Former al-Qaeda member al-Sharaa markets himself as a U.S. ally in the fight against Islamic extremism, yet recent events have cast doubt on this partnership. Most notably, the tragic attack on December 13, 2025, resulted in the deaths of two U.S. soldiers from the Iowa National Guard and a civilian interpreter. They were killed during an attack at a Syrian Internal Security Forces facility near Palmyra. Initially, both President Trump and the Syrian government blamed ISIS for the attack. However, further developments revealed a more troubling reality: the assailant was a member of Syria’s security forces, radicalized in support of ISIS.
Interestingly, ISIS has not claimed credit for this specific assault, a move that raises eyebrows. The group typically jumps at the chance to take responsibility for attacks, as evidenced by their involvement in over 150 operations in Syria’s Badia desert this year. This calculated silence suggests a deeper strategy at play. By refraining from immediate acknowledgment, ISIS redirects attention to al-Sharaa’s government, insinuating that the incident reflects an insider threat rather than an outward assault by the jihadist group.
The implications are significant. The attacker was part of the defense forces stationed in a government-controlled area, creating a scenario where questions of regime complicity or incompetence arise. For al-Sharaa, this incident undercuts any semblance of control he holds over his forces. It strengthens narratives among the Syrian opposition, which paints his government as merely “terrorists in suits.” This situation undermines al-Sharaa’s claim to legitimacy and jeopardizes the existing partnership between the United States and Syria at a pivotal time.
Historical patterns reveal that this tactic of silence is not new. In Iraq during 2017 and 2018, ISIS used a similar strategy to evade responsibility for attacks carried out by insiders against coalition forces. U.S. Central Command identified this as a means to fuel paranoia regarding infiltration within Shia-led governments. The current dynamics in Syria appear to mirror this approach. By allowing uncertainty to prevail, ISIS perpetuates doubts about al-Sharaa’s capacity to eradicate extremist elements from his ranks.
ISIS stands to gain from the chaos. By fostering an atmosphere of doubt and insecurity, they weaken the credibility of al-Sharaa’s government while remaining shielded from direct retaliation. The relationship between ISIS and al-Sharaa’s HTS is complex, underpinned by both shared roots and outright rivalry. Although they originate from similar ideological backgrounds, ISIS views HTS as traitorous nationalists for their cooperation with the West. Attacks on al-Sharaa’s regime, such as the car bombing in Mayadin, signal the lengths ISIS is willing to go to destabilize him.
Interestingly, ISIS finds itself in a unique position. By not claiming the attack, they can inflict significant political damage on al-Sharaa without provoking a military response from the United States. This illustrates strategic alignment with their broader destabilization goals, thriving amid chaos and power vacuums, especially during times of U.S. military drawdowns.
The atmosphere of uncertainty only intensifies in light of public discourse surrounding the attack. Pro-opposition voices on platforms like X have alleged that al-Sharaa has engaged in cover-ups, arguing that early denials from his Interior Ministry have fueled suspicions of HTS’s ties to ISIS. Both Arabic and English-language posts have pointed to alleged ignored warnings to U.S. forces, insinuating negligence or worse from al-Sharaa’s government.
While President Trump unequivocally blamed ISIS, al-Sharaa’s attempts to address these fears have not been successful in quelling doubts. Ongoing investigations into the attacker’s ties to ISIS keep speculation alive regarding the government’s involvement. ISIS may yet decide to claim responsibility if they perceive any propaganda advantage in doing so. On the other hand, it’s also possible that the attack was executed by a lone actor, further muddying the waters.
For now, ISIS plays a cautious game, allowing suspicion to linger. This strategic avoidance complicates trust between Washington and Damascus, jeopardizing potential future cooperation and further challenging al-Sharaa’s fragile power at a time when stability is critical. In essence, the attack reveals the precarious nature of al-Sharaa’s position and underscores the depth of infiltration within Syria’s security apparatus. As events unfold, the impact of this incident will likely resonate throughout the region, shaping the future of U.S.-Syria relations for years to come.
"*" indicates required fields
