy for Syria to stand up a Syrian Constitutional Committee, an initiative originally stemming
from the Russian-led Sochi conference in January 2018 (see below).86 In December 2018,
Norwegian diplomat Geir Pederson succeeded Staffan de Mistura as U.N. Special Envoy for
Syria. In September 2019, Pederson announced the successful formation of the Syrian
Constitutional Committee. Pederson stated that the committee would be facilitated by the United
Nations in Geneva (see “Constitutional Committee,” below).87


80 “Syria opposition agree on united delegation for peace talks,” France 24, November 24, 2017. See also, “Where Do
We Go From Here? A First-Hand Account from Syria,” Council on Foreign Relations, March 15, 2018.
81 “Turkey targets US-backed Syrian Kurdish peace talks,” Al Monitor, May 12, 2020.
82 Worldwide Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community, February 13, 2018.
83 Worldwide Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community, January 29, 2019.
84 Ambassador James Jeffrey, Special Representative for Syria Engagement and Special Envoy to the Global Coalition
to Defeat ISIS, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, October 22, 2019.
85 “Syria Peace Talks to Open After a Long, Strange Month,” New York Times, October 28, 2019.
86 Media Note, “The Secretary’s Special Representative for Syria Engagement, Ambassador James Jeffrey Travels to
Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia,” October 15, 2018.
87 “U.N. announces formation of Syrian constitutional committee,” Washington Post, September 23, 2019.
Congressional Research Service

22

---

Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response

The Astana Process
Since January 2017, peace talks hosted by Russia, Iran, and Turkey have convened in the Kazakh
capital of Astana. These talks were the forum through which three “de-escalation areas” were
established—two of which have since been retaken by Syrian military forces. The United States
is not a party to the Astana talks but has attended as an observer delegation.
Russia has played a leading role in the Astana process, which some have described as an alternate
track to the Geneva process. The United States has strongly opposed the prospect of Astana
superseding Geneva. Following the release of the Joint Statement by President Trump and
Russian President Putin on November 11, 2017 (in which the two presidents confirmed that a
political solution to the conflict must be forged through the Geneva process pursuant to UNSCR
2254), U.S. officials stated that
We have started to see signs that the Russians and the regime wanted to draw the political
process away from Geneva to a format that might be easier for the regime to manipulate.
Today makes clear and the [Joint Statement] makes clear that 2254 and Geneva remains
the exclusive platform for the political process.88
In January 2018, Russia hosted a “Syrian People’s Congress” in Sochi, in which participants
agreed to form a constitutional committee comprising delegates from the Syrian government and
the opposition “for drafting of a constitutional reform,” in accordance with UNSCR 2254.89 The
conference was boycotted by most Syrian opposition groups and included mainly delegates
friendly to the Asad government.90 The statement noted that final agreement regarding the
mandate, rules of procedure, and selection criteria for delegates would be reached under the
framework of the Geneva process.
Constitutional Committee. The committee, whose formation took nearly two years, consists of
150 delegates—50 each representing the Syrian government and the Syrian opposition, as well as
a “middle third” list comprising 50 Syrian-national delegates selected by the U.N. from among
the country’s legal experts, civil society members, political independents, and tribal leaders. The
committee includes a limited number of Kurds but does not include representatives from the
YPG, the SDF or the SDF’s political wing—the Syrian Democratic Council, SDC—which
administer large areas of northern Syria.91 The committee met for the first time in Geneva in
October 2019, where it formed a smaller 45-member Constitution-drafting group. The current
Syrian constitution was approved in a February 2012 referendum, replacing the constitution that
had been in place since 1973.




88 Background Briefing on the Joint Statement by the President of the United States and the President of the Russian
Federation on Syria, November 11, 2017.
89 Final statement of the Congress of the Syrian national dialogue, Sochi, January 30, 2018.
90 “Syrian Peace Talks in Russia; 1,500 Delegates, Mostly Pro-Assad,” New York Times, January 30, 2018.
91 “Syrian Kurds protest ‘unjust’ exclusion from constitutional committee,” Middle East Eye, October 2, 2019.
Congressional Research Service

23

---

Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response

Humanitarian Situation
As of mid-2020, an estimated 6.2 million Syrians are internally displaced, and an additional 5.6
million Syrians are registered with the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) as
refugees in nearby countries.92 The U.N. Secretary-General regularly reports to the Security
Council on humanitarian issues and challenges in and related to Syria pursuant to Security
Council resolutions 2139 (2014), 2165 (2014), 2191 (2014), 2258 (2015), 2332 (2016), 2393
(2017), 2401 (2018), 2449 (2018) and 2504 (2020).93
Humanitarian conditions in Syria have deteriorated significantly in 2020. Eighty percent of
Syrians lived below the poverty line as of early 2020. In June 2020, U.N. officials reported that
the Syrian Pound had lost more value in the last six months than in the first nine years of the
crisis.94 The depreciating informal exchange rate has resulted in soaring food prices, reducing
access to basic food million people in 2019. staples for many families. In May 2020, the World
Food Programme announced that an estimated 9.3 million people in Syria—more than half the
current population, and the highest level ever recorded in Syria—are now food insecure, up from
an estimated 7.995
Cross-Border Aid Endangered
The Syrian government has long opposed the provision of humanitarian assistance across Syria’s
border and across internal lines of conflict outside of channels under Syrian government control.
Successive U.N. Security Council resolutions have nevertheless authorized the provision of such
assistance. UNSCR 2449 authorized cross-border and cross-line humanitarian assistance until
January 10, 2020. Russia and China abstained in the December 2018 vote that approved the
resolution, and the Russian representative argued at the time that “new realities ... demand that
[the mandate] be rejiggered with the ultimate goal of being gradually but inevitably removed.”96
Crossing Points for Aid Reduced. On December 20, 2019, Russia and China vetoed a U.N.
Security Council resolution that would have renewed the authorization enabling U.N. agencies to
deliver aid into Syria from two points in Turkey and one in Iraq for another 12 months. U.N.
officials warned that without cross-border operations, “we would see an immediate end of aid
supporting millions of civilians.”97 On January 10, 2020, the Security Council approved
Resolution 2504, re-authorizing cross border aid into Syria via two of the four existing border
crossings—Bab al Salam and Bab al Hawa, both in Turkey—for a period of six months (rather


92 Reliefweb, Syrian Arab Republic. Latest figures available at https://m.reliefweb.int/country/226/syr?figures-display=
all.
93 Reports submitted by/transmitted by the Secretary-General to the Security Council available at
https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/content/reports-secretary-general.
94 Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, Mark Lowcock Briefing to
the Security Council on the humanitarian situation in Syria; New York, 29 June 2020
95 U.N. Document S/2020/427, Letter dated 21 May 2020 from the President of the Security Council addressed to the
Secretary-General and the Permanent Representatives of the members of the Security Council, May 27, 2020.
96 United Nations Security Council, 8423rd meeting, December 13, 2018, S/PV.8423.
97 “Russia and China Block Cross-Border Aid Deliveries to Syria,” New York Times, December 20, 2019.
Congressional Research Service

24

---

Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response

than one year). The continued use of border crossings at Ramtha (Jordan) and Al Yarubiyah (Iraq)
was not authorized.98
Per UNSCR 2504, the authorization for all cross-border aid deliveries was set to expire on July
10, 2020. In May 2020, leaders of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee urged Secretary of State Pompeo to intensify U.S. efforts at the Security
Council to renew the authorization for Syria cross-border aid and to push for the re-opening of the
Yarubiyah crossing.99 On July 7, Russia and China vetoed a Security Council draft resolution that
would have re-authorized the border crossings at Bab al Salam and Bab al Hawa for twelve
months. The United States subsequently vetoed a Russian draft resolution which would have re-
authorized only Bab al Hawa for a period of six months.
Limited Reauthorization until 2021. On July 11, the Security Council passed a resolution
reauthorizing cross border aid for a period of one year, eliminating the Bab al Salam crossing and
leaving only a single approved crossing point at Bab al Hawa. U.N. officials previously had
emphasized the importance of the Bab al Salam crossing in addition to Bab al Hawa, stating,
“Both border crossings are required to sustain delivery. While the transshipment capacity of Bab
al-Salam is lower than that of Bab al Hawa, Bab al-Salam provides direct access to parts of
northern Aleppo that host some of the highest concentrations of displaced people in the country.
1.3 million people live in the area accessed from Bab al-Salam, and 62% of these people are
displaced.”100
Public Health Impact. Prior to the de-authorization of Al Yarubiyah for cross-border aid
deliveries, the WHO had used the crossing to transfer medical supplies and equipment to
northeast Syria. Since its closure, medical facilities in the area have faced shortages, prompting
the WHO to appeal to the Security Council to re-instate the crossing point.101 Both the Syrian and
Russian governments have long pushed to eliminate cross-border aid, arguing that aid should
instead be provided via cross-line deliveries from Damascus. However, U.N. officials have stated
that, “Cross-line deliveries to the north east from Damascus have not filled the gap in critical
medical supplies that were, until January this year, delivered through Al Yarubiyah border
crossing.”102
Vulnerable Areas
Numerous humanitarian challenges have arisen since the outbreak of the Syria conflict in 2011.
International organizations currently describe conditions in the below areas as particularly dire,
and have noted that the risk these areas face is magnified by the threat posed by COVID-19. In


98 “Security Council beats midnight deadline, renews Syria cross-border aid in contentious vote,” U.N. News, January
10, 2020.
99 Foreign Affairs Committee Press Release, “McCaul, Risch, Menendez, Engel, Call on Administration to Intensify
Efforts to Restore Cross-Border Humanitarian Operations at Syrian Border,” May 12, 2020.
100 Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, Mark Lowcock Briefing to
the Security Council on the humanitarian situation in Syria; New York, 29 June 2020
101 “Syria: Aid Restrictions Hinder Covid-19 Response,” Human Rights Watch, April 28, 2020. The WHO later
appeared to drop the specific provision regarding Al Yarubiya, leading observers to question whether the organization
faced external pressure. See, “WHO changes to U.N. Syria memo risk stoking Trump-fueled criticism,” Reuters, April
29, 2020.
102 Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, Mark Lowcock Briefing to
the Security Council on the humanitarian situation in Syria, New York, 29 April 2020.
Congressional Research Service

25

---

Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response

each of these areas, displaced populations reside in overcrowded conditions with inadequate
access to sanitation. Officials have warned that the virus could spread rapidly among the
population in these areas, overwhelming the limited capacity of local health care systems.
Northwest Syria (Idlib, Aleppo, Hama). Military operations by pro-Syrian government forces in
and around Idlib displaced nearly a million people between December 2019 and February 2020.
In April, U.N. officials stated that, “The [March 2020] ceasefire may have brought a degree of
respite, but the humanitarian situation in the north-west is as dismal as it has ever been.”103 U.N.
officials estimate that displaced families make up two-thirds of the population of northwest Syria,
and that, of these, 70% are in need of humanitarian assistance.104
Northeast Syria (Raqqah, Hasakah, Deir ez Zor). Over four million people reside in the area,
including thousands of internally displaced persons and Islamic State prisoners in severely
overcrowded conditions.
Al Hol IDP Camp (Hasakeh). Built to house a maximum of 10,000 persons, the camp currently
houses nearly 70,000 displaced persons, many of whom fled the Islamic State’s final outpost in
eastern Syria. An estimated 94% of residents are women and children. According to the Kurdish
Red Crescent, at least 517 people, mostly children, died inside the Al Hol camp in 2019, due to
malnutrition, inadequate healthcare for newborns, and hypothermia.105
Rukban IDP Camp (Rural Damascus). In 2015, thousands of Syrians fleeing the advance of
regime forces became stranded at what is known as “the berm”—a stretch of no man’s land
between the Syrian and Jordanian border. As of May 2020, roughly 10,000 people remained at
Rukban, which falls within 50 km of the U.S. military garrison at At Tanf.106 The Syrian
government has not permitted any humanitarian convoys to access the area since September
2019. In May 2020, Amnesty International called on Jordan to allow relief aid for Rukban to
transit through Jordanian territory, as well as to allow those in need of urgent medical care to
receive treatment in Jordan.107 Jordanian officials, which declared the area around Rukban to be a
closed military zone following a 2016 suicide bombing, have maintained that any aid to Rukban
must be provided from Syrian territory.108
U.S. Humanitarian Funding
The United States is the largest donor of humanitarian assistance to the Syria crisis, drawing from
existing funding from global humanitarian accounts and some reprogrammed funding.109 As of
July 2020, total U.S. humanitarian assistance for the Syria crisis since 2011 had reached over
$11.3 billion (including $696 million in humanitarian funds announced by U.S. officials at the


103 Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, Mark Lowcock Briefing to
the Security Council on the humanitarian situation in Syria, New York, 29 April 2020.
104 Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, Mark Lowcock Briefing to
the Security Council on the humanitarian situation in Syria; New York, 29 June 2020.
105 “More than 500 dead in Syria’s Al-Hol in 2019: medics,” AFP, January 16, 2020.
106 “Jordan: Authorities must allow urgent medical care for displaced Syrians in Rukban during COVID-19,” Amnesty
International, May 7, 2020.
107 Ibid.
108 “FM reiterates Jordan’s support for political solution in Syria,” Jordan Times, April 20, 2020.
109 USAID Fact Sheet: U.S. Assistance for the People of Syria, January 26, 2018.
Congressional Research Service

