President Donald Trump declared during his first term that the Islamic State had been defeated and that U.S. forces would withdraw from Syria. This weekend, however, a gunman linked to ISIS killed two Iowa National Guardsmen and an American translator at the gate of a base in Palmyra, a former Islamic State stronghold.
Soon after a joint patrol, Syrian and U.S. personnel were returning to the base when the attacker opened fire. U.S. Central Command described the assailant, whom Syrian forces killed at the scene, as a “lone ISIS gunman.” President Trump wrote on social media that the shooting was an attack on both the United States and Syria and vowed retaliation.
Troubling Detail: Syrian government spokesman Nour al-Din al-Baba said the shooter was a member of the Syrian armed forces and had already been under investigation for "extremist" views before the attack. Authorities said they were determining whether he was an outright Islamic State member or merely a sympathizer. Agence France-Presse reported that 11 other members of Syrian security forces were detained for questioning after the incident.
How This Fits Into the Bigger Picture
The Palmyra shooting appears to be the first overseas "green-on-blue" incident — when an allied servicemember attacks partner forces — since the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021. Like Afghanistan, the U.S. mission in Syria has continued long after the original objective changed, creating a persistent question about purpose and end state.
U.S. troops entered Syria to defeat ISIS, which lost its last territorial holdings in 2018. Many U.S. forces stayed to counter Iran-backed elements and other regional threats. The 2019 withdrawal plan was disrupted by the risk of a Turkish invasion, and more recently the political landscape shifted after the December 2024 uprising that brought President Ahmad al-Sharaa to power.
After Sharaa visited the White House in November 2025 and pledged to join the U.S.-led coalition against ISIS, American forces began patrolling alongside Syrian troops in areas they had not previously entered — including Palmyra. U.S. officials have also discussed building a new base near Damascus framed as a peacekeeping facility between Syria and Israel.
Responses and Risks
Administration officials argue a limited U.S. presence prevents an ISIS resurgence and protects the American homeland. Tom Barrack, U.S. ambassador to Turkey and special envoy to Syria, wrote that U.S. forces "empower capable local Syrian partners to take the fight to these terrorists on the ground, ensuring that American forces do not have to engage in another costly, large-scale war in the Middle East."
"A limited number of U.S. forces remain deployed in Syria solely to finish the job of defeating ISIS once and for all," Barrack wrote on social media.
President Trump promised "very serious retaliation" against ISIS. Hours after the attack, locals filmed American jets flying low and dropping flares near Palmyra. Jared Szuba, the Pentagon correspondent for Al-Monitor, argued that operations targeting underground ISIS cells would deny the group a propaganda victory and shift attention away from the Syrian government.
Critics warn this logic risks an open-ended cycle: every attack on U.S. personnel is used to justify a deeper presence, which in turn creates more targets. Libertarian-leaning Rep. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.) called for withdrawal and said lawmakers should consider defunding foreign military groups in Syria.
Separately, the Syrian outlet Step News Agency reported that Islamic State insurgents killed 10 Syrian soldiers on Sunday, underscoring the ongoing threat from insurgent groups across the country.
What This Means
The Palmyra shooting highlights the dangers of partnered operations in an unstable, fluid environment. Whether the attacker was an ISIS member or a radicalized Syrian soldier, the incident raises urgent questions about vetting, force protection, and the strategic purpose of maintaining U.S. troops in Syria. Policymakers must weigh short-term tactical gains against the long-term risks of entanglement in a conflict with shifting alliances and persistent insurgent threats.
Sources: U.S. Central Command; Agence France-Presse; Al-Monitor; Step News Agency; public statements from the White House and U.S. officials.
