Numerous Democratic and Republican senators linked the surprise fall of Bashar Al-Assad’s regime in Syria to Israel’s recent actions against Hezbollah and other Iranian proxies in recent months.

The senators that Jewish Insider interviewed also largely urged a cautious approach toward U.S. involvement in the chaotic and still-emerging new Syria, warning that the country’s new governance structure, system and ideology remain unclear at this point, though many emphasized the need for some level of continued U.S. engagement. 

President-elect Donald Trump has said the U.S. should stay out of the conflict, calling it “NOT OUR FIGHT.”

“What happened in Syria is a direct result of Israel not only asserting its right to defend itself, but Israel’s very prudent decision to ignore President Biden’s appeasement,” Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) told Jewish Insider. “I agree with [Trump] that we don’t need to be involved in a civil disagreement. Clearly, there will be a disagreement about who’s going to run the country, but at the end of the day, that decision ought to be made by the Syrian people. We ought to strongly suggest that other countries like Turkey and Russia and Iran stay out, just like us.”

Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) said, “Israel’s striking progress against Hezbollah recently really opened the door for the fall of Assad in a way that I think wasn’t foreseen by a lot of analysts.”

Coons said that the U.S. has a “strong interest” in making sure that ISIS cannot come back to power and in maintaining stability. Ultimately, he added, lasting stability will be “exceptionally difficult” and “require a combination of engagement by regional leaders as well as good luck.”

He said the Assad regime’s fall could also see “Russia … lose its foothold in the Middle East as a result, which will have big impacts for the whole region and for Russia’s actions.” 

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) linked Assad’s fall to Israel having “done a magnificent job weakening Iran and its proxies” and said that Russia’s entanglement in Ukraine had also weakened its hand in Syria.

He said he doesn’t see any need for U.S. involvement in Syria beyond attacks on ISIS positions,  adding that Assad’s deposition served as a positive development, but “it’s hard to know exactly how this story ends.”

“It’s still a very difficult environment because there are so many different groups getting after it, and so trying to figure out some way to provide some stability there,” Cornyn said.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) said the situation “should bring home to my colleagues the importance of continuing to support Ukraine and Israel, because Israel’s steadfast fight also played a major role.”

“What most impresses me is the profound blow to Iran and Russia, which in part, [is] the result of our steadfastly supporting Ukraine, weakening Russia,” Blumenthal said.

On both sides of the aisle, lawmakers were hesitant to over-commit to U.S. involvement in the situation, though several emphasized the need to block a resurgence of ISIS and other terrorist groups, and support U.S. allies.

Sen. Thom Tills (R-NC) said that Trump’s skepticism of direct U.S. involvement in the situation is warranted, advocating for a wait-and-see approach.

“I do believe it was a loss for Russia and Iran, but there’s a lot of uncertainty there, so we don’t have to rush in and fill the vacuum,” Tillis said. “We have to always keep ISIS and Al-Qaida in check and I think President Trump has said things to that effect, but I don’t think we should rush in and fill this vacuum. I think we should watch.”

Tillis said that the U.S. should focus on stability, protecting Israel and protecting U.S. forces in eastern Syria. “That’s what we ought to focus on and see how the rest plays out.”

Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) said he doesn’t think the U.S. should insert itself into Syria’s domestic matters, though he does support the U.S. continuing to hit ISIS targets in the territory. 

“Anytime we can hit ISIS in the face, let’s go hit them. I have zero issues with that whatsoever,” Mullin said. “I don’t think we should get involved. Hitting ISIS is different, right? They’re a threat to us, and they’re constantly hitting us. [Let’s] take them, wipe our boots with them, right? But as far as getting in the transition, getting involved in the government, that’s not our fight. That’s the Syrians. Let them decide that.”

Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) expressed his concern about the small U.S. garrison in Syria, arguing that the U.S. had to remain involved in the region.