26

---

Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response

June 2020 Brussels donor conference).110 These funds have gone towards meeting humanitarian
needs inside Syria, as well as towardscontrol these regions through their various proxies, including armed groups and civilian entities.”71 U.S. Policy In a continuation of goals pursued by the Obama Administration in Syria, the Trump Administration sought (1) the enduring defeat of the Islamic State; (2) a political settlement to the Syrian civil war; and (3) the withdrawal of Iranian-commanded forces. In late 2021, the Biden Administration completed a policy review on Syria. Based on the review, the State Department identified five core policy priorities:  sustaining the U.S. government and coalition campaign against ISIS;  supporting local cease-fires in place across the country;  supporting the expansion of humanitarian access throughout Syria; 69 Devin Dwyer and Dana Hughes, “ Obama Recognizes Syrian Opposition Group,” ABC News, December 11, 2012. 70 Mark Lander, Michael R. Gordon, and Anne Barnard, “ U.S. Will Grant Recognition to Syrian Rebels, Obama Says,” New York Tim es, December 11, 2012. 71 “Use of T urkish Lira to Be Expanded in Northern Areas,” Syria Report, December 18, 2019. Congressional Research Service 13 Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response  pressing for accountability and respect for international law while promoting human rights and nonproliferation, including through the imposition of targeted sanctions; and  supporting a political process led by the Syrian people, as envisioned in U.N. Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 2254.72 U.S. officials have stated that the defeat of ISIS “includes ensuring that the terrorist group cannot reconstitute its forces, plan and execute attacks, and control population and territory.”73 U.S. military officials in March 2022 assessed that “forces affiliated with the Syrian regime, Russia, Iran and Turkey sought to disrupt SDF and coalition operations against ISIS and to erode the SDF’s base of support.”74 The FY2023 Request The Biden Administration’s FY2023 Department of State and Foreign Operations funding request seeks $143 mil ion for assistance programs in Syria, including $125 mil ion in Economic Support Fund (ESF), $10 mil ion in International Narcotic Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE) funds, and $8 mil ion in Non-proliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining and Related Programs (NADR) funds.75 One U.S. official stated that these funds wil go toward “targeted assistance in Syria to restore normal life in areas liberated from ISIS, and create a bulwark against violent extremists who seek to exploit vacuums in security and essential services.”76 U.S. Military Presence: Operation Inherent Resolve U.S. forces have conducted operations involving and related to the use of military force inside Syria since 2015 pursuant to the 2001 and 2002 Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMF), amid ongoing debate in Congress about the authorization for U.S. operations in Syria.77 U.S. operations focus on countering the Islamic State as part of Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR). As of early 2022, roughly 900 U.S. troops are based in Syria to support counter-IS operations by local partner forces; an additional 6,770 Defense Department contractors are spread between Syria and Iraq.78 Most U.S. forces are deployed in what military officials term the Eastern Syria Security Area (ESSA), in support of the SDF.79 About 100 U.S. personnel support Jaysh Mughawir ath Thawra (MaT), an Arab force, at the At Tanf garrison.80 At Tanf is located 72 State Department as cited in LIG-OIR, Quarterly Report to the United States Congress, October 1, 2021-December 31, 2021, February 8, 2022, p. 12. 73 LIG-OIR, Quarterly Report to the United States Congress, January 1, 2022-March 31, 2022, p. 12. 74 LIG-OIR, OIR In Brief, January 1, 2022-March 31, 2022. 75 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification: Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Program s, Fiscal Year 2023. 76 T estimony of Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Barbara Leaf in U.S. Congress, House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Middle East, North Africa and Global Counterterrorism , The Biden Adm inistration’s Policy Objectives in the Middle East and North Africa , hearings, 117th Cong., 2nd sess., June 22, 2022. 77 In a June 8, 2022, hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East Dana Stroul stated, “as a matter of domestic law, we rely on the 2001 AUMF to authorize the use of force in Syria against al-Qaida and ISIS.” Previous presidential administrations also have cited the 2002 AUMF for U.S. operations in Syria. 78 LIG-OIR, Quarterly Report to the United States Congress, January 1, 2022-March 31, 2022, p. 12. 79 LIG-OIR, Quarterly Report to the United States Congress, October 1, 2020-December 31, 2020, p.70. 80 Washington Institute for Near East Policy, “The Future of al T anf Garrison in Syria,” December 6, 2021. Congressional Research Service 14 Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response along a primary transit route between Iraq and Syria, including for IS fighters. Congress appropriated $7 bil ion for OIR for FY2022, a decrease from $12.7 bil ion appropriated for FY2021 but more than the Administration’s $5.4 bil ion request.81 The Department of Defense requested $5.5 bil ion for OIR for FY2023, and projects further declines in OIR force al ocations, related theater overhead costs, and force reset needs.82 In response to a series of policy questions submitted in advance of his February 2022 confirmation hearing, incoming CENTCOM commander General Kuril a stated that, “the military’s mission in Syria is to ensure the enduring defeat of ISIS.”83 Kuril a added that our presence supports a whole-of-government approach to achieve other strategic objectives in Syria, including countering Iran and Russia. Tehran’s military, paramilitary, and proxy involvement in Syria should be of concern, as it directly threatens Israel and Jordan, and risks dangerously escalating regional tensions. Lastly, our security presence allows for provision of humanitarian assistance by international and non-governmental organizations that would otherwise not be possible.84 Since 2015, CENTCOM has conducted periodic strikes in Syria outside the framework of OIR, including on targets linked to Al Qaeda, the Syrian government, and Iran-backed militias. In February and June 2021, the U.S. military conducted air strikes on Iran-backed militias in Syria, which used Syria-based facilities to target U.S. forces in Iraq. Iran-backed militias also targeted U.S. forces at At Tanf with armed drones. Syria Train and Equip Program Section 1209 of the FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 113-291, as amended) authorizes the Department of Defense to provide assistance to “appropriately vetted elements of the Syrian opposition and other appropriately vetted Syrian groups and individuals.” The Syria Train and Equip program began in late 2015; as of 2022, U.S. forces continue to advise, assist, and enable partner forces in Syria to counter the Islamic State. Congress periodical y has amended or placed conditions on the Syria Train and Equip authority, reflecting Member focus on issues such as vetting requirements for groups receiving U.S. funding.85 Current Funding and the FY2023 Request. The DOD Counter-ISIS Train and Equip Fund (CTEF) is the primary fiscal authority for the Syria Train and Equip program. The FY2022 Consolidated Appropriations Act (Division C of P.L. 117-103) makes $500 mil ion available for CTEF, including $155 mil ion for Syria. It also directs the rescission of $250 mil ion in prior year CTEF funds. The Biden Administration’s FY2023 defense request seeks $541 mil ion in CTEF funds, including $183 mil ion for Syria. This reflects an increase from the prior two years ($500 mil ion and $460 mil ion enacted for CTEF in FY2022 and FY2021, respectively).86 The Defense 81 LIG-OIR, Quarterly Report to the United States Congress, January 1, 2022-March 31, 2022, p. 9, and DOD Comptroller, Overview—FY2022 Defense Budget, May 2021, p. 7-3. 82 U.S. Department of Defense Comptroller, Overview—FY2022 Defense Budget, April 2022, p. 3-5. 83 Senate Armed Services Committee, Advance Policy Questions for Lieutenant General Michael E. Kurilla, USA Nom inee to be Com m ander, United States Central Com m and, p. 9, available at https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Kurilla%20APQ%20responses.pdf. 84 Ibid., p. 10. 85 For a history of the Syria T rain and Equip Program, see CRS Report R46796, Congress and the Middle East, 2011-2020: Selected Case Studies, coordinated by Christopher M. Blanchard. 86 Office of the Secretary of Defense, Justification for FY 2023 Overseas Operations: Counter-Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) Train and Equip Fund (CTEF) , April 2022, https://comptroller.defense.gov/Budget-Materials. Congressional Research Service 15 Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response Department reports that it intends to enlarge the number of vetted Syrian groups and individuals in FY2023 by 3,500 personnel, primarily to recruit and train new detention facility guard forces. 87 The Administration has not provided a public estimate of long-term partner force maintenance and sustainment costs in Syria or described related plans. Post-IS Stabilization The United States has provided stabilization assistance in areas of Syria and Iraq liberated from the Islamic State in an effort to prevent the group’s reemergence, including more than $1.3 bil ion in stabilization assistance for Syria since 2011.88 The State Department reports that stabilization assistance plays “a critical role in this stage of the OIR mission” because it mitigates the economic and social cleavages that ISIS seeks to exploit, closes gaps in local authority capacity, and supports civil society to advocate for citizen needs.89 Current State Department-funded stabilization programs include those designed to support education, community security, independent media, civil society, social cohesion, transitional justice, accountability, restoration of essential services, and a political resolution to the Syrian conflict.90 U.S. Agency of International Development (USAID)-funded stabilization assistance supports livelihoods, economic governance, women’s empowerment, political participation, essential service restoration, access to water and irrigation, and agriculture.91 Humanitarian Assistance The United States is the largest donor of humanitarian assistance to the Syria crisis, providing over $15.7 bil ion since 2011.92 In FY2022, the United States provided $1.6 bil ion in humanitarian funding for the Syria regional crisis response, including $808 mil ion announced at the sixth annual Brussels Conference on Supporting Syria and the Region, held on May 10, 2022, and $756 mil ion announced during a U.N. Security Council meeting on September 14, 2022.93 U.S. humanitarian funds have gone toward meeting humanitarian needs inside Syria, as wel as toward support for communities in Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq, support for communities in Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq,
and Egypt that host Syrian and Egypt that host Syrian refugees.refugees.111
International Humanitarian Funding
Multilateral humanitarian assistance in response to the Syria crisis includes both the Regional
Refugee and Resilience Plan (3RP) and the Humanitarian Response Plan (HRP). The 3RP is
designed to address the impact of the conflict on Syria’s neighbors, and encompasses the
Lebanon Crisis Response Plan, the Jordan Response Plan, and country chapters in Turkey, Iraq,
and Egypt. It includes a refugee/humanitarian response coordinated by UNHCR and a
“resilience” response (stabilization-based development assistance) led by the U.N. Development
Program (UNDP).112
In parallel to the 3RP, the HRP for Syria is designed to address the crisis inside the country
through a focus on humanitarian assistance, civilian protection, and increasing resilience and
livelihood opportunities, in part by improving access to basic services. This includes the
reconstruction of damaged infrastructure (water, sewage, electricity) as well as the restoration of
medical and education facilities and infrastructure for the production of inputs for sectors such as
agriculture.113
The 2020 3RP appeal for Syria seeks $5.2 billion, and the 2020 HRP for Syria seeks $3.4 billion,
on par with previous years.114 Since 2013, the annual 3RP appeals for Syria have been funded at
roughly 60%.115
In March 2020, the U.N. launched the COVID-19 Global Humanitarian Response Plan to fund
COVID-19 response efforts in priority countries, including Syria. Coordinated by UNOCHA, the
appeal sought $2 billion for various U.N. entities. In May, the appeal was updated to $6.7 billion.
In June, the European Union hosted the fourth annual donors’ conference in Brussels for Syria
and regional states affected by the Syria crisis. Attendees pledged $5.5 billion in humanitarian aid
for 2020, as well as nearly $2.2 billion for 2021 and beyond.116 International financial institutions
and donors also announced $6.7 billion in concessional loans.


110 State Department Press Statement, “The United States Announces Additional Humanitarian Assistance for the
Syrian People,” June 30, 2020.
111 State Department Fact Sheet: U.S. Humanitarian Assistance in Response to the Syria Crisis, March 14, 2019.
112 For additional details, see UNDP and UNHCR, 3RP Regional Refugee & Resilience Plan 2017—2018: In Response
to the Syria Crisis: Regional Strategic Overview, December 5, 2016.
113 For additional details, see UNOCHA, 2017 Syrian Arab Republic Humanitarian Response Plan: January-December
2017.
114 Syria Refugee Response and Resilience Plan (3RP) 2020 (Regional response plan), Financial Tracking Service,
UNOCHA.
115 3RP Financial Summary – Q4 2019, April 27, 2020.
116 Council of the EU Press Release, “Brussels IV Conference on 'Supporting the future of Syria and the region': co-
chairs' declaration,” June 30, 2020.
Congressional Research Service

27

---

Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response

Public Health Developments
As of mid-2020, Syria has experienced relatively few confirmed cases of COVID-19, despite the
presence of multiple risk factors. The Syrian government has reported the lowest confirmed case
counts in the region.117 However testing capacity is significantly limited compared to neighboring
states—in mid-July UNOCHA reported that the Syrian government had increased its daily testing
capacity to 345, up from 70 in early May.118
Syrian officials reported what they described as Syria’s first case of COVID-19 on March 22;
informal reports suggest that the virus may have been present in the country for some time.
Additional cases have subsequently been reported, the majority in government-controlled areas in
and around Damascus.119 Syrian Ministry of Health data does not include areas outside of central
government control.
 Northeast Syria. In Kurdish controlled areas of northeast Syria, the first confirmed case
of the virus was reported on April 17. As of early July, six cases had been confirmed in
the northeast.120 Because none of the confirmed cases had any travel history or known
contact with suspected cases, WHO has stated that, “it is assumed that there has been
some undetected transmission. Despite the limited number of cases in NES, the risk of
large-scale transmission continues to remain high.”121
 Northwest Syria. In opposition-held areas of northwest Syria (in and around Idlib), local
doctors in March reported deaths that appeared consistent with the virus, but were unable
to confirm due to lack of testing capability.122 As mid-July, four positive cases had been
recorded in the northwest.123
In May, the Syrian government began to lift some previously imposed restrictions; July reports
from Syria’s Ministry of Health showed an increase in the number of new cases.124 Some
observers assess that number of confirmed cases reported by the Syrian government understates
the spread of the virus.125
The capacity of the Syrian government to respond to an outbreak is limited. Syria’s medical
facilities have been significantly damaged or destroyed over the past decade of violent conflict. In
March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported that it had documented over 500
attacks on medical facilities since 2016. A March 2020 study by the London School of Economics
estimates that there are only about 325 ICU beds with ventilators across the entire country, mostly


117 COVID-19 Daily Update, World Health Organization Eastern Mediterranean Regional Office. Most recent
confirmed case numbers available on Twitter @WHO ERMO.
118 UNOCHA, Syrian Arab Republic: Preparedness and Response to COVID-19 Monitoring Report no.1, 14 July 2020.
119 Ibid.
120 UNOCHA and WHO, Syrian Arab Republic: COVID-19 Response Update No. 7, July 5, 2020.
121 Ibid.
122 “‘Wash Our Hands? Some People Can’t Wash Their Kids for a Week.’” New York Times, March 19, 2020.
123 UNOCHA, Syrian Arab Republic: Preparedness and Response to COVID-19 Monitoring Report no.1, 14 July 2020.
124 “Coronavirus Update: Pandemic Spreads Across Syria,” Syria Report, July 15, 2020.
125 “Coronavirus cases suspiciously low in Syria, but new uptick is spurring the government to act,” Washington Post,
July 18, 2020.
Congressional Research Service

28

---

link to page 36 Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response

in government-held urban centers.126 Syrian health officials have blamed the ventilator shortage
on western sanctions (see “U.S. Sanctions on Syria”).127
U.S. Aid to Syria for COVID-19
In March 2020, the United States announced it would provide an additional $16.8 million in
humanitarian assistance for Syria in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.128 Separately, CJTF-
OIR officials announced in April that the Coalition had provided $1.2 million in supplies for
COVID-19 prevention efforts to coalition partners in northeast Syria. A coalition statement
reported that the equipment would help protect medical staff in northeast Syria, as well as guards
responsible for securing Islamic State prisoners. A coalition spokesperson stated, “Under Section
1209 of the United States’ 2015 National Defense Authorization Act, the Counter-ISIS Train and
Equip Fund (CTEF) provides financial support to the SDF to conduct their counter-ISIS
operations. In the context of COVID-19, the CTEF also authorizes the use of funds to procure
personal protective equipment for our partners in Syria and their ISIS detainees. Every purchase
must go through the appropriate request and review processes.”129
U.S. Policy
Since 2011, U.S. policy toward the unrest and conflict in Syria has attempted to pursue parallel
interests and manage interconnected challenges, with varying degrees of success. Among the
objectives identified by successive Administrations and by many Members in successive sessions
of Congress have been
 supporting Syrian-led efforts to demand representative, accountable, and
effective governance;
 seeking a negotiated settlement that includes a transition in Syria away from the
leadership of Bashar al Asad and his supporters;
 limiting or preventing the use of military force by state and nonstate actors
against civilian populations;
 mitigating transnational threats posed by Syria-based Islamist extremist groups;
 meeting the humanitarian needs of internally and externally displaced Syrians;
 preventing the presence and needs of Syrian refugees from destabilizing
neighboring countries;
 limiting the negative effects of other third party interventions on regional and
international balances of power; and
 responding to and preventing the use of chemical weapons.
As Syria’s conflict has changed over time from civil unrest to nationwide military conflict
involving multiple internal and external actors to the apparent resurgence of the Asad
government, to renewed instability driven by economic decline, the policies, approaches, and


126 Gharibah, Mazen and Mehchy, Zaki (2020) COVID-19 pandemic: Syria’s response and healthcare capacity. Policy
Memo. Conflict Research Programme, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.
127 “Economic Pressures Force Government to Relax Stay-At-Home Restrictions,” Syria Report, April 15, 2020.
128 State Department Factsheet, “The United States is Leading the Humanitarian and Health Assistance Response to
COVID-19,” March 30, 2020.
129 CJRF-OIR News Release, “Coalition provides COVID-19 equipment in NE Syria,” April 4, 2020.
Congressional Research Service

