عربي English Türkçe اردو فارسى
Logo
Latest News
Features

No Strategic Change as Iran Begins 'Tactical' Withdrawal of its Militias in Syria

A Russian soldier on his armoured vehicle watches Syrian opposition factions during evacuation from Daraa city, on July 15, 2018. (AFP)
A Russian soldier on his armoured vehicle watches Syrian opposition factions during evacuation from Daraa city, on July 15, 2018. (AFP)
TT
20
TT

No Strategic Change as Iran Begins 'Tactical' Withdrawal of its Militias in Syria

A Russian soldier on his armoured vehicle watches Syrian opposition factions during evacuation from Daraa city, on July 15, 2018. (AFP)
A Russian soldier on his armoured vehicle watches Syrian opposition factions during evacuation from Daraa city, on July 15, 2018. (AFP)

Iran has intensified in recent days the redeployment of its militias in various regions in Syria, including Damascus and Deir Ezzour, and even moving west towards Iraq.

Officials dismissed these moves as nothing more than "tactical", saying that they don't signify any strategic change for Iran in Syria.

A western official told Asharq Al-Awsat that the tactical withdrawal could have been prompted by several factors, such as the Iranian economic crisis and the new coronavirus pandemic. He said the tensions with the United States playing out in Iraq are another factor. He also noted the reemergence of ISIS in the west, Israel's intensification of its strikes on Syria and the easing of the fighting in some Syrian regions, as well as Russian pressure.

At the same time, some foreign Iranian militias were handing over their positions to Syrian militias that are loyal to Tehran. He compared the situation to what happened in southern Syria after the American-Russian deal that called for the withdrawal of non-Syrian forces to 80 kilometers from the Jordan border and disengagement line in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.

Redeployment

The Deir Ezzour 24 network reported on Monday that members of the Fatemiyoun and 313 organizations had moved from Deir Ezzour and al-Mayadeen on Saturday. The former returned to their headquarters in Palmyra, while the other group returned the Sayeda Zainab area south of Damascus.

The network said they were transported in civilian buses without their weapons. The majority of the members were Afghans and they were replaced by local forces.

Sayeda Zainab had recently witnessed tensions between Syrian forces and Iranian factions over the regime's decision to lock down the area over the coronavirus outbreak.

Iranian and Iraqi forces loyal to Damascus are deployed widely in the Deir Ezzour countryside, especially in the Alboukamal and al-Mayadeen areas. They also control the Alboukamal border crossing with Iraq.

Syria's Jisr network reported of a handover operation at Iranian checkpoints and positions in Deir Ezzour under the supervision of Russian military police. The positions were handed over to the Qaterji militias that are affiliated with the Syrian Qaterji group. They are led by Fawwaz al-Bashir, a tribal leader, and affiliates of the Quds brigade that is run by the Russian Wagner group.

The withdrawal began from Deir Ezzour and the forces headed east towards the Iraqi border. The new forces now hold 70 kilometers of territory in Deir Ezzour leading east, while the Iranian militias control 70 kms in other areas, significantly in Alboukamal.

Slain Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani had overseen the reopening of the crossing, which gives Tehran a land route from Iraq through Syria to the Mediterranean. Soleimani was killed in a US drone strike near Baghdad in January.

Israeli position

On May 5, Israeli officials declared that Iran had started to pull out its forces from Syria after succumbing to frequent Israeli strikes.

Defense Minister Naftali Bennett said last week: "Iran has nothing to do in Syria... (and) we won't stop before they leave Syria." He said Iran was "trying to establish itself on the border with Israel to threaten Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Haifa".

"They have enough problems at home with the coronavirus (and) the collapsing economy," he said about Iran.

Bennett said Iran "used to be an asset for the Syrians... but now it's a burden".

He made his remarks after 14 Iranian and Iraqi fighters were killed in suspected Israeli strikes on Deir Ezzour and on military caches in Aleppo.

In April, three civilians were killed in Israeli strikes near Damascus and a week earlier, nine pro-regime forces were killed in strikes on Palmyra.

Israel had in recent years drawn "red lines" in Syria, including: barring the transfer of rockets to Hezbollah in Lebanon, preventing Iran from setting up permanent military bases and factories for the manufacture of long-range rockets, and standing against the formation of cells in the Golan. It has launched hundreds of raids, none of which were intercepted by Russian air defenses deployed in Syria.

American position

US State Department’s special representative for the Syrian war and the fight against ISIS, James Jeffrey, told Asharq Al-Awsat earlier this month that his country supports "in every possible way", diplomatically and logistically, Israeli raids on Iranian sites in Syria.

He said all foreign forces, including Iranian ones, must withdraw from Syria. Russia was the exception because it has been there before 2011 when the conflict began.

Western officials confirmed to Asharq Al-Awsat that Iran was redeploying its forces in Syria.

Jeffrey said that the Iranians were indeed tactically pulling out from Syria partially because they do not need so many ground forces there. He also cited concern over the economic toll amid the US sanctions against Tehran and the massive financial burden caused the coronavirus outbreak in Iran.

He also added that the moves could just be tactical with no far-reaching significance.

American and regional officials in countries neighboring Syria have speculated that internal and external pressure may have prompted the Iranian moves, but they downplayed their significance, saying they do not amount to strategic change.