“Obviously, we’ve still gotta be able to push back on ISIS and their expansion into the vacuum, and we’ve got to defend the Kurds. As their allies, we need to stay very engaged. We need to make a very clear statement to the Turks that we stand with the Kurds and believe in their opportunity to have freedom. There are a lot of areas where we do need to stay engaged,” Lankford told JI.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) praised Assad’s fall while calling the current situation “extraordinarily dangerous,” given the key role that Islamist terrorists played in the Syrian revolution. Abu Mohammed Al-Julani, the leader of the main insurgent group, is a former Al-Qaida and ISIS member.

“I have long expressed deep concern that toppling Assad would result in an even worse regime that puts America and Israel at greater peril,” Cruz said. “For 20-plus years, we have seen a pattern of American presidents, both Republicans and Democrats, toppling dictators who were fighting terrorists, only to see the terrorists turn around and attack Americans instead.”

Cruz emphasized that the U.S. and Israel need to make sure that the country’s chemical weapons don’t fall into the hands of terrorists.

Several lawmakers suggested that it’s too early to say what U.S. involvement will ultimately entail.

Sen. Angus King (I-ME) described the situation as “fluid” given uncertainties around the beliefs and plans of the country’s new leaders. He also highlighted the implications for Russia’s foothold in the Middle East.

“So I think we just have to wait and see, but clearly, it’s a very heavy blow to Russia and Iran. One of the remaining questions is whether the new regime will tolerate the Russian base on the west coast of Syria, which is their main outpost in the Middle East,” King said. “It’s been too long in coming, but I think it’s a positive development also for the people of Syria. One of the best signs I learned today is that there are Syrian refugees coming back, which I think is a very good sign for the country.”

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) said the U.S. will “always have some involvement” in the region but “it’s hard to say” what its role will be in the establishment of a new government or how it can influence that government in a positive direction “because Syria is one of those places where all your options are bad.”

“It’s one of those things where you need to be careful what you wish for,” Cramer continued.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), who will be the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the next Congress, called Assad’s ouster “good news for the Syrian people” but warned, “What remains to be seen is what the rebels’ approach is going to be. So far, it’s encouraging, but we’re a long way from knowing how that’s going to play out.”

Several lawmakers expressed a degree of openness to some U.S. role in influencing the new government in Syria.

Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-TN) said the U.S. and its allies need to work closely to “ascertain what the leadership structure is going to look like in Syria,” ensuring that the country’s chemical weapons do not fall into the wrong hands, that terrorist groups in the country do not gain strength to threaten the United States and that Iran is constrained.

“That’s going to be our overarching goal,” Hagerty, who is close with Trump, said. “That doesn’t mean we have to put the boots on the ground to do that. What it means is that we need to support Israel. We need to support our other allies in the region as order is brought to bear there.”

He said it would be important to influence the incoming leadership structure toward those with whom the U.S. can work, adding that that’s a goal the U.S., Israel, Jordan, Turkey and other allies can pursue together “because in broad respect our interests are aligned.” He called the Abraham Accords the “model” and the “architecture” for the path forward for Syria.

Asked about whether the U.S. troops should remain — Trump tried to withdraw the U.S. presence during his first term — Hagerty said that he did not want to speak on the subject before Trump makes his decision but emphasized, “this is not a nation-building exercise.”

Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the U.S.’ “participation should be multilateral.”

“It should include Arab states, and it should be designed more to provide stability to the country, not military activity so much as helping them organize the government, helping them get back to commerce, and to a more routine way of life,” Reed said.

Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) described the regional situation as “risky” and unstable. He said the U.S. may have a role to play but that the Syrian people should be in the driver’s seat.

“There are opportunities, but I think we have to be clearheaded. Based on decades of experience, when despots are deposed what comes next is not always more stable or more humane,” Schatz said. “But the possibility for self governance in Syria, the possibility for regional stability provides a window for hope, and wherever the United States can help to facilitate that, either at the diplomatic or military level, we ought to do that, but Syrians should govern Syria, and we should play a helpful role when asked.”