29

---

Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response

priorities of the United States and others also have changed. The United States and its Syrian and
regional partners have not succeeded in inducing or compelling Syrian President Bashar al Asad
to leave office or secured a fundamental reorientation of Syria’s political system as part of a
negotiated settlement process. The United States continues to advocate for an inclusive negotiated
solution, and has responded to Asad’s resumption of political and security control by expanding
economic sanctions on the regime. Forceful interventions in Syria by Russia, Iran, Turkey, the
United States, and Israel have created a fundamentally different set of calculations for
policymakers to consider relative to those that prevailed prior to the conflict.
Trump Administration Statements on Syria Policy
Since 2018, U.S. policy in Syria has sought three primary goals: the enduring defeat of the
Islamic State, a political settlement to the Syria conflict pursuant to UNSCR 2254, and the
withdrawal of Iranian-backed forces.130 The October 2019 Turkish military incursion into
northern Syria and subsequent withdrawal and/or repositioning of the bulk of U.S. forces in the
country raised questions about whether U.S. policy in Syria had (or would) shift. Ambassador
Jeffrey has since reaffirmed that previously articulated U.S. goals for Syria remain U.S. policy.131
When asked whether the enduring defeat of the Islamic State could be accomplished without
ground forces, Jeffrey stated, “We need ground forces. They do not necessarily have to be
American.”132
In December 2019, Defense Secretary Mark Esper stated that, “The United States strategy in the
Middle East seeks to ensure the region is not a safe haven for terrorists, is not dominated by any
power hostile to the United States and contributes to a stable global energy market.”133 Esper
added that the overarching U.S. goal with regard to Syria is to support a U.N.-sponsored political
settlement to the conflict that addresses those three objectives, clarifying that the hostile power in
the Syria context is Iran.
Administration officials have stated that the United States continues to work with the SDF,
despite the group’s decision following the Turkish incursion to coordinate in some areas with the
Asad government. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Milley stated, “[ ... ] we’re still
working with [the SDF] in the eastern portion of northeast Syria, and then they are working with
the Russian and Syrian regime in—in other parts of Syria.”134 In response to questioning from
Members of Congress, U.S. military leaders in December 2019 confirmed that U.S. policy in
Syria remains to work “by with and through” local partners. When asked about what conditions
would need to be in place for U.S. forces to withdraw from Syria, Esper stated, “[ ... ] when we


130 Lead Inspector General for Operation Inherent Resolve, Quarterly Report to the United States Congress, July 1,
2019-October 25, 2019, p. 27.
131 Ambassador James Jeffrey before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, October 22, 2019; Ambassador James
Jeffrey, Hudson Institute online livestream event, May 15, 2020 (“Transcript: Maximum Pressure on the Assad Regime
for its Chemical Weapons Use and Other Atrocities.”)
132 Ambassador James Jeffrey before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, October 22, 2019.
133 Defense Secretary Mark Esper before the House Armed Services Committee, December 11, 2019.
134 Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Milley before the House Armed Services Committee, December 11,
2019.
Congressional Research Service

30

---

Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response

could consider redeploying if you will would be when we feel confident that local security and
police forces are capable of handling any type of resurgence [ ... ] of ISIS.”135
U.S. Sanctions on Syria
The United States has maintained economic sanctions on Syria since 1979, when the Syrian
government was found to be a state sponsor of acts of international terrorism. The Syria
Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-175; 22 U.S.C. 2151
note) required additional restrictions on U.S. exports, investments, transactions, and diplomatic
relations because of Syrian interference in Lebanon and its support for U.S.-designated Foreign
Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) including Hezbollah and Hamas. The United States has imposed
additional sanctions under nonproliferation legislation since the early 1990s and under national
emergency authorities since the beginning of the conflict in 2011.136 In 2013, the State
Department determined that the government of Syria had used chemical weapons in
contravention of international law, requiring another round of economic and diplomatic
restrictions. For national security reasons, however, restrictions would be applied on a case-by-
case basis.137
U.S. officials have described sanctions as both a tool for changing Syrian government behavior,
and a punitive measure designed to isolate Syria in response to ongoing human rights abuses by
the Asad government. In November 2018 and March 2019, the Department of the Treasury’s
Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued advisories warning of the risk of U.S. sanctions
for parties involved in petroleum shipments to the government of Syria. OFAC stated that the
United States aimed to “disrupt support for the Assad regime by preventing the normalization of
economic and diplomatic relations [...] The United States is committed to isolating the Assad
regime and its supporters from the global financial and trade system in response to the continued
atrocities committed by the regime against the Syrian people.”138
The State Department has noted that U.S. sanctions “will remain in place until the Syrian regime
and Russia permanently and verifiably adhere” to UNSCR 2254.139 In May 2020, President
Trump renewed for an additional year the national emergency authorities with respect to Syria,
including associated sanctions.140
In June, the Trump Administration released regulations providing for the implementation of
Executive Order 13894 of October 2019, based in part on requirements enacted in the Caesar
Syria Civilian Protection Act, which provides for sanctions against individuals determined by the
U.S. government
to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have directly or indirectly engaged in, or
attempted to engage in, any of the following in or in relation to Syria:


135 Defense Secretary Mark Esper before the House Armed Services Committee, December 11, 2019.
136 “U.S. Relations with Syria,” State Department Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, July 23, 2018.
137 Department of State. Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation. “Determinations regarding Use of
Chemical Weapons in Syria Under the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of
1991,” Public Notice 8460, September 4, 2013, 78 Federal Register 55236.
138 Department of the Treasury, “OFAC Advisory to the Maritime Petroleum Shipping Community,” March 25, 2019.
139 “The State Department Imposes Sanctions on Individual Responsible for the Violence in Northern Syria,” State
Department Press Statement, March 17, 2020.
140 White House Statement, “Text of a Notice on the Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to the
Actions of the Government of Syria,” May 7, 2020.
Congressional Research Service

31

---

Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response

(1) actions or policies that further threaten the peace, security, stability, or territorial
integrity of Syria; or
(2) the commission of serious human rights abuse....
The Administration then announced the designation of 39 individuals and entities pursuant to
Executive Order 13894. Those designated include Syrian President Bashar al Asad, his wife
Asma, and other members of the Asad family and supporters of the government. Secretary of
State Pompeo said
We will continue this campaign in the coming weeks and months to target individuals and
businesses that support the Assad regime and obstruct a peaceful, political resolution of the
conflict as called for by UNSCR 2254. We anticipate many more sanctions and we will not
stop until Assad and his regime stop their needless, brutal war against the Syrian people
and the Syrian government agrees to a political solution to the conflict as called for by
UNSCR 2254.141
U.S. Assistance to Vetted Syrian Groups
U.S. Military Operations; Train, Advise, Assist, and Equip Efforts
U.S. Military Presence in Syria
U.S. forces have operated in Syria in support of the counter-IS campaign since 2015. The Special
Operations Joint Task Force, Operation Inherent Resolve (SOJTF-OIR), led by Major General
Eric T. Hill, has been “the primary advise, assist and accompany force in Syria, working closely
with the SDF.”142 SOJTF-OIR has reported to the Combined Joint Task Force-Operation Inherent
Resolve (CJTF-OIR), which leads the international coalition to defeat the Islamic State in Iraq
and Syria.143 In September 2019, Lieutenant General Robert “Pat” White assumed command of
CJTF-OIR. U.S. forces have operated in northern and eastern Syria in partnership with the SDF
and in southeast Syria in partnership with the Maghawir al Thawra militia near the At Tanf
garrison adjacent to the tri-border area shared by Syria, Jordan, and Iraq (Figure 3).
Military Authorities
U.S. strike operations against the Islamic State and Al Qaeda-affiliated targets in Syria are
conducted pursuant to the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). U.S. forces
have operated in Syria for train and equip program purposes as well as to advise and assist U.S.
partner forces, whether or not those specific partner forces were trained and/or armed under the
train and equip program. Such “advise and assist” activities may have been conducted pursuant to
the authorities outlined by train and equip program provisions or pursuant to other defense
authorities defined in law or asserted by the executive branch. This includes military operations
against IS targets conducted pursuant to the 2001 AUMF. U.S. operations in Syria also are
supported in part by the 2014 request of the Iraqi government to the U.N. Security Council for
military support to address the threat of terrorism emanating from Syria. It remains to be seen


141 U.S. State Department, Press Statement on Syria Caesar Act Designations, June 17, 2020.
142 Department of Defense Press Briefing by General Jarrard via teleconference from Baghdad, Iraq, October 31, 2017.
143 See http://www.inherentresolve.mil for an organization chart.
Congressional Research Service

32

---

Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response

whether the Iraqi government may seek to amend or rescind that request in light of some Iraqis’
efforts to expel foreign military forces from Iraq and the ongoing U.S.-Iraq Strategic Dialogue.
U.S. Repositions Forces in 2019
Following an October 6 call between President Trump and Turkish President Erdogan, the White
House announced that Turkey would “soon be moving forward with its long-planned operation
into Northern Syria,” and that U.S. forces would “no longer be in the immediate area.”144 A total
of 28 Special Forces Green Berets located along Turkey’s initial “axis of advance” subsequently
withdrew from the border area.145 On October 9, Turkey launched Operation Peace Spring into
northern Syria. On October 14, Defense Secretary Esper announced that, at the President’s
direction, the United States would withdraw the approximately 1,000 remaining U.S. troops in
northeast Syria. Esper stated that, “Due to Turkey’s irresponsible actions, the risk to U.S. forces
in northeast Syria has reached an unacceptable level. We are also at risk of being engulfed in a
broader conflict.”146 In an October 19 briefing, Esper reinforced that “all forces” except those at
At Tanf garrison in southeast Syria would be withdrawn “within weeks.”147
On October 21, Secretary Esper stated that U.S. troops located next to oil fields in northeast Syria
“are not in the present phase of withdrawal. The present phase of withdrawal from northeast Syria
involves those troops up along the border.” Esper added that the focus for troops remaining in
Syria would be to “deny access, specifically revenue, to ISIS and any other groups that may want
to seek that revenue to enable their own malign activities.”148On October 21, President Trump
stated, “We’ve secured the oil [ ... ] We want to keep the oil. And we’ll work out something with
the Kurds so they have some money, they have some cash flow.”149
Military officials stated on November 7, “I would be cautious with saying that ‘the mission [is] to
secure the oil fields.’ The mission is the defeat of ISIS. The securing of the oil fields is a
subordinate task to that mission, and—and the purpose of that task is to deny ISIS the—the
revenues from that oil infrastructure.”150 On November 13, President Trump stated, “We’re
keeping the oil. We have the oil. The oil is secure. We left troops behind, only for the oil.”151 On
December 11, Defense Secretary Esper clarified, “We are there to ensure the enduring defeat of
ISIS. So, a sub task of that, as we’ve directed to our commander on the ground, is to deny ISIS
access to that oil, because whoever controls that oil controls a resource that allows them to buy
weapons, equipment, fighters, to provide for their communities, etc.”152


144 White House Statement from the Press Secretary, October 6, 2019.
145 Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Milley before the House Armed Services Committee, December 11,
2019.
146 Department of Defense, “Statement by Secretary of Defense Dr. Mark T. Esper Regarding Turkey, Syria Border
Actions,” October 14, 2019.
147 DOD transcript, “Secretary of Defense Esper Media Engagement En Route to Afghanistan,” October 19, 2019.
148 DOD transcript, “Remarks by Secretary Esper in a Joint Press Conference With Senior Afghan Officials and
Resolute Support Mission Commander,” October 21, 2019.
149 Remarks by President Trump in Cabinet Meeting, October 21, 2019.
150 Department of Defense Press Briefing by Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Jonathan Rath
Hoffman and Navy Rear Admiral William D. Byrne Jr., Vice Director, Joint Staff, November 7, 2019.
151 Remarks by President Trump and President Erdoğan of Turkey Before Bilateral Meeting, November 13, 2019.
152 Defense Secretary Mark Esper before the House Armed Services Committee, December 11, 2019.
Congressional Research Service

33

---

Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response

On December 5, Secretary Esper stated in an interview with Reuters that the U.S. military
withdrawal from Syria was complete.153 Esper stated that approximately 600 U.S. troops would
remain in Syria. A DOD Inspector General report on Operation Inherent Resolve covering the
period October-December 2019 stated that U.S. forces in northern Syria had been reduced from
approximately 1,000 to 500. An additional 100 U.S. troops would remain at the At Tanf garrison
in the tri-border area of southeast Syria. In March 2020, CENTCOM Commander Gen. McKenzie
stated that U.S. forces continue to operate alongside the SDF in what he termed the Eastern Syria
Security Area (ESSA). 154 CJTF-OIR has defined the ESSA as spanning from Deir ez Zor in the
south to the M4 highway in the north, and stretching east to the Iraqi border (see Figure 5).155 In
April, officials stated that U.S. training programs in Syria and Iraq under Operation Inherent
Resolve, temporarily suspended due to COVID-19, would resume “as conditions permit.”156
Table 1. Evolution of U.S. Military Presence in Syria
2015
Oct: White House announces that less than 50 U.S. Special Operations Forces
wil deploy to Syria to support operations against the Islamic State.157
2016
Dec: Force Management Level (FML) for U.S. personnel in Syria increased to
allow the deployment of up to 500 individuals.
2017
Dec: DOD states that approximately 2,000 U.S. personnel are operating in
Syria.158
2018
Jan: Secretary of State Til erson states that “the United States wil maintain a
military presence in Syria focused on ensuring that ISIS cannot re-emerge.”159
Mar: President Trump states that U.S. troops wil leave Syria “very soon.”160
Nov: Special Representative for Syria Engagement James Jeffrey states that, “U.S.
troops wil stay on in Syria we say until the enduring defeat of ISIS.”161
Dec: President Trump announces U.S. forces wil be returning from Syria
“now.”162


153 “Exclusive: U.S. military completes pullback from northeast Syria, Esper says,” Reuters, December 5, 2019.
154 CENTCOM Commander Gen. McKenzie before the Senate Armed Services Committee, March 12, 2020
155 Lead Inspector General for Operation Inherent Resolve | Quarterly Report to the United States Congress | January 1,
2020 – March 31, 2020.
156 Statement by the Political Directors of the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS Small Group, April 16, 2020.
157 Press Briefing by the Press Secretary Josh Earnest, October 30, 2015.
158 “Pentagon Announces Troop Levels in Iraq, Syria,” DoD News, December 6, 2017.
159 Rex Tillerson, “Remarks on the Way Forward for the United States Regarding Syria,” Hoover Institute at Stanford
University, January 17, 2018.
160 Remarks by President Trump on the Infrastructure Initiative, March 30, 2018.
161 Telephonic Press Briefing with James Jeffrey, Special Representative for Syria Engagement, November 7, 2018.
162 Video posted to Twitter (@realDonald Trump), December 19, 2018, 3:10 PM.
Congressional Research Service

34

---

link to page 41 Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response

2015
Oct: White House announces that less than 50 U.S. Special Operations Forces
wil deploy to Syria to support operations against the Islamic State.157
2019
Feb: White House states U.S. wil leave some forces in Syria, seeks troop
contributions from allies to offset planned U.S. withdrawal.
6 Oct: President Trump directs withdrawal of U.S. troops from areas of northern
Syria in advance of Turkish military incursion; 28 U.S. Special Forces withdraw.163
14 Oct: President Trump directs the ful withdrawal of the roughly 1,000
remaining U.S. troops in northern Syria.164
21 Oct: Secretary Esper states that U.S. troops located near Syrian oil fields wil
remain to deny the Islamic State or “other groups” access to oil revenue.165
5 Dec. Secretary Esper states that the pul back of U.S. forces in Syria complete;
roughly 600 U.S. troops to remain inside the country.166
Syria Train and Equip Program
Overview
In 2014, Congress created a new authority for the Department of Defense (DOD) to train and
equip select Syrians in the FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA, Section 1209 of
P.L. 113-291, as amended). This authority, as amended by subsequent legislation, enables DOD
“to provide assistance, including training, equipment, supplies, stipends, construction of training
and associated facilities, and sustainment, to appropriately vetted elements of the Syrian
opposition and other appropriately vetted Syrian groups and individuals.” Such assistance
activities are authorized for select purposes, including supporting U.S. efforts to combat the
Islamic State and other terrorist organizations in Syria and promoting the conditions for a
negotiated settlement to Syria’s civil war.
Congress has not appropriated funds specifically for the Syria train and equip program since the
program’s inception. Rather, through 2019, Congress required the Department of Defense to
reprogram funds from global counterterrorism assistance accounts to operations and maintenance
accounts to support program activities, with each reprogramming subject to the prior approval of
the four congressional defense committees. Amendments to the train and equip authority included
in the FY2020 NDAA changed this procedure and shifted the requirement to prior notification of
each 10% increment of available funds. (Table 2 provides information about program funding
and related requests.)