Most Viewed

 
Features

India and Pakistan Don’t Fight Wars Like Other Countries. Here’s Why 

This photograph taken on May 9, 2025 shows the Neelum River flowing through Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistan-administered Kashmir. (AFP)
This photograph taken on May 9, 2025 shows the Neelum River flowing through Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistan-administered Kashmir. (AFP)
TT
20
TT

India and Pakistan Don’t Fight Wars Like Other Countries. Here’s Why 

This photograph taken on May 9, 2025 shows the Neelum River flowing through Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistan-administered Kashmir. (AFP)
This photograph taken on May 9, 2025 shows the Neelum River flowing through Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistan-administered Kashmir. (AFP)

India and Pakistan have fought three full-scale wars since they gained independence from Britain in 1947. They’ve also had dozens of skirmishes and conflicts, including one atop a glacier dubbed the coldest and highest-altitude battlefield in the world.

The latest escalation follows a deadly gun attack on tourists that India blames Pakistan for — Islamabad denies any connection. But they don’t fight wars like other countries.

The dominant factor is their nuclear weapons arsenal, a distinct way of deterring major attacks and a guarantee that fighting doesn’t get out of hand, even when the situation is spiraling.

Here’s how — and why — India and Pakistan fight the way they do:

Their nuclear arsenals can destroy each other “Pakistan and India have enough nuclear weapons to wipe the other side out several times over,” says security analyst Syed Mohammed Ali, who is based in Islamabad, the Pakistani capital. “Their nuclear weapons create a scenario for mutually assured destruction.”

Both countries have “deliberately developed” the size and range of their stockpile to remind the other about the guarantee of mutually assured destruction, he adds.

Neither country discloses their nuclear capabilities but each is thought to have between 170 and 180 warheads that are short-, long- and medium-range. Both countries have different delivery systems — ways of launching and propelling these weapons to their targets.

The arsenals are a defensive move to prevent and deter further fighting, because “neither side can afford to initiate such a war or hope to achieve anything from it,” Ali says.

It might not look this way to the outsider, but nuclear weapons are a reminder to the other side that they can't take things too far.

But the secrecy around their arsenals means that it's unclear if Pakistan or India can survive a first nuclear strike and retaliate, something called “second-strike capability.”

This capacity stops an opponent from attempting to win a nuclear war through a first strike by preventing aggression that could lead to nuclear escalation.

Without this capability, there is, in theory, nothing to stop one side from launching a warhead at the other.

Kashmir at the crux of the dispute India and Pakistan have each laid claim to Kashmir since 1947, when both gained independence, and border skirmishes have created instability in the region for decades. Each country controls a part of Kashmir, which is divided by a heavily militarized border.

The two archrivals have also fought two of their three wars over Kashmir — a disputed Himalayan region divided between the them where armed insurgents resist Indian rule. Many Muslim Kashmiris support the rebels’ goal of uniting the territory, either under Pakistani rule or as an independent country.

Border flare-ups and militant attacks in India-controlled Kashmir have prompted New Delhi to take an increasingly tough position on Islamabad, accusing it of “terrorism.”

In the latest conflict, India punished Pakistan by hitting what it said were sites used by Pakistan-backed militants linked to a gun massacre last month.

A conventional military imbalance India is one of the biggest defense spenders in the world, with $74.4 billion in 2025, according to the Military Balance report from the International Institute for Strategic Studies. It’s also one of the world’s largest arms importers.

Pakistan is no slouch, spending $10 billion last year, but it can never match India’s deep pockets. India also has more than double the number of active armed forces personnel than Pakistan does.

While India’s armed forces are traditionally focused on Pakistan, it has another nuclear neighbor to contend with, China, and it is increasingly concerned with maritime security in the Indian Ocean. Those are two factors that Pakistan doesn’t have to consider in its security paradigm.

Pakistan's long and narrow shape, together with the outsized role of the military in foreign policy, makes it easier to move the armed forces around and prioritize defense.

A pattern of escalation and defusing Neither Pakistan or India are in a hurry to announce their military moves against the other and, as seen in the current flare-up of hostilities, it can take a while for confirmation of strikes and retaliation to surface.

But both launch operations into territories and airspace controlled by the other. Sometimes these are intended to damage checkpoints, installations, or sites allegedly used by militants.

They are also aimed at embarrassing or provoking — forcing leaders to bow to public pressure and respond, with the potential for miscalculation.

Many of these activities originate along the Line of Control, which divides Kashmir between India and Pakistan. It's largely inaccessible to the media and public, making it hard to independently verify claims of an attack or retaliation.

Such incidents raise international alarm, because both countries have nuclear capabilities, forcing attention back to India and Pakistan and, eventually, their competing claims over Kashmir.

The fear of nuclear war has put the two countries at the top of the agenda, competing with the papal conclave, US President Donald Trump’s policies, and the Sean “Diddy” Combs trial in the news cycle.

No desire for conquest, influence or resources Pakistan and India’s battles and skirmishes are away from the public eye.

Strikes and retaliation are late at night or early in the morning and, with the exception of the drone attacks on Thursday, they mostly take place away from densely populated urban centers. It shows that neither country has the desire to significantly harm the other’s population. Attacks are either described as surgical or limited.

Neither country is motivated by competition for resources. Pakistan has huge mineral wealth, but India isn't interested in these and, while there are stark ideological differences between Hindu-majority India and Muslim-majority Pakistan, they don’t seek control or influence over the other.

Other than Kashmir, they have no interest in claiming the other’s territory or exercising dominance.