The U.S. defense budget is one of the most important indicators of Washington’s foreign policy priorities. It does not only reflect the scale of military spending but also reveals the administration’s approach to conflict zones worldwide. Syria stands at the center of these priorities, as a complex arena where global and regional powers intersect—between declared support for local forces and constant threats of military action.
A panel discussion addressing the influences on the Syrian, Iraqi, and Lebanese scenes from a special American perspective after the approval of the 2026 American defense budget project by the U.S. House of Representatives. Guests: New York | Issam Khoury – Journalist and Political Analyst Amman | Dr. Ghazi Faisal – Director of the Iraqi Center for Studies Via Al-Youm Channel
First: Dimensions of U.S. Support in Syria
- Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF): The primary beneficiaries of U.S. funding, particularly in countering ISIS. Washington aims to maintain the SDF as a capable force to prevent the group’s resurgence and to balance the Syrian regime’s influence.
- Humanitarian and logistical assistance: Although the budget is predominantly military, part of it indirectly supports humanitarian programs through the Department of Defense and related agencies, ensuring stability in local communities across northern and eastern Syria.
- Training and armament: Limited training programs target local units considered “reliable” by Washington, reflecting its desire to build a dependable local partner for the future.
Second: Threats and Deterrence
- The Syrian regime and its allies: Washington perceives Damascus, along with Iran and Russia, as a direct threat to U.S. interests and allies in the region. The budget allows for sustained aerial monitoring and targeted strikes when necessary.
- Iran: A portion of the spending is directed at countering Iranian influence in Syria, through strengthening the U.S. military presence at al-Tanf and around oil fields.
- Israel as a key factor: U.S. defense planning accounts for Israel’s security, explaining why the budget covers air defense systems and intelligence cooperation linked to Iran’s presence in Syria.
Third: The Paradox of Support and Threat
The central paradox of the U.S. budget lies in its dual nature:
- On one hand, supporting local Syrian actors such as the SDF to maintain relative stability.
- On the other hand, using these funds as a tool of pressure and deterrence against Damascus and its regional allies, leaving U.S. policy oscillating between empowerment of partners and perpetuation of military tension.
Fourth: Implications for Syria
- Maintaining the budget in this form entrenches instability, as it does not push toward a comprehensive political solution.
- Local actors benefiting from U.S. support remain in a state of dependency, deepening internal divisions.
- The continued threat toward the regime and its allies limits their expansion but does not necessarily lead to behavioral change.
Conclusion
The U.S. defense budget shows that Syria will remain suspended between support and threat. While not Washington’s top priority, Syria continues to serve as a strategic pressure point in its broader confrontation with Russia and Iran. In the absence of international consensus on Syria’s future, the U.S. military budget remains an instrument for crisis management rather than resolution.
About the Author