163 White House Statement from the Press Secretary, October 6, 2019; Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark
Milley before the House Armed Services Committee, December 11, 2019.
164 Department of Defense, “Statement by Secretary of Defense Dr. Mark T. Esper Regarding Turkey, Syria Border
Actions,” October 14, 2019.
165 DOD transcript, “Remarks by Secretary Esper in a Joint Press Conference With Senior Afghan Officials and
Resolute Support Mission Commander,” October 21, 2019.
166 “Exclusive: U.S. military completes pullback from northeast Syria, Esper says,” Reuters, December 5, 2019.
Congressional Research Service

35

---

Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response

Table 2. Syria Train and Equip Program: Appropriations Actions and Requests
Thousands of Dollars
FY2015
FY2016
FY2017
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
Approved Approved
Defense
FY2018
Defense
Defense
Request

Transfers
Transfers Appropriation Request Appropriation Appropriation

225,000
116,453
220,000
500,000
252,000
200,000
200,000
(O&M
(CTPF
(CTEF)
(CTEF)
(CTEF)
(CTEF)
(CTEF)
FY15)
FY15/16)
220,500
300,000

(CTPF
(CTPF
FY15/16)
FY16/17)
279,500
—

(CTPF
FY15/16)
-157,408
—

(CTPF
FY15/16)
Net
567,592
416,453
220,000
500,000
252,000
200,000
200,000
Total
Combined 2,356,045

Net Total
Source: Executive branch appropriations requests and reprogramming notifications.
Notes: Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund (CTPF). Counter-Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) Train and
Equip Fund (CTEF). The authority for the Syria Train and Equip Program requires the Department of Defense to
submit prior approval notices to transfer funds into various service and department-wide Operations and
Maintenance accounts for program activities. Funds listed were approved for transfer by the required
congressional defense and appropriations committees during the fiscal years noted.
In February 2020, the DOD Inspector General released the results of an audit of accountability
processes for CTEF-funded equipment designated for transfer to vetted Syrians. The audit found
some deficiencies in the CTEF-Syria (CTEF-S) program’s tracking, reporting, storage, and
security for equipment prior to transfer to partner forces, including weapons and ammunition.
Special Operations Joint Task Force–Operation Inherent Resolve (SOJTF-OIR) took steps to
remediate the concerns identified, and the DOD-IG considers its recommendations closed.167
FY2021 Defense Funding Request
The Administration’s FY2021 defense funding request seeks $200 million in CTEF funds for the
Syria Train and Equip Program, to “develop and sustain a force of 10,000 personnel to secure,
defend, and stabilize territory previously controlled by ISIS.”168 This represents a shift from the
FY2020 request, which envisioned a vetted Syrian opposition (VSO) force of 61,000.169 The


167 DOD Inspector General, Results in Brief - Audit of the DoD’s Accountability of Counter-Islamic State of Iraq and
Syria Train and Equip Fund Equipment Designated for Syria, February 13, 2020.
168 Justification for FY 2021 Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), Counter-ISIS Train and Equip Fund (CTEF),
February 2020.
169 Justification for FY 2020 Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), Counter-ISIS Train and Equip Fund (CTEF),
March 2019.
Congressional Research Service

36

---

Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response

FY21 request notes that the Defense Department adjusted its planning in light of the additional
drawdown of U.S. forces in Syria.
The request calls for continued support to the following groups operating in eastern Syria:
 Finish Forces, (commando and counterterrorism units) which conduct raids and
clearance operations against Islamic State cells in urban areas.
 Internal Security Forces, which provide civil protection and security via checkpoints
and city patrols.
 Provincial Internal Security Forces (PRISF), which provide wide area security
(including perimeter security operations for uninhabited areas to limit IS freedom of
movement). The PRISF also provide security at facilities for Islamic State detainees.
The request also calls for continued support to a group in southeastern Syria, Jaysh Maghawir
ath Thawra (MaT). MaT operates out of the At Tanf garrison in the Syria-Iraq-Jordan tri-border
area. In addition, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), “through its military councils and oil
protection force, remains a committed partner eligible for military assistance as it continues to
counter ISIS.”
Roughly a quarter of the request would provide logistical support, supplies, and services to VSOs,
including $15 million for basic life support services (subsistence, latrines, power generation) at
detention facility sites operated by local partner forces in Syria.
U.S. Nonlethal and Stabilization Assistance
The Administration’s FY2020 foreign assistance budget request reflected the Trump
Administration’s intent to end U.S. nonlethal (non-humanitarian) assistance for the Syrian
opposition, and to shift funding responsibility for stabilization projects to coalition partners. From
2012 through 2018, the United States provided nonlethal assistance to some Syrian opposition
groups for specific, congressionally approved purposes. The United States also has funded
stabilization efforts in areas of northeastern Syria liberated from Islamic State control. Although
the Administration’s FY2020 and FY2021 requests sought no Syria-specific funding, Congress
appropriated funds for Syria programs and directed specific amounts for stabilization and other
priorities (see below).
Background
Since 2012, the United States has provided a range of nonlethal assistance to Syrian opposition
and civil society groups. At the start of the Syria conflict, U.S. ability to provide aid to the Syrian
opposition was limited by restrictions stemming from an existing body of U.S. bilateral sanctions
against Syria, as well as Syria’s status as a state sponsor of terrorism. President Obama invoked
emergency and contingency authorities under the Foreign Assistance Act to enable initial
deliveries. To enable the expanded delivery of aid to Syrian opposition groups, the executive
branch requested and Congress granted specific authorities to provide nonlethal foreign assistance
in Syria for certain purposes notwithstanding other provisions of law. Over time, Congress
Congressional Research Service

37

---

Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response

expanded and amended these authorities to focus on areas of congressional priority and to put
into place oversight and reporting requirements.170
Nonlethal and Stabilization Aid to Syria: 2017-2020
Since FY2012, successive Administrations and Congresses have taken evolving approaches to
requests and appropriations of funds for assistance and stabilization programs in Syria. Funding
for both types of projects has been drawn from a mix of regular and OCO funds from multiple
accounts—largely ESF—with the Administration required to notify Congress of its intent to use
these funds for assistance and stabilization efforts in Syria.
FY2017 Funds. In January 2017, the Obama Administration notified Congress that it intended to
spend $230 million in FY2017 ESF-OCO funds (originally appropriated under the Further
Continuing and Security Assistance Appropriations Act, 2017, P.L. 114-254) to support
stabilization in areas liberated from the Islamic State in Syria. In August and September 2018, the
Trump Administration notified Congress of plans to reprogram those funds and instead rely on
contributions from foreign partners—reflecting a broader assessment by the Administration that
the United States was bearing more than its share of costs in regards to Syria stabilization. $214
million in FY2017 funds ultimately were obligated for Syria programs.
FY2018 Funds. The FY2018 appropriations act (P.L. 115-141) designated $500 million in
FY2018 funds from various foreign assistance accounts for a “Relief and Recovery Fund” (RRF)
for areas liberated or at risk from the Islamic State and other terrorist organizations. The
accompanying explanatory statement stated that funds were appropriated, among other purposes,
“for non-lethal assistance programs to address the needs of civilians affected by conflict in Syria
in a manner consistent with the prior fiscal year,” but neither the act nor the statement allocated a
specific amount for Syria. FY2018 RRF funds were available for Syria stabilization, but as of
June 2020, FY2018 monies had only been notified for Syria-related atrocity crime accountability
programs as directed by the act.
FY2019 Funds. The FY2019 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 116-6) stated that, of the
funds appropriated under the ESF, INCLE, and PKO accounts, no less than $40 million should be
made available for nonlethal stabilization assistance for Syria, of which not less than $7 million
should be made available for emergency medical and rescue response, and chemical weapons use
investigations. Notably, the act stated only that nonlethal assistance is to be provided for


170 The FY2014 foreign operations appropriations act (Section 7041(i) of Division K of P.L. 113-76), as expanded and
extended by the FY2015 act (Section 7041(h) of Division J of P.L. 113-235), made FY2015 and prior year ESF funding
available “notwithstanding any other provision of law” for select nonlethal purposes inside Syria. The FY2016
appropriations act (Section 7041(h) of Division K of P.L. 114-113) extended this authority further, granting
notwithstanding exceptions for FY2016 ESF funds as well as for FY2016 funds in the International Narcotics Control
and Law Enforcement (INCLE) and Peacekeeping Operations (PKO) accounts. The Obama Administration used the
INCLE and PKO accounts to support justice sector activities in opposition-held areas of Syria and to provide nonlethal
assistance to select armed opposition groups. The appropriations acts for FY2017 (Section 7041(j) of Division J of P.L.
115-31) and FY2018 (Section 7041(k) of Division K of P.L. 115-141) further amended and specified the categories of
assistance authorized to be provided from these accounts. Prior to the enactment of specific notwithstanding authority
by Congress, the President was required to assert emergency and contingency authorities (i.e., Sections 451 and 614 of
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended) to provide nonlethal assistance to the unarmed Syrian opposition and
to communities inside Syria.179 In 2012, the Administration began to use these emergency and contingency authorities
to provide food rations and medical supplies to the National Coalition of Revolutionary and Opposition Forces (SOC)
and the Turkey-based Syrian Military Council (SMC).
Congressional Research Service

38

---

Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response

stabilization purposes. This was a significant departure from the FY2018 Consolidated
Appropriations Act (P.L. 115-141), which authorized the use of appropriated funds for 14 listed
purposes, including establishing inclusive local governance, bolstering the viability of the Syrian
opposition, developing civil society and independent media, and countering extremism. In
October 2019, the White House announced $50 million for stabilization, religious and ethnic
minority communities, accountability, first responders, and the removal of explosive remnants of
war (ERW).171 To date, $54.5 million in FY2019 funds have been notified for Syria, including
$35.5 million in ESF-OCO funds and $19 million in ESF-OCO, INCLE, and NADR-CW funds
allocated to the RRF.
FY2020. The Administration’s FY2020 State and Foreign Operations request for Syria sought no
ESDF or NADR funding for Syria-specific programs, in contrast to the FY2019 request which
sought $130 million and $44.5 million for Syria programs in the two accounts, respectively.
Similar to the FY2019 Consolidated Appropriations Act, the FY2020 Further Consolidated
Appropriations Act (P.L. 116-94) makes not less than $40 million available for nonlethal
stabilization in Syria, and specifies that no less than $7 million shall be used for emergency
medical and rescue response, and chemical weapons use investigations.
Table 3. Nonlethal and Stabilization Funding for Syria
$, millions
Fiscal Year
FY2017
FY2018
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
745 ESF-OCO
1 INCLE-OCO
150 ESDF
130 ESDF
Syria Request
-
-
44 NADR-OCO
41.5 NADR
44.5 NADR
50 PKO-OCO
Total Syria
Request
840
191.5
174.5
-
-
Other Admin
5,900 IHA
request (not
1,000 RRF
50 RRF
40 RRF
145 RRF
135 RRF
Syria-specific)

40
40
Syria-specific
ESF/INCLE/PKO
ESF/INCLE/PKO
Appropriations
-
-
TBD


Other
Appropriations
169 RRF
500 RRF
200 RRF
200 RRF
TBD
Actual
214
2.5
54.5 (initial)
-
TBD
Source: U.S. State Department data, FY2017- FY2021 Budget Request Materials.
Notes: ESF = Economic Support Fund; ESDF = Economic Support and Development Fund; INCLE = International
Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement; NADR = Nonproliferation, Antiterrorism, Demining and Related Programs; PKO
= Peacekeeping Operations; RRF = Relief and Recovery Fund; IHA = International Humanitarian Assistance.
FY2021 Request. The Administration’s FY2021 State and Foreign Operations request seeks no
funds for Syria-specific programs. The request would allocate $135 million to the Relief and
Recovery Fund, to support efforts in places including Syria. The request also seeks $5.9 billion


171 White House Statement from the Press Secretary, October 12, 2019.
Congressional Research Service

39

---

Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response

for the new International Humanitarian Assistance account (IHA) to address humanitarian needs
in crisis areas including Syria.
Syria START Programs
Following the closure of U.S. Embassy Damascus in February 2012, several regionally based
teams were established to monitor and implement U.S. assistance programs. A Syria Transition
Assistance and Response Team (START) operated from Turkey and coordinated U.S.
humanitarian and foreign assistance to northern Syria, including assistance to opposition-held
areas. In Jordan, the Southern Syria Assistance Platform (SSAP) monitored and coordinated
comparable U.S. humanitarian and foreign assistance to southern and eastern Syria, including
assistance to opposition-held areas. The State Department and USAID also deployed a small team
of U.S. civilian assistance officials (known as START Forward) inside areas of northern Syria
where DOD-trained and/or equipped local forces were in control.
These programs have undergone significant changes since 2018. Some START programs were
amended and/or ended in 2018 in line with the Administration’s plans to focus on stabilizing
former IS-held areas to the east. Cross-border SSAP programs reportedly were halted in mid-
2018, after Syrian military forces regained control of southwestern Syria.172 In late 2018, the
announced withdrawal of U.S. forces was preceded by the withdrawal of U.S. civilian personnel
from northern Syria. In 2019, the Administration announced that some U.S. forces would remain
in Syria, and START Forward personnel redeployed to the country in July.173 In October 2019,
following the Turkish military incursion into northern Syria, START Forward personnel were
again withdrawn from Syria, although most Department of State and USAID assistance activities
continued outside of the Turkish incursion zone.174
Stabilization Programming in Areas Liberated from the Islamic State
To date, stabilization programming for areas of northeast Syria liberated from IS control has
comprised four primary lines of effort: (1) demining, (2) promotion of local governance and civil
society, (3) rehabilitation of basic infrastructure, and (4) promotion of economic growth and
development.175 U.S. funding has included support for ethnic and religious minorities, civil
society and local governance, first responders, justice and accountability efforts, restoration of
essential services, community security, and ERW-removal.
In March 2020, USAID reported that it was funding approximately 240 projects in northeast
Syria, largely agricultural projects focusing on economic growth and food security. USAID also
reported that donor funds were “nearly expended,” and future donor commitments uncertain. As a
result, the agency reported that, “USAID programming has decelerated pending an infusion of
additional resources.”176


172 Written Statement of Robert W. Jenkins, Deputy Assistant Administrator, U.S. Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and
Humanitarian Assistance, USAID, before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Middle East & North Africa,
November 29, 2018.
173 Lead Inspector General for Operation Inherent Resolve, Quarterly Report to the United States Congress, July 1,
2019-October 25, 2019, p. 42.
174 Ibid., p. 40.
175 Lead Inspector General for Operation Inherent Resolve | Quarterly Report to the United States Congress | April 1,
2019 – June 30, 2019, p. 35.
176 Lead Inspector General for Operation Inherent Resolve | Quarterly Report to the United States Congress | January 1,
2020 – March 31, 2020, p. 9.
Congressional Research Service

40

---

Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response

In addition to funding shortfalls, some stabilization projects were relocated as a result of Turkey’s
October 2019 incursion into northern Syria, the subsequent establishment of the Turkish-
controlled OPS area, and the expansion of Russian and Syrian military units into areas formally
patrolled by U.S. forces. As of 2020, ongoing stabilization projects throughout the country face
the additional challenge of adjusting operations to account for the threat posed by COVID-19.

