Syria stands once again at a crossroads, teetering between the prospect of reconstruction and the enduring specter of chaos. After decades under the brutal grip of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, the country now faces a tenuous opening to rebuild. But how that opportunity unfolds will hinge not only on the actions of the Syrian government and its allies, but critically, on the posture of the international community—most significantly, the United States.

As Timothy Lenderking, a senior State Department official specializing in Near Eastern affairs, put it during a recent Middle East Institute conference in Washington: this is a “pivotal moment for Syria and the broader region.” His remarks came with an appeal to U.S. policymakers to choose wisely. But what does wisdom look like in this fractured landscape? And how might a renewed Trump presidency shape Syria’s fate?

Donald Trump’s return to the Oval Office would herald a significant recalibration of Washington’s approach. His previous term was marked by erratic policies and sharp pivots. Chief among them was the 2019 withdrawal of U.S. troops from northern Syria, a move that upended regional dynamics and cleared the way for a Turkish military incursion aimed at quelling Kurdish forces near the border. To some, this was an abandonment of America’s commitment to the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF); to others, it reflected Trump’s broader ambition to extricate the U.S. from “forever wars.” His foreign policy has always leaned transactional—prioritizing short-term gain over sustained regional stability—and that instinct could once again inject volatility into an already fragile context.

Sanctions policy is likely to be an early flashpoint. Though Trump’s administration implemented the Caesar Act in 2019, targeting Assad’s regime for human rights abuses, his use of economic pressure has always been more about bargaining chips than moral principle. A second Trump term could see those sanctions loosened or lifted altogether if it suits a broader diplomatic calculus. That might spark modest economic revival—but it could just as easily rehabilitate regime-linked oligarchs and war criminals, undercutting efforts at justice and reconciliation.

Then there’s Russia. Trump’s approach to Moscow has never followed the bipartisan orthodoxy. While the Biden administration had drawn clear red lines in both Ukraine and Syria, Trump has long maintained an openness to engaging Vladimir Putin. This could revive U.S.-Russia dialogue over Syria’s future, but it might also grant the Kremlin freer rein to entrench its military presence and influence the country’s postwar trajectory. If Trump attempts to rekindle his diplomatic rapport with Putin, Washington’s leverage could diminish just as Syria begins to redefine its identity.

On Iran, however, Trump’s path is more predictable. His “maximum pressure” campaign defined his administration’s approach—ditching the nuclear agreement and tightening sanctions on Tehran. Another Trump term would almost certainly renew that effort, particularly with the goal of dislodging Iranian proxies from Syrian territory. This objective dovetails with long-standing U.S. aims of curbing Iranian influence, but it remains unclear whether Trump would dedicate the necessary diplomatic and military resources or simply outsource the job to regional players like Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Perhaps the most audacious—and uncertain—dimension of a Trump return would be whether he seeks to extend the Abraham Accords to Damascus. Some analysts speculate that he might tie U.S. engagement and sanctions relief to Syrian normalization with Israel. Such a development would represent a geopolitical earthquake. But even with a reconfigured leadership, it’s doubtful that Syria could risk such a realignment without igniting internal backlash or further destabilizing its already fractured political order.

The massacre of hundreds of Alawite civilians in Latakia last month underscored the precariousness of Syria’s security. The interim government moved quickly to contain the fallout, but serious questions remain about its capacity to enforce stability, demobilize militias, and establish meaningful rule of law. For Trump—who has typically favored shows of force over long-term governance initiatives—there’s a risk that institutional reform and civil reconstruction will fall by the wayside. His instinct might be to leave Syria’s fate to local strongmen and regional rivals, rather than invest in the kind of engagement required to mend a broken state.

Ultimately, Syria’s trajectory will be shaped by whether the United States chooses to reengage with purpose or retreat into the shadows. Trump’s unpredictability complicates any firm prediction, but his record points to a pattern: economic opportunism, strategic disengagement, and a penchant for improvising alliances. For Syrians and the international actors still invested in the country’s fragile future, the challenge is to navigate the turbulence of a second Trump term without letting Syria slide back into the abyss it has only just begun to crawl out of.