It is as if this difficult part of the world is destined to live with constant bloodshed. Countries break apart, wars are never really resolved, and peace is only really just a truce. We have witnessed the horrors in Gaza and later, Lebanon.
The barbarity of the Israeli attacks demonstrated that the Al-Aqsa Flood Operation was greater than what Gaza can bare. The “support front” in Lebanon also had consequences that were too great for the country to bare.
Then came the surprise in Aleppo that will pave the way for more bloodshed in Syria. “Surprise” may not be the right word here given reports that said the forces in control of Idlib would rather go on the offensive than wait for the Syrian army to attack.
The relative calm in Syria achieved through the Sochi and Astana processes was never meant to last. It was difficult for Damascus to admit that the borders drawn between the various statelets in Syria would be permanent. It was clear that Syria was victim of wars that are greater than it and that changing these borders would pit it against major players inside the country.
The Syrian state started to break apart in the 2010s. It turned into an arena for delusions, dreams and regional and international meddling. Setting aside Israel’s well-known ambitions and America’s ever-changing policies, let us examine the roles played by each of Russia, Iran and Türkiye.
In 2014, Russian President Vladimi Putin revealed his long-hidden intentions and reclaimed Crimea, saying it was just an unjustified Soviet gift to Ukraine. The tepid international response to his move encouraged him to pursue more ambitions. A year later, the world awoke to Russia’s military intervention in Syria, which was said took place after then Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani warned the Russian leader of the risk of Syria falling in the hands of extremists and the region in the hands of America.
The Russian-