Outlook & Challenges
The victory of pro-Asad forces in the broader conflict appears likely, and, from a U.S.
perspective, that may further complicate several unresolved issues, including
 the stabilization and governance of areas recaptured from the Islamic State;
 the resolution of security threats posed by extremist groups in northwest Syria;
 the return and reintegration of internally and externally displaced Syrians;
 the reconstruction of conflict-damaged areas;
 the management of Syria-based threats to Syria’s neighbors; and
 the terms of a post-conflict political order in Syria.
In light of current trends and conditions related to these issues, Administration officials and
Members of Congress may reexamine appropriate terms and conditions for U.S. investment, force
deployment, and the nature of relationships with U.S. partners in and around Syria. Looking
forward, challenges for U.S. policy in Syria may include:
Consolidating Gains against the Islamic State
U.S. efforts to prevent the resurgence of the Islamic State have focused on stabilization
programming in IS-liberated areas as well as ongoing support to local partner forces. The Trump
Administration in 2019 sought to shift financial responsibility for stabilization programs (which
have included activities such as restoring electricity to liberated areas) to coalition partners, while
also redeploying U.S. military personnel within and out of Syria. The State Department has
reported that stabilization activities via the START (Turkey-based), SSAP (Jordan-based), and
START-Forward platforms continue, albeit “almost exclusively with Coalition contributions.”177
To the extent that it relies on contributions by coalition partners, the future of stabilization
programming in Syria appears uncertain.
As noted above, the Trump Administration did not seek funds for Syria stabilization in its
FY2020 budget request, but Congress appropriated funds for this purpose. The Further
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 states that not less than $40 million shall be made
available for nonlethal stabilization assistance for Syria. The act also makes additional funds
available for IS-liberated areas, including via the Relief and Recovery Fund and the Prevention
and Stabilization Fund. These funds could be used for stabilization activities in Syria, but are not
specifically designated as such.
The Administration has come under some scrutiny for failing to obligate funds appropriated by
Congress for Syria stabilization. The Syria Study Group report, issued in September 2019,


177 Lead Inspector General for Operation Inherent Resolve, U.S. Sanctions Syria is subject to a broad range of U.S. sanctions, many of which predate the current conflict. The United States has maintained economic sanctions on Syria since 1979, when the State Department designated the Syrian government as a state sponsor of international terrorism. The Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-175) required additional restrictions on U.S. exports, investments, transactions, and diplomatic relations because of Syrian interference in Lebanon and its support for U.S.-designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) including Hezbollah and Hamas. The United States has imposed additional sanctions under nonproliferation legislation since the early 1990s and under national emergency authorities since the beginning of the current conflict in 2011. In 2013, the State Department 87 Ibid, p.16. 88 U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), Syria Country Profile, February 28, 2022. 89 LIG-OIR, Quarterly Report to the United States Congress, April 1, 2022-June 30, 2022, p.64. 90 Ibid. 91 Ibid. 92 USAID, Syria—Complex Emergency, Fact Sheet #10 FY2022, September 15, 2022. 93 USAID, Syria—Complex Emergency, Fact Sheet #10 FY2022, September 15, 2022, and USAID, Syria—Complex Em ergency, Fact Sheet #7 FY2022, June 10, 2022. Congressional Research Service 16 Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response determined that the government of Syria had used chemical weapons in contravention of international law, spurring another round of economic and diplomatic restrictions. Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act of 2019 The Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act of 2019 was incorporated into the FY2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA, P.L. 116-92, Title LXXIV). Section 7412 directs the President to impose sanctions on any foreign person who the President determines is knowingly providing significant financial, material, or technological support to the government of Syria or to a foreign person operating in a military capacity inside Syria on behalf of the governments of Syria, Russia, or Iran. It also makes eligible for sanctions foreign persons who the President determines knowingly sel or provide  goods, services, technology, or information that significantly facilitates the maintenance or expansion of the government of Syria’s domestic production of natural gas, petroleum, or petroleum products;  aircraft or spare aircraft parts that are used for military purposes in Syria in areas controlled by the Syrian government or associated forces; or  significant construction or engineering services to the government of Syria.94 As of late 2022, 15 individuals and entities have been designated specifical y under the Caesar Act (over 650 Syria-linked individuals and entities have been designated as Special y Designated Nationals [SDNs]).95 Caesar designations to date have focused on individuals and entities involved in large-scale real estate development projects constructed on land expropriated from Syrians displaced by the conflict.96 U.S. Sanctions on Syria and Humanitarian Assistance U.S. sanctions legislation contains a variety of waivers that permit trade in essential goods (such as food and medicine) and al ow for humanitarian assistance. Since the early years of the conflict, sanctions on the Syrian financial sector have nonetheless resulted in what some analysts describe as “over-compliance,” whereby regional and international financial institutions are “highly reluctant to service Syrian nationals, in order to pre-empt any breach of the sanctions.”97 NGOs operating in Syria continue to face obstacles due to bank “derisking,” the process whereby banks delay or deny even permissible transactions to avoid the risk of violating sanctions. Complicating matters, both the United States and the European Union (E.U.) place restrictions on “dual-use” items (items that have both a civilian and military use). This includes many items used in health, water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) operations, such as pipes, water pumps, spare parts for electrical generators, and essential construction and industrial equipment. In November 2021, the U.S. Department of the Treasury amended the general license for NGOs operating in Syria, authorizing them to engage in the fol owing additional transactions in support of certain not-for-profit activities in Syria: “new investment in Syria; the purchase of refined petroleum products of Syrian origin for use in Syria; and certain transactions with elements of the Government of Syria.”98 These transactions are authorized 94 FY2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA, P.L. 116-92, T itle LXXIV, Section 7412). 95 See U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) Sanctions List search, at https://sanctionssearch.ofac.treas.gov/. 96 Syria Justice and Accountability Centre, “Syria Sanctions: a deeper look at the Caesar Act Designations,” September 10, 2020. 97 Rune Friberg Lyme, “Sanctioning Assad’s Syria,” Danish Institute for International Studies, 2012. 98 U.S. Department of the T reasury, “U.S. T reasury Expands Syria Nongovernmental Organizations General License,” press release, November 24, 2021. Congressional Research Service 17 Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response only in support of not-for-profit activities already authorized under the general license, including humanitarian projects. Atrocity Crimes and Potential Avenues for Accountability99 International law recognizes the perpetration of certain grave harms, often committed in the context of armed conflict, as “atrocity crimes,” including war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. States sometimes treat atrocity crimes as crimes of “universal jurisdiction,” meaning that any state can prosecute individuals for such crimes, even if the crime was not committed on that state’s territory or by one of its nationals.100 Multiple parties have made al egations of war crimes against multiple parties to the Syrian conflict, including the Syrian government, Syrian opposition groups, and extremist groups, including the Islamic State. Reported violations of international law by multiple parties have been extensively documented by the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic (IICI, established in August 2011 by U.N. Human Rights Council resolution S-17/1), as wel as by regular reports of the U.N. Secretary-General to the U.N. Security Council on the implementation of Security Council resolutions.101 In situations where atrocity crimes are committed in a state that potential y cannot or wil not hold perpetrators accountable, there are international and national judicial avenues for possible accountability. Three avenues are described below. International Criminal Court. The International Criminal Court (ICC) was established to exercise jurisdiction over al atrocity crimes when such crimes are not investigated and prosecuted by a competent national court system.102 Because Syria is not a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the treaty establishing the ICC, the court cannot automatical y exercise jurisdiction over atrocity crimes committed in Syria. The ICC can exercise jurisdiction over al eged atrocity crimes that occur on the territory of or are perpetrated by nationals of a state  after the Rome Statute enters into force for a state party;103  during a period of time in which a nonparty state accepts jurisdiction;104 or  pursuant to a U.N. Security Council resolution under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter referring the situation in a State to the ICC.105 99 Prepared by Matthew C. Weed, Specialist in Foreign Policy Legislation. 100 See Jenny Gesley, FALQs: The Exercise of Universal Jurisdiction in Germany, Law Library of Congress, June 30, 2022, https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2022/06/falqs-the-exercise-of-universal-jurisdiction-in-germany/. 101 See regular reporting of the U.N. Secretary-General pursuant to U.N. Security Council Resolutions, to include S/RES/2139 (2014), S/RES/2165 (2014), S/RES/2191 (2014), S/RES/2258 (2015), S/RES/2332 (2016), S/RES/2393 (2017), S/RES/2401 (2018), S/RES/2449 (2018), S/RES/2504 (2020), S/RES/2533 (2020) and S/RES/2585 (2021) available at https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3959071. 102 See International Criminal Court, “ About the Court,” at https://www.icc-cpi.int/about/the-court; Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court art. 17(1). 103 Rome Statute art. 12(1)-(2). 104 Rome Statute art. 12(3). 105 Rome Statute art. 13(b). Congressional Research Service 18 Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response The Security Council could extend ICC jurisdiction to the situation in Syria by adopting a resolution of referral, but Russia and China have vetoed previous council action to do so.106 (The Security Council could also establish ad hoc criminal tribunals like those for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, but Russia and China could veto such proposals as wel .) Syria could accept ad hoc ICC jurisdiction over the situation on its territory by declaration, but this is more likely to occur in the event of the conclusion of the conflict and the presumed removal of the Asad regime from power. In 2022, lawyers representing Syrian victims have asked the ICC Prosecutor to exercise jurisdiction over al eged cases of forced deportation of persons from Syria to Jordan, arguing that such crimes were partial y completed on the territory of Jordan, a state party to the Rome Statute.107 Even if the ICC eventual y exercises jurisdiction over the situation in Syria, this is not a guarantee of ICC prosecution of al eged atrocity crimes in Syria. It is the role of the ICC Prosecutor to determine, subject to the limitations to ICC jurisdiction as decided in each case by the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber, whether to bring charges against and prosecute an individual; no state party can force the prosecution of an individual before the ICC.108 In addition, a case is inadmissible before the ICC if it concerns conduct that is the subject of “genuine” legal proceedings brought by a state with jurisdiction, including a state, such as Syria, that is not party to the Rome Statute.109 Hybrid Tribunals. There have been proposals for the establishment of a mixed international/national tribunal for Syria atrocity crimes. Such “hybrid” criminal tribunals have been established by agreement between a state and an international organization (usual y the United Nations) to jointly undertake a specified judicial process for accountability. National legislation often supports or directly authorizes the operation of such tribunals. These tribunals can be established by agreement with the U.N. Secretary-General and approval from the U.N. General Assembly, thereby avoiding Security Council vetoes.110 Any such hybrid tribunal, however, would be more likely after an end to the Syrian conflict and removal of the Asad regime, as Syria would have to be party to its establishment. Foreign National Courts. Austria, France, Germany, Spain, and other states have instituted criminal proceedings against al eged perpetrators of atrocity crimes under the concept of “universal jurisdiction,” meaning any state can prosecute perpetrators of such crimes.111 With encouragement from U.N. officials, some states have specifical y enacted universal jurisdiction provisions in their criminal codes as states’ wil ingness to extend the normal y territorial nature of 106 UN News, “ Russia, China block Security Council referral of Syria to International Criminal Court ,” May 22, 2014. 107 Patrick Wintour, “Human rights lawyers attempt to bring Syria war crimes cases to ICC,” The Guardian, February 16, 2022. T he ICC Pre-T rial Chamber has accepted this interpretation of the court’s territorial jurisdiction over the situation in Bangladesh, a Rome Statute state party, where thousands of alleged victims of the Rohingya minority crossed the border from Burma after being forcibly displaced by the Burmese military. International Criminal Court, “ICC judges authorise opening of an investigation into the situation in Bangladesh/Myanmar,” press release, November 14, 2019. 108 See Rome Statute art. 15 & part 5. 109 Rome Statute art. 17. 110 See Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Rule-of-Law Tools for Post-Conflict States: Maxim izing the legacy of hybrid courts, 2008, pp. 3-4. T he Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC), for example, were established by agreement between Cambodia and the U.N. Secretary -General, and approved by a resolution of the U.N. General Assembly. U.N. General Assembly Resolution 57/228B, Khm er Rouge Trials, A/RES/57/228B (2003). 111 See International Committee of the Red Cross, Universal Jurisdiction, https://casebook.icrc.org/glossary/universal-jurisdiction. Congressional Research Service 19 Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response criminal jurisdiction to atrocity crimes committed on foreign soil grows.112 In January 2022, for example, a German court convicted Anwar Raslan, formerly a colonel in the Syrian armed forces, for directing and overseeing systematic torture of prisoners in a Syrian detention center.113 Congress previously has sought additional details and reporting from the executive branch on accountability efforts in Syria. The FY2019 National Defense Authorization Act required the Secretary of State to submit a report on war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide in Syria—including a description and assessment of programs that the United States has undertaken to ensure accountability for these crimes.114 Members could consider whether updated reporting on such programs could provide opportunities to address technical or financing gaps. Policy Debates and Issues for Congress Since the territorial defeat of the Islamic State in Syria in 2019, legislative action on Syria has focused on limiting the resurgence of the Islamic State while avoiding measures that could empower the Asad government. Some Members have expressed particular interest in supporting SDF partner forces, securing IS detainees, and limiting Asad government finances. There is ongoing debate on how best to accomplish these goals, and how to weigh these goals relative to other—at times conflicting—foreign policy priorities, such as seeking to ensure that economic recovery measures—including “early recovery” projects intended to stabilize the country and avoid an IS resurgence—do not inadvertently benefit the Asad government. Protecting Local Partner Forces U.S. operations against the Islamic State in Syria have relied on a partnership with the Syrian Democratic Forces, which have served as the primary local ground force in the counter-IS campaign. Members have debated the eligibility of these local partners for admission into the United States in the case of attack by Turkish and/or Syrian forces. Several bil s in the 116th Congress would have extended the Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) program to foreign nationals employed by the U.S. military in Syria, as wel as their immediate families. The Syrian SIV programs proposed by these bil s general y were modeled on the existing temporary SIV programs for Iraqis and Afghans who have worked for or on behalf of the U.S. government. During the 117th Congress, Representatives Jason Crow and Michael Waltz reintroduced one such bil , the Syrian Partner Protection Act (H.R. 2838), which would provide SIV status to a national of Syria or a stateless person who has habitual y resided in Syria that “has partnered with, was employed by, or worked for or directly with the United States Government in Syria as an interpreter, translator, intel igence analyst, or in another sensitive and trusted capacity, on or after January 1, 2014, for an aggregate period of not less than 1 year.” Islamic State Detainees Some Members have questioned the Administration regarding its strategy for mitigating the risk posed by IS detainees.115 In early 2022, IS fighters in SDF-run detention facilities conducted a large-scale prison attack, which the SDF was able to repel “only with significant Coalition ground 112 Reuters, “Step up trials of alleged Syrian war criminals, U.N. rights chief says,” March 11, 2021; Mia Swart, “National courts lead the way in prosecuting Syrian war crimes,” Al Jazeera, March 15, 2021. 113 “Former Syrian Colonel Guilty in War Crimes T rial in Germany,” The New York Times, January 14, 2022. 114 John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, P.L. 115-232, Subtitle C, Section 1232. 115 T ranscript, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing on Pending Nominations, May 10, 2022. Congressional Research Service 20 Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response and air support.”116 The report accompanying the Senate version of the FY2023 NDAA states that “the committee is concerned about threats from Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) detainees held in partner-run detention facilities. The February 2022 attack by ISIS militants on the detention facility in Hasakah, Syria, highlights the grave national security concern to the United States and its al ies and partners if this threat goes unaddressed.”117 IS detention facilities. Congress has appropriated CTEF funds for the Syria Train and Equip program, including for the fortification of IS detention facilities in Syria. In Section 1221 of the 2022 National Defense Authorization Act, Congress amended the authority for the train and equip program in Syria to al ow the President to waive restrictions on the use of funds for construction and repair projects, if the President certifies that projects comply with international law relating to refugees, torture, and treatment of prisoners. This waiver al ow ed for the use of funds during 2022 to improve and construct IS detention facilities. (Prior to enactment of this waiver, the cost of construction and repair projects carried out under Section 1221 could not exceed, in any fiscal year, $4 mil ion per project or $20 mil ion in the aggregate.) Nonetheless, the July 2022 report accompanying S. 4543 (S.Rept. 117-130) states, The committee notes, however, that the waiver authority provided in section 1221 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 (P.L. 117-81) has not yet been utilized, and the committee has not been informed of a comprehensive plan to address these urgent concerns. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report, not later than December 15, 2022, on its plans to use the authorities provided in this section in fiscal year 2022 to assist partners to improve security at these detention facilities, including through the use of waivers provided for construction and repair on a per-project basis. The Senate committee-reported version of the FY2023 NDAA (S. 4543) would extend the national security waiver on the cost of construction and repair projects until December 2023. Members could consider whether to seek regular updates on the security of IS detention facilities—including on the expenditure of funds to refurbish or construct detention facilities—through existing reporting channels, such as the congressional y mandated quarterly Lead Inspector General reports on Operation Inherent Resolve.118 Members could also consider whether to seek updates on the transfer of detainees into secure facilities. The Departments of Defense and State reported that roughly half of al IS detainees had been consolidated into more secure facilities as of mid-2022; Combined Joint Task Force-Operation Inherent Resolve noted that future CTEF-funded construction projects, particularly a proposed $27 mil ion Rumaylan Detention Facility, “wil ultimately provide capacity for al detainees to be housed in purpose- built facilities that meet international standards.”119 Some Members have introduced legislation cal ing on the Administration to establish a detainee coordinator. In September 2022, Senators Jeanne Shaheen and Lindsey Graham introduced the Syria Detainee and Displaced Persons Act (S. 4996). The bil would amend the FY2020 NDAA, and direct the President to “designate an existing official to serve within the executive branch as senior-level coordinator to coordinate, in conjunction with other relevant agencies, al matters related to ISIS members who are in the custody of the Syrian Democratic Forces and other 116 LIG-OIR, Quarterly Report to the United States Congress, January 1, 2022-March 31, 2022, p. v (Message from the Lead Inspector General). 117 S.Rept. 117-30. 118 T he Defense Department reported that more than $3.6 million in CT EF funds were used in the first quarter of 2022 to refurbish detention facilities; t he LIG-OIR report for the second quarter of 2022 included information on CT EF expenditure but not on prison refurbishment. 119 LIG-OIR, Quarterly Report to the United States Congress, April 1, 2022-June 30, 2022, p.58. Congressional Research Service 21 Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response relevant displaced populations in Syria.”120 The bil also would require a report laying out “an interagency strategy with respect to ISIS-affiliated individuals and ISIS-related detainee and other displaced persons camps in Syria.”121 Economic Recovery In mid-2022, the State Department reported that while levels of violence in Syria were at their lowest point in the 11-year conflict, “the economic and humanitarian situation was at its worst.”122 In 2021, a U.S. official stated that the Islamic State is “actively seeking to exploit that economic situation to reconstitute ... in areas hardest hit by the economic downturn.”123 In 2022, the State Department reported that high commodity price fluctuations, combined with the continued devaluation of the Syrian pound and “historical levels of drought,” have increased the need for both stabilization and humanitarian funding over the past two years.124 More than 90% of Syrians live below the poverty line.125 The Biden Administration has taken steps to al eviate economic distress, in part by issuing new general licenses to permit broader categories of economic activities that otherwise would be subject to U.S. sanctions. In May 2022, the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued General License No. 22, authorizing activities in 12 different economic sectors of northeast and northwest Syria.126 A media report quoted an unnamed Administration official saying, “Our aim is to prevent the resurgence of IS by mitigating the growing economic insecurity and restoring essential services in the areas liberated from the terrorist group.”127 Some Members have questioned whether Biden Administration efforts to spur economic recovery in Syria bypass existing U.S. sanctions and inadvertently benefit the Asad government. In a letter to Secretary of State Antony Blinken, three Members wrote: It is troubling that the administration has reportedly reached a decision to issue a broad geographic waiver while having offered no explanation to Congress for why the existing waiver and license structure is insufficient to achieve U.S. objectives in northern Syria. The administration also has offered no explanation for how it would propose to prevent Assad regime affiliates or front companies from exploiting a geographic waiver by conducting business in northern Syria and generating revenues or foreign currency under the waiver.128 In a June 2022 hearing, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Barbara Leaf testified that the license was issued “to enhance the opportunities for economic regeneration in the areas liberated from ISIS,” in order to “create resiliency” in formerly IS-controlled areas and 120 S. 4996, Syria Detainee and Displaced Persons Act, Section 5(a)(1). 121 S. 4996, Syria Detainee and Displaced Persons Act, Section 6(a). 122 LIG-OIR, Quarterly Report to the United States Congress, April 1, 2022-June 30, 2022, p. 72. 123 Al Monitor, “Islamic State exploits economic downturn in Iraq, Syria, US envoy says,” July 1, 2021. 124 LIG-OIR, Quarterly Report to the United States Congress, July 1, 2022-September 30, 2022, p. 68. 125 U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, “ Message from the United Nations humanitarian, refugee, and development chiefs on the situation in Syria and the region ,” May 10, 2022. 126 U.S. Department of the T reasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), Syrian Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 542; General License No. 22. 127 Amberin Zaman, “US eases sanctions on investment in Kurdish, T urkish areas of Syria,” Al Monitor, May 12, 2022. 128 Republican Study Committee National Security and Foreign Affairs T ask Force, Letter to Secretary of State Antony Blinken, March 11, 2022. Congressional Research Service 22 Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response reduce the prospects of an IS resurgence.129 The license, which notes the specific districts in which it is applicable—as wel as subdistricts that are excluded—does not authorize “any transactions involving any person, including the Government of Syria, whose property or interests in property are blocked pursuant to the [Syrian Sanctions Regulations] or the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act of 2019.” Members may consider to what extent current U.S. assistance to Kurdish authorities in northern Syria includes technical assistance for sanctions compliance—and whether or not additional resources should be provided in an effort to reduce instances of local authorities inadvertently transacting with sanctioned entities. Early Recovery Projects Through annual State and Foreign Operations appropriations legislation, Congress has specified that bilateral economic assistance and international security assistance should not be used in areas of Syria controlled by the Asad government.130 Humanitarian assistance, by contrast, is provided throughout Syria, independent of political considerations and based solely on humanitarian need. Some Members have expressed concern about a subset of humanitarian assistance known as “early recovery.” These Members argue that early recovery projects blur the boundaries between humanitarian assistance and reconstruction assistance. Successive Administrations have said the United States wil not provide reconstruction assistance until the Asad government makes significant progress toward a political settlement to the conflict. In June 2022, ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Senator James Risch stated, “I'm deeply concerned with the administration’s funding of so-cal ed early recovery projects in regime-held areas. These activities cross the line against Caesar-prohibited reconstruction and opened the door to normalization with Assad.”131 Senator Risch added that, “it is my concern that the Administration’s efforts have expanded beyond humanitarian access and into the realm of reconstruction.” In response, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Barbara Leaf stated that the United States wil not “support efforts to normalize or rehabilitate Bashar al-Assad in any way; lift sanctions on the regime; or change our position opposing reconstruction in Syria until there is authentic, enduring progress towards a political solution.”132 In response to a Member question on how the Administration plans to ensure that early recovery projects do not benefit the Asad government, Leaf stated: Early recovery is really a subset of humanitarian assistance. It’s what we've done for years in Syria as well as around the world. So it’s a subset of humanitarian assistance. It’s carried out by the same independent humanitarian actors, and it is squarely focused at the sort of micro level of society, the individuals, households, communities, strictly on need. So targeting the most vulnerable regardless of where they live, 60 percent of those in need live in regime-held areas around Syria, but it is not done at the direction of or by the government. It is done strictly by humanitarian actors who are independent.133 129 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, The Path Forward On U.S.-Syria Policy: Strategy And Accountability, hearing, 117th Cong., 2nd sess., June 8, 2022. 130 See, most recently, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022, Division K, Section 7041(j). 131 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, The Path Forward On U.S.-Syria Policy: Strategy And Accountability, hearing, 117th Cong., 2nd sess., June 8, 2022. 132 Ibid. 133 T estimony of Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Barbara Leaf in U.S. Congress, House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Middle East, North Africa and Global Counterterrorism, The Biden Adm inistration’s Policy Congressional Research Service 23 Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response USAID and the Department of State fund early recovery projects in Syria, which they define as “activities that aim to reduce immediate and protracted humanitarian needs by strengthening the self-reliance of affected populations, and improving individual, household, and community resilience, and therefore reducing dependence on external assistance.”134 The agencies base these programs on their assessments of humanitarian need across Syria. Early recovery has been a stated part of the annual U.N. Humanitarian Response Plan (HRP) for Syria since 2013,135 and language endorsing early recovery projects in Syria was introduced by Russia in U.N. Security Council Resolution 2585 (2021), which authorized cross-border assistance into Syria for an additional year.136 According to the U.N. Secretary-General, Early recovery and livelihood activities represent one of three core pillars of the humanitarian response, in addition to providing life-saving and life-sustaining humanitarian assistance, and enhancing the prevention and mitigation of protection risks and responding to protection needs. In 2022, $1.1 billion, or 26 per cent, of the overal request for humanitarian aid to the Syrian Arab Republic is aimed at promoting early recovery and resilience.137 Early recovery and livelihood projects implemented by U.N. agencies in 2022 have included the rehabilitation of some sewerage and electricity networks, as wel as the rehabilitation of facilities such as health clinics, bakeries, and classrooms.138 Members may consider the risk, expressed by one analyst, that “the restoration of essential services through early recovery wil consolidate the Bashar al-Assad regime’s grip on power, thus, lowering its desire to come to the negotiating table to arrive at a lasting settlement to the conflict.”139 On the other hand, some analysts and humanitarian workers express the view that early recovery, which “entails helping Syrians support themselves—rehabilitating local water infrastructure instead of delivering water by tanker truck, for example, or supporting agriculture and farmers’ livelihoods instead of offering food handouts” is “the only way forward. We can’t just keep giving to people forever. In no country in the world is this viable.”140 The report accompanying the House committee version of the FY2023 State and Foreign Operations bil (H.Rept. 117-401) “encourages” the State Department and USAID to utilize humanitarian and stabilization funds to “help implement early recovery and resilience activities alongside increased support for lifesaving interventions in Syria.” Objectives in the Middle East and North Africa , hearings, 117th Cong., 2nd sess., June 22, 2022. 134 LIG-OIR, Quarterly Report to the United States CongressQuarterly Report to the United States Congress, April, July 1,
2019-October 25, 2019, p. 42.
Congressional Research Service

41

---

Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response

recommended that the Administration obligate unspent funds in the Relief and Recovery Fund
designated for areas liberated from the Islamic State (Congress has not appropriated these funds
on a country-specific basis, but has used explanatory statement language to authorize their use in
specific countries).
U.S. support to local partner forces has been another key element in the U.S. effort to securing the
enduring defeat of the Islamic State and consolidating coalition gains. While the Administration
in 2019 reduced its troop presence in Syria from roughly 1,000 to 600 forces, senior U.S. military
leaders have emphasized their view that a continued U.S. military presence in Syria is vital to
preventing the re-emergence of the Islamic State. In December 2019, Joint Chief of Staff
Chairman Gen. Milley stated, “If we withdraw all our capabilities and support to the indigenous
governments and we don’t continue to operate by, with, and through them, then I believe that the
conditions will be set for [an Islamic State] resurgence.”178 Milley assessed that, in his view, the
SDF does not have “the independent capability” to prevent an Islamic State resurgence in the
absence of U.S. support. Moreover, ongoing political debate in Iraq concerning the future of U.S.
and other foreign forces in that country may affect related U.S. and coalition operations in Syria
during 2020.
Preserving Relationships with Partner Forces
Numerous Members of Congress have expressed concern about what they describe as the
abandonment of U.S. Kurdish allies in Syria. In October 2019, Senator Menendez stated
It was the Kurds who were largely our ground forces. It’s the Kurds that lost about 11 to
13,000 of their people. It’s the Kurds that were detaining over 10,000 ISIS fighters and
families for us [ ... ] when you betray the person who you—the entity who you were fighting
on the battlefield with and you basically leave them when you’re finished using them and
say, you know, you’re on your own, it’s a hell of a way to send a global message that, in
fact, don’t fight for the United States because when they’re finished with you they’ll let
you die on the battlefield.
President Trump has defended his decision, stating, “We never agreed to protect the Kurds for the
rest of their lives [ ... ] Where’s an agreement that said we have to stay in the Middle East for the
rest of humanity, for the rest of civilization, to protect the Kurds?”179 Defense Secretary Esper
also stated, “The handshake with the Kurds, with the SDF in particular, was a handshake that we
would ensure that we would defeat ISIS. It was not a handshake that said yes, we would also help
you establish an autonomous Kurdish state. It was also not a handshake that said yes, we would
fight Turkey for you.”180 At the same time, U.S. military officials have stated that “allies and
partners, both nation states but also indigenous partners like the SDF, are important to fulfill our
national security objectives.”181 Some have noted that the U.S. raid that killed Islamic State leader


178 Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Milley before the House Armed Services Committee, December 11,
2019.
179 Remarks by President Trump in Cabinet Meeting, October 21, 2019.
180 Secretary of Defense Mark Esper before the House Armed Services Committee, December 11, 2019.
181 Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Milley before the House Armed Services Committee, December 11,
2019.
Congressional Research Service

42

---

Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response

Abu Bakr al Baghdadi was reportedly made possible by information provided by an informant
run by Kurdish intelligence officers.182
It is unclear whether or how changes in U.S. posture in Syria during 2019 will durably reshape
the U.S. relationship with Syrian Kurds. Military officials in late 2019 stated that joint U.S.-SDF
operations against the Islamic State had resumed, and Congress has appropriated funds for the
continued training and equipping of partner forces in Syria including the SDF. However, the
perceived uncertainty regarding U.S. policy in Syria and the future of the U.S. military presence
may prompt U.S. partner forces, including Kurds, to seek support elsewhere—including from
U.S. adversaries.
In early 2019, CJTF-OIR assessed that it was possible the SDF would splinter into separate
security force factions, depending in part on their negotiations with the Syrian government.
CJTF-OIR reported that the SDF “seeks to maintain semi-autonomous control of northeastern
Syria, either by controlling the territory with support from Coalition forces or by striking a deal
favorable to the constituent parts of the SDF with the Syrian regime and Russia.”183 It is possible
that as part of such an arrangement, the Syrian government and/or Russia could insist on
limitations being placed on U.S. operations, with uncertain but potentially negative effects on
U.S. operations against the Islamic State.
Countering Iran
U.S. military assessments continue to highlight the risks posed by foreign states operating in
Syria, particularly Iran. In late 2019, CENTCOM reported that Iran continued to maintain a
presence inside Syria in support of the Asad government and Iran’s own strategic objectives.184
CJTF-OIR reported to the DOD OIG that Iran’s goals in Syria include “retaining access to
Hezbollah in Lebanon, maintaining the ability to strike Israel from Syrian territory, maintaining a
military presence and military influence in Syria, and recouping investment through securing
economic and security contracts in Syria.”185
Some Members of Congress have raised concerns about Iranian drones conducting overflight
operations of U.S. bases in Syria and Iraq, which Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Milley has
described as “a very serious threat.”186 On at least two occasions in 2017, the U.S. Air Force shot
down armed Iranian UAVs that had advanced towards coalition forces in Syria with “hostile
intent.”187 Pro-Iranian militias operating in Syria, such as Kata’ib Hezbollah (KH), also may pose
a threat to U.S. forces. In December 2019, the United States launched retaliatory airstrikes on two
KH facilities in eastern Syria (and three KH facilities in Iraq) following a KH rocket attack in


182 “Kurdish informant provided key intel in operation that killed ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi,” NBC News,
October 28, 2019; “Trump’s Syria Troop Withdrawal Complicated Plans for al-Baghdadi Raid,” New York Times,
October 27, 2019.
183 Lead Inspector General for Operation Inherent Resolve, Quarterly Report to the United States Congress, January 1,
2019-March 31, 2019.
184 Lead Inspector General for Operation Inherent Resolve, Quarterly Report to the United States Congress, July 1,
2019-October 25, 2019, p. 32.
185 Ibid.
186 Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Milley before the House Armed Services Committee, December 11,
2019.
187 “DoD Official: Sole Focus in Iraq, Syria Remains on ISIS,” CENTCOM, June 20, 2017.
Congressional Research Service

43

---

Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response

northern Iraq that killed a U.S. contractor. U.S. personnel in Syria may be vulnerable to additional
attacks by Iran-backed forces, particularly following the January 2020 U.S. airstrike that killed
Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) Commander Qassem
Soleimani.
Addressing Humanitarian Challenges in Extremist-Held Areas
The international response to the humanitarian crisis in Idlib reflects a broader debate regarding
humanitarian assistance and counterterrorism, and how donors should balance the needs of
civilians against the risks that extremist groups could inadvertently benefit from, divert, or
influence the distribution of humanitarian assistance.188 Areas of Idlib province are the most
significant zone remaining outside of government control in western Syria, and the civilian
population has been described as caught between various extremist groups operating in the area
(some affiliated with Al Qaeda), and Syrian military forces which seek to bring the province
under central government control. Nevertheless, the presence of extremist groups in Idlib has
complicated the provision of humanitarian assistance to the province, out of concern that aid
could fall into the hands of Al Qaeda affiliated groups.189 Similarly, U.S. military assessments
have stated that, within camps for internally displaced persons, “DoD, DoS, and USAID have
struggled to address the often competing needs of providing security, isolating ISIS members and
supporters, preventing the spread of ISIS ideology, and providing for the health and welfare of
camp residents—who are mostly women and children.”190
Assisting Displaced Syrians
Conflict in Syria has taken the lives of hundreds of thousands of people and has displaced
millions within the country and beyond its borders. As the intensity of conflict has declined in
some areas of the country, displaced Syrians have faced difficult choices about whether or how to
return to their home areas amid uncertainty about security, potential political persecution, crime,
economic conditions, lost or missing documentation, and prospects for recovery. In 2018, the
Asad government passed legislation enabling the state to designate land anywhere in the country
for redevelopment and displace its current residents—a measure which could alter the
demographics of formerly opposition-held areas and complicate the return of refugees and
displaced persons.191 Humanitarian advocates and practitioners continue to raise concerns about
the security and protection of returnees and displaced individuals in light of conditions in many
areas of the country and questions about the Syrian government’s approach to political
reconciliation.192
In addition, mechanisms and mandates that have provided for the delivery of humanitarian
assistance across the Syrian border without the consent of the Syrian government are facing


188 See for example, Jessica Trisko Darden, “Humanitarian assistance has a terrorism problem. Can it be resolved?”
War on the Rocks, January 3, 2019; Joel R. Charny, “Counter-terrorism and humanitarian action: the perils of zero
tolerance,” War on the Rocks, March 20, 2019.
189 “US tightens counter-terror clampdown on Syria aid,” The New Humanitarian, September 21, 2018.
190 Lead Inspector General for Operation Inherent Resolve | Quarterly Report to the United States Congress | January 1,
2020 – March 31, 2020, p. 7.
191 “Law No. 10 of 2018: Housing, Land, and Property,” Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy, December 10, 2018.
192 See for example, Human Rights Watch, World Report 2020: Syria (pp. 539-546).
Congressional Research Service

44

---

Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response

increasingly forceful opposition by Russia and China at the U.N. Security Council. These states
argue that the situation on the ground has changed, making it possible for aid to transit through
official checkpoints, and that cross border aid mechanisms should be evaluated and adjusted in
light of these developments.193 In January 2020, the Security Council renewed a more limited
mandate for cross-border delivery of humanitarian assistance for six months instead of twelve.
The United States remains the leading donor for international humanitarian efforts related to
Syria, and U.S. policymakers may face a series of decisions about whether or how to continue or
adapt U.S. support in light of changing conditions and administrative and logistical constraints.
Preventing Involuntary Refugee Returns
Despite the various impediments to the safe and voluntary return of refugees to Syria,
neighboring states that have hosted thousands of Syrian refugees since the beginning of the crisis
in 2011are increasingly calling for refugees to return home. In Lebanon, which hosts the largest
number of Syrian refugees per capita (Syrian refugees are estimated to comprise up to a quarter of
the population) political leaders have stated that the return of refugees should not be contingent
on a political solution to the Syrian conflict.194
In a September 2019 address to the U.N. General Assembly, Lebanese President Aoun argued that
the conditions for the “safe and dignified return” of refugees to Syria have been met, stating, “per
international reports, the security situation on most of the Syrian territories has become stable, the
military confrontations have become confined to the Idlib region, and the Syrian State has
officially declared, time and again, that it welcomes the return of its displaced citizens.”195 Aoun
stated that more than 250,000 displaced persons had returned to Syria, and accused some states of
trying to hinder refugee return by “sowing fear among the displaced.”196 In some cases, the return
of refugees to Syria has been facilitated by the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF).197 It is unclear
whether all refugees departed Lebanon voluntarily.198 UNHCR has continued to assess that
conditions are not right for the large-scale return of refugees to Syria.
Turkey, which hosts the largest number of Syrian refugees overall, has proposed using
international funds to resettle a portion of its refugee population in territory it currently occupies
in northern Syria.199 In November 2019, President Erdogan presented the U.N. Secretary General
with a plan for “new settlement areas for the return of Syrian refugees.”200 The plan, which was
reviewed by some media organizations, reportedly would require more than $26 billion in foreign


193 “Describing Vast Scale of Need, Humanitarian Official Urges Security Council to Renew Authorization for
Lifesaving Cross-Border Aid Delivery in Syria,” SC/14061, December 19, 2019.
194 “Aoun Calls for Gradual Return of Syrian Refugees,” Asharq Al Awsat, March 8, 2018.
195 Address by Lebanese President Michel Aoun at the 74th session of the U.N. General Assembly, September 25, 2019.
196 Address by Lebanese President Michel Aoun at the 74th session of the U.N. General Assembly, September 25, 2019.
197 “Aoun: Lebanon Could Organize Return of Syrian Refugees with Damascus,” Asharq Al Awsat, May 4, 2019; “The
return of Syrian refugee families from the camps of Ersal to the village of Essal el-Ward in Syria,” July 12, 2017,
http://www.lebarmy.gov.lb.
198 Amnesty International, “Lebanon: Authorities must immediately halt deportation of Syrian refugees,” August 27,
2019.
199 “Turkey Wants Refugees to Move to a ‘Safe Zone.’ It’s a Tough Sell.” New York Times, November 1, 2019;
“Erdogan renews call for ‘safe zone’ support as Syrians return,” Al Monitor, December 17, 2019.
200 “Readout of the Secretary-General’s meeting with H.E. Mr. Recep Tayyip Erdogan, President of Turkey,”
http://www.un.org/sg/en, November 1, 2019.
Congressional Research Service

45

---

Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response

assistance.201 Some observers have questioned whether the plan would alter the demographics of
northern Syria by moving (primarily) Sunni Arab refugees into areas formerly administered by
Kurdish forces.202 U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres “stressed the basic principles relating
to the voluntary, safe and dignified of return of refugees,” but stated that UNHCR would form a
team to study the Turkish proposal.203 In late 2019, human rights organizations stated that it is
“likely” that hundreds of Syrian refugees had been detained and returned to Syria.204 In a
December 2019 hearing, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper also stated that Turkey was beginning
to return refugees to northern Syria.205
Managing Reconstruction Aid
In 2017, U.N. Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura estimated that Syria’s reconstruction
will cost at least $250 billion, and a group of U.N.-convened experts estimated in August 2018
that the cost of conflict damage (including lost economic opportunity during the conflict) could
exceed $388 billion.206 The Trump Administration has stated its intent not to contribute to the
reconstruction of Asad-controlled Syria absent fundamental political change and to use U.S.
diplomatic influence to discourage other international assistance to Asad-controlled Syria.
Congress also has acted to restrict the availability of U.S. funds for assistance projects in Asad-
controlled areas.207
In the absence of U.S. engagement, other actors such as Russia or China could conceivably
provide additional assistance for reconstruction purposes, but may be unlikely to mobilize
sufficient resources or adequately coordinate investments with other members of the international
community to meet Syria’s considerable needs. Predatory conditional assistance could also
further indebt the Syrian government to these or other international actors and might strengthen
strategic ties between Syria and third parties in ways inimical to U.S. interests. A lack of
reconstruction, particularly of critical infrastructure, could delay the country’s recovery and
exacerbate the legacy effects of the conflict on the Syrian population, with negative implications
for the country’s security and stability.
Supporting a Political Settlement to the Conflict
Since 2011, the United States has pursued a policy of seeking fundamental political change in
Syria, initially reflected in U.S. calls for President Asad to step aside. The Trump Administration
has stated that it seeks behavior change rather than regime change in Syria. However, the
Administration still calls for a political settlement to the Syria conflict based on UNSCR 2254,
which requires the drafting of a new constitution and the holding of U.N.-supervised elections.


201 “Turkey Pitches Plan to Settle 1 Million Refugees in Northern Syria,” Foreign Policy, December 18, 2019.
202 Ibid.
203 “Readout of the Secretary-General’s meeting with H.E. Mr. Recep Tayyip Erdogan, President of Turkey,”
http://www.un.org/sg/en, November 1, 2019.
204 “Sent to a war zone: Turkey’s illegal deportations of Syrian refugees,” Amnesty International, October 25, 2019.
205 Defense Secretary Mark Esper before the House Armed Services Committee, December 11, 2019.
206 Security Council Briefing on the Situation in Syria, Special Envoy Staffan de Mistura, November 27, 2017; and,
U.N. Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia, “Experts discuss post-conflict reconstruction policies after
political agreement in Syria,” August 7, 2018.
207 Section 7041(i)(2)(C) of Division G of P.L. 116-94 states that FY2020 funds made available for authorized purposes
in Syria “should not be used in areas of Syria controlled by a government led by Bashar al-Assad or associated forces.”
Congressional Research Service

46

---

Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response

Asad’s reelection in self-administered 2014 elections and his subsequent reconsolidation of
security control in much of western Syria may limit the likelihood of substantive political change
in line with U.S. preferences. U.N.-led negotiations over a settlement of the conflict remain open-
ended, but appear unlikely to result in the meaningful incorporation of opposition figures or
priorities into new governing arrangements in the short term. Alternative negotiations backed by
Asad’s Russian and Iranian supporters have their own logic and momentum, and place Syria’s
opposition groups in a political predicament. Congress and the Administration may reexamine
what remaining points of leverage the United States can exercise or whether new points of
leverage could be developed that might better ensure a minimally acceptable political outcome.
Members of Congress and Administration officials may differ among themselves over what such
an outcome might entail. Perceptions among Syrian opposition supporters of U.S. abandonment
or acquiescence to an Asad victory may also have long-term diplomatic and security
consequences for the United States and its partners.
Monitoring Destabilizing Economic and Political Trends
In 2020, international organizations have highlighted what they describe as “Syria’s severe
economic crisis.”208 In April, the World Food Program reported that the price of basic food staples
in Syria has increased by more than 100% over the past year; since mid-March some areas have
seen average price increases of 40%-50% for food staples.209 In early June 2020, some analysts
highlighted what they described as the collapse of the Syrian pound (SYP), which briefly traded
at over 3,000 to the dollar (as compared to 1,000 SYP to the dollar in January 2020, and 50 SYP
to the dollar pre-2011).210 President Asad also has faced rare public criticism, including from key
family members211 and foreign allies.212 Renewed protests in some parts of the country have
highlighted public discontent at state corruption and worsening economic conditions.213 At the
same time, renewed unrest in some areas previously recaptured from opposition forces have
prompted some analysts to describe Asad’s position as vulnerable despite the regime’s military
gains.214 It remains to be seen whether deteriorating economic conditions in Syria eventually
could erode broader support for Asad among regime loyalists, and potentially represent a new
destabilizing element within the country’s civil conflict.



208 Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, Mark Lowcock Briefing to
the Security Council on the humanitarian situation in Syria, New York, 29 April 2020.
209 Ibid; “Food Prices Across Syria Double In A Year: WFP,” AFP, April 27, 2020.
210 “Currency Collapse Increases Social and Political Risks,” Syria Report, June 10, 2020; “Syrian pound hits new lows
over regional tensions – traders,” Reuters, January 13, 2020.
211 “Syria’s Assad seeks to control economy, goes after cousin,” Associated Press, June 4, 2020.
212 “Ex-Russia envoy to Syria slams Assad regime as unfit to rule,” Middle East Monitor, April 21, 2020; “Has
Moscow really turned against Assad?” Atlantic Council, May 12, 2020.
213 “Protest in southwest Syria against faltering economy, corruption,” Al Jazeera, June 7, 2020.
214 “Syria’s Assad is confronting the toughest challenges of the 9-year war,” Washington Post, May 25, 2020;
“Assassinations in southern Syria expose limits of Assad’s control,” Financial Times, April 28, 2020.
Congressional Research Service

47

---

Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response

Appendix. Syria Study Group Findings and
Recommendations
In September 2019, the congressionally mandated Syria Study Group (SSG) released its final
report and recommendations. The group’s principal findings were as follows (direct quotations):

The liberation of ISIS-held territory does not eliminate the group’s threat to the United States.

The ISIS detainee population is a long-term challenge that is not being adequately addressed.

Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups remain active in Syria and threaten the United States.

Despite Israeli air strikes and U.S. sanctions, Iran continues to entrench itself in Syria; Russia
and Iran show few serious signs of divergence.

Assad has not won the conflict in Syria.

Progress toward a political settlement to the Syria conflict has stalled, and Assad shows no
willingness to compromise with his opponents.

The United States underestimated Russia’s ability to use Syria as an arena for regional
influence.

U.S.-Turkey relations are strained in Syria by starkly diverging views of the SDF. A Turkish
incursion into northeastern Syria would represent a major setback to U.S. aims in Syria and a
new crisis for the U.S.-Turkish relationship.

Although the SDF has been a highly effective partner in the fight against ISIS, it must
undergo a transition to ensure stability in northeastern Syria.

The Assad regime’s systematic targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure constitutes
war crimes and demands accountability, as well as enhanced efforts to protect civilians.

Syria’s humanitarian crisis, not least the challenges posed by internally displaced people and
refugees, will reverberate for decades. Most refugees are unlikely to return voluntarily given
current conditions in Syria.

Despite these challenges, the United States maintains leverage to shape an outcome in Syria
that protects core U.S. national security interests.
The group’s principal recommendations were as follows:

Halt the U.S. military withdrawal, consolidate gains in IS liberated areas, help local
communities establish alternate forms of governance

Update the U.S. military mission to head off an IS insurgency

Prepare contingency scenarios for an IS resurgence, a military engagement with Iranian
and/or Russian proxies forces, and a Turkish incursion into northeast Syria

Return START Forward personnel to Syria, restart U.S. stabilization funding, obligate
unspent funds in the Relief and Recovery Fund

Press the SDF to govern more inclusively and sever links with PKK leadership

Develop an internationally coordinated strategy for addressing the challenge posed by IS
detainees in Syria; designate one senior U.S. official charged with implementing a coherent
strategy to address all IS detainees populations; increase CTEF funding and update
authorized activities for Syria
Congressional Research Service

48

---

Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response


Assist the Iraqi Security Forces in preventing an IS resurgence in Iraq

Continue to isolate the Asad regime through sanctions, diplomatic pressure, and denial of
reconstruction aid

Test Russia’s willingness to support a political settlement but avoid making concessions to
Moscow

Prevent further entrenchment by Iran and its proxies through continued support of Israeli
airstrikes, sanctions enforcement, and maintaining the U.S. military presence at the At Tanf
garrison in southeastern Syria

Seek areas for cooperation with Turkey to address its legitimate security concerns while
pressing Turkey to avoid any incursion into northeast Syria

Address humanitarian crisis in Idlib while countering the presence of terrorist groups
Bolster humanitarian efforts; support neighboring states hosting refugees. Oppose efforts to
forcibly return Syrian refugees; resume accepting Syrian refugees in the United States.

Author Information

Carla E. Humud, Coordinator
Christopher M. Blanchard
Analyst in Middle Eastern Affairs
Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs




Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
RL33487 · VERSION 168 · UPDATED
49 1, 2022-June 30, 2022, p.72. 135 T he Revised Syria Humanitarian Assistance Response Plan (2013) listed among its strategic objectives: “Expand humanitarian response to encompass early recovery, and restoration/stabilization of livelihoods, supporting the government in the rehabilitation of vital public services affected by the crisis and creating an environment for humanitarian assistance to enhance the resilience of affected communities.” 136 Security Council Report, “In Hindsight: Getting Across the Line on Syria’s Cross-Border Mechanism,” July 30, 2021, at https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/monthly -forecast/2021-08/getting-across-the-line-reaching-an-agreement -on-syrias-cross-border-mechanism.php. 137 Report of the Secretary-General to the U.N. Security Council, S/2022/635, August 22, 2022, p 10. 138 Ibid. 139 Atlantic Council, “ T he politics of early recovery aid in Syria. Is it actually reconstruction aid?” February 8, 2022. 140 Sam Heller, Syrians Are Going Hungry. Will the West Act?, T he Century Foundation, June 7, 2021. See also Sam Heller, “Early Recovery” Aid Can Provide Vital Relief to Syrians—If Donors Follow Through, T he Cent ury Foundation, December 16, 2021. Congressional Research Service 24 Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response Asad Government Finances Members have sought to analyze and limit the sources of funding available to the Asad government; the FY2022 NDAA required the State Department to publish a report on the Asad family’s sources of income.141 Some Members criticized the final report, noting that they sought something “more comprehensive.”142 While there is broad congressional interest in measures that could reduce funds available to the Asad government, different views among Members have emerged in cases where measures potential y conflict with other foreign policy goals. Captagon Trade Production and trade of the amphetamine Captagon have emerged as a key source of funding for the Asad government. Syria’s Captagon industry has been linked to the Syrian state, with reports noting a significant and unexplained increase in Syrian exports of precursor chemicals and industrial-sized production centers concentrated in regime-held areas.143 Congress has sought to limit the Asad government’s ability to profit from the Captagon trade. The Countering Assad’s Proliferation Trafficking And Garnering of Narcotics Act (H.R. 6265, also known as the CAPTAGON Act) was introduced by Representative French Hil in December 2021, passed by the House in September 2022, and incorporated into the House-engrossed version of the FY2023 NDAA (Section 1229). It would require an interagency strategy to disrupt and dismantle drug trafficking networks linked to the Asad government, as wel as information on the use of existing statutory authorities, including the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act, and the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act. It also would require an assessment of current U.S. assistance and training programs to build counternarcotics capacity in countries receiving or transiting large shipments of Captagon. Regional Gas Deal In 2021, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon finalized a deal to import natural gas from Egypt and electricity from Jordan into Lebanon via Syria, generating criticism from some Members of Congress. In a February 2022 letter to Secretary of State Blinken, the ranking members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee argued that the deal would “undoubtedly enrich the Assad regime and trigger U.S. sanctions under the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act.”144 In June 2022, Assistant Secretary Leaf stated that the Administration had “made no commitments” regarding sanctions exemptions or waivers, and would make a final determination after reviewing the finalized contracts.145 In September, Lebanon’s energy minister stated that the World Bank was seeking a number of prerequisites including an increase in tariffs and the establishment of an electricity regulatory authority 141 State Department, Report to Congress on The Estimated Net Worth and Known Sources of Income of Syrian President Bashar Assad and His Fam ily Mem bers Section 6507 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 (P.L. 117-81). 142 Elizabeth Hagedorn, “US report offers few clues on Assad family wealth,” Al Monitor, April 29, 2022. See also, Adam Kredo, “ How the Biden Admin Is Protecting Syria’s Assad From Sanctions,” Washington Free Beacon, April 29, 2022. 143 For additional details, see New Lines Institute for Strategy and Policy, The Captagon Threat: A Profile of Illicit Trade, Consum ption, and Regional Realities, April 2022. 144 U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, “ Risch, McCaul Express Concern over Biden Administration’s Engagement in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt Energy Deals,” press release, February 1, 2022. 145 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, The Path Forward On U.S.-Syria Policy: Strategy And Accountability, hearing, 117th Cong., 2nd sess., June 8, 2022. Congressional Research Service 25 Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response (ERA).146 In November 2021, Lebanese authorities implemented a tariff increase; progress on an ERA appears to have stal ed. Legislative options for constraining a regional gas deal funded by the World Bank as a humanitarian project may be limited. Members could consider legislation directing U.S. representatives to international financial institutions to oppose and/or vote against any extension of loan credit to the Lebanese government that would include transfers (monetary or in-kind) to Syria—echoing prior legislation such as the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-99, also known as the ZDERA Act). At the same time, Members may weigh the expected benefits to Syria from the deal—which reportedly include an in-kind transfer of 8% of electricity imports and 7%-10% of the natural gas imports147—against the expected benefits to Lebanon (up to six hours of additional electricity per day).148 Lebanon’s state power company currently provides about two to three hours of electricity a day,149 triggering widespread blackouts and prompting some U.S. adversaries to attempt to fil the gap in basic service provision. In 2021, Hezbollah reportedly transported more than 1 mil ion gal ons of diesel fuel into Lebanon.150 In September 2022, Iranian officials stated that Iran could provide Lebanon with 600,000 tonnes of fuel to help ease power shortages.151 Misuse of Aid Funds Some Members have expressed concern regarding reports that some humanitarian assistance to Syria may be diverted to the Asad government, or otherwise misused.152 In a March 2022 hearing on the humanitarian impact of the Syria conflict, Members sought information on the screening mechanisms used to ensure that humanitarian programs do not benefit the Asad government.153 In October 2022, a study entitled UN Procurement Contracts in Syria: A “few” Bad Apples? examined the extent to which private companies involved in human rights abuses benefit from the U.N. procurement process in Syria. The study found that “nearly 47% of procurement funding in Syria, during the period studied in the report, is estimated to have been awarded to risky or highly risky suppliers.”154 Examples of indicators that define a supplier as “very high risk” include cases in which the company or a person with significant control or ownership over the company 146 The Syrian Observer, “T he Caesar Act and World Bank T erms Disrupt Egypt -Lebanon Gas Deal,” September 21, 2022; see also Middle East Institute, “ Power sector reforms are new Lebanese governments’ ultimate test ,” September 27, 2021. 147 Foundation for Defense of Democracies, “T he White House Is Bending the Law on Syria Sanctions,” May 12, 2022. 148 Bryant Harris and Joyce Karam, “Arab states get cold feet over Egypt-to-Lebanon gas deal,” The National, February 22, 2022. 149 Wilson Center, “ U.S. Policy on Lebanon: A Conversation with Assistant Secretary of State f or NEA Ambassador Barbara Leaf”, November 4, 2022. 150 Ben Hubbard and Hwaida Saad, “With Fuel from Iran, Hezbollah Steps In Where Lebanon Has Failed,” New York Tim es, September 16, 2021. 151 Reuters, “Iran ready to offer Lebanon 600,000 tonnes of fuel, Al Manar T V reports,” September 20, 2022. 152 Natasha Hall, Rescuing Aid in Syria, CSIS, February 2022; Human Rights Watch, Rigging the System: Government Policies Co-Opt Aid and Reconstruction Funding in Syria , June 28, 2019. Other studies have found that aid diversion is a challenge across a range of conflicts. See, for example, CSIS, Denial, delay, diversion: Tackling access challenges in an evolving hum anitarian landscape, October 30, 2019. 153 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Middle East, North Africa, and Global Counterterrorism, 11 Years of War: The Hum anitarian Im pact of the Ongoing Conflict in Syria, hearing, 117th Cong., 2nd sess., March 16, 2022. 154 Syrian Legal Development Programme and Observatory of Political and Economic Networks, UN Procurement Congressional Research Service 26 Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response  is a front for an individual or an entity involved in conflict-related human rights abuses;  provided logistical or other types of support to the Syrian armed forces/government since 2011;  financed and/or controlled the military operations of paramilitary groups; or  has investments/is involved in urban redevelopment projects in areas affected by forced displacement and housing land and property rights violations. The study also found that “the share of funds going to companies with owners sanctioned by the US, EU, or the UK was at least 23% (68 mil ion USD).”155 Separately, in October 2020, the Associated Press reported on an ongoing investigation regarding al egations of misspent funds and other abuses by the head of the World Health Organization’s local office in Syria.156 Members could seek additional information on U.N. procurement efforts in Syria, or consider whether to implement some of the recommendations for donor states highlighted in the October 2022 report. Some of these recommendations include requesting human rights due diligence reports on local suppliers to improve oversight (as wel as providing additional funds to conduct human rights risks assessments). Some Members previously have explored legislative options for increasing oversight of U.S. funding for U.N. programs in Syria. In the 116th Congress, Representatives Wilson, Kildee, Gonzalez, and Chabot introduced the Stop UN Support for Assad Act of 2019 (H.R. 4868), which would have prohibited U.S. funding for U.N. programs in Syria unless the Department of State certified that such funding (1) was delivered impartial y; (2) did not directly provide material support to the Syrian government or associated forces; (3) adhered to the United Nations Supplier Code of Conduct; and (4) was vetted by an independent mechanism that reviews contract procurement in Syrian government-held areas.157 Ongoing Challenges There are divergent views regarding how the United States should approach Syria policy going forward. One view—reflecting the approach of the Biden Administration to date—maintains that U.S. goals in Syria should remain limited. In mid-2022, the Departments of Defense and State reported to Congress that U.S. policy in Syria is focused on “practical and achievable goals,” such as defeating the Islamic State and Al Qaeda, maintaining local cease-fires, and promoting accountability for Asad government crimes.158 This policy has faced criticism, including by one observer who contends that a limited approach focused on counterterrorism may prove destabilizing over the long term. He argues that the U.S. decision to work “by, with, and through” the SDF makes sense from a counterterrorism perspective.... The SDF is a problematic choice however, when it comes to other aspects of the larger struggle to defeat IS. Under U.S. auspices, the SDF has become the de facto governing authority, the “key powerbroker,” over Arab majority areas that largely reject its legitimacy and view its governance as arbitrary, abusive, and discriminatory.... In Contracts in Syria: A “few” Bad Apples? October 2022. 155 Ibid. 156 Associated Press, “WHO Syria boss accused of corruption, fraud, abuse, AP finds,” October 20, 2022. 157 Stop UN Support for Assad Act of 2019, H.R. 4868, Section 4. 158 LIG-OIR, Quarterly Report to the United States Congress, April 1, 2022-June 30, 2022, p. 52. Congressional Research Service 27 Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response outsourcing local governance to the SDF, the U.S. is contributing to conditions in which local grievances thrive.159 The Administration policy has also faced criticism from some Members who argue that Administration efforts to date—focused on the delivery of humanitarian aid and the expansion of stabilization support in areas liberated from the Islamic State—“merely address symptoms of the underlying conflict and wil ultimately fal flat in the absence of a broader diplomatic strategy to resolve the decade-long civil war.”160 Another analyst characterized the Administration’s approach as one of “ruthless pragmatism,” based on the implicit acknowledgement that President Bashar Assad has won and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Team Biden apparently believes that by coming to terms with this reality, the United States will stand a better chance of getting more aid to the people in Syria who need it, help the poor Lebanese, alter relations with Russia ... and peel the Syrians from the Iranians.161 This approach could lead the Administration to focus increasingly on stabilization and early recovery as a means of preventing the resurgence of the Islamic State while providing urgently needed humanitarian support. Such efforts would align with arguments made by some humanitarian actors and political observers. Following Russia’s veto of a 12-month extension to the authorization for cross-border aid, some humanitarian actors argued that aid agencies may need to shift from humanitarian interventions focused on immediate needs to early recovery programs, such as support for agriculture and related critical infrastructure, stating that such programs can gradual y decrease food insecurity and reliance on outside food aid.162 Similarly, some political analysts have argued that the United States should devote more funds to early recovery programs in Syria, and that “the emphasis must shift from emergency aid toward stabilization and targeted reconstruction.”163 While international and U.S. plans are for humanitarian assistance to continue to be implemented throughout Syria based on need, Congress may play a determining role in shaping whether, to what extent, and under what terms bilateral economic assistance can or should be expanded to regime-held areas, where the majority of Syria’s population is concentrated. Members may debate the potential long-term risks and benefits of limiting bilateral assistance to areas of the country controlled by U.S.-backed forces. Some experts have differed with the Biden Administration’s policy, cal ing for the United States to exert greater pressure on the Asad regime and its al ies. Advocates of this approach argue that the United States should increase economic pressure on the Asad government (including by potential y expanding secondary sanctions on countries dealing with sanctioned Syrian entities), as wel as focus on efforts to force the withdrawal of Iran and Iran-backed militias from Syria. In this vein, congressional action could include legislation designed to seek to “close sanctions 159 Steven Heydemann, “ Not by counterterrorism alone: Root causes and the defeat of the Islamic State group ,” Brookings Institution, February 17, 2022. 160 House Foreign Affairs Committee, “ Meeks, McCaul, Menendez, Risch Raise Concerns Over U.S. Policy in Syria,” press release, January 11, 2022. 161 Steven Cook, “ Biden’s Middle East Strategy Is Ruthless Pragmatism,” Foreign Policy, January 7, 2022. 162 See, for example, Sahar Atrache and Sabiha Khan, Transforming Syria’s Lifeline: A Plan for Sustaining Cross-Border Aid in Northwest Syria, Refugees International, July 2022. 163 Charles Lister, “Freeze and Build: A Strategic Approach to Syria Policy,” Middle East Institute, March 2022. See also Sam Heller, “Early Recovery” Aid Can Provide Vital Relief to Syrians—If Donors Follow Through, T he Century Foundation, December 16, 2021. Congressional Research Service 28 Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response loopholes, thwart the pipeline deal, and make some sanctions against Assad and his al ies mandatory.”164 One supporter of this position argues that “where UN aid is concerned, the Biden administration and Congress should work together to stop U.S. funds from going to the World Food Program and other UN agencies in Damascus until they do transparent due diligence on their contractors and subcontractors.”165 This alternative approach would likely also face chal enges. The expansion of secondary sanctions to countries economical y engaged in Syria could implicate a growing number of U.S. regional al ies, as countries such as Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, and Turkey explore outreach to Damascus. Efforts to stem the diversion of humanitarian assistance by the Asad government—if set as a prerequisite to the continued flow of aid—would impact mil ions of Syrian civilians who depend on such aid to meet their basic needs. Ultimately, any approach to Syria could involve a series of trade-offs, where policymakers could try to clearly prioritize their objectives and potential y face limits to U.S. leverage in altering the course of the decade-long war. Author Information Carla E. Humud Analyst in Middle Eastern Affairs Disclaimer This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should n ot be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material. 164 Joel Rayburn, “T he Vacuum In U.S. Syria Policy—And How T o Fill It,” Hoover Institution, September 6, 2022. 165 Ibid. Congressional Research Service RL33487 · VERSION 170 · UPDATED 29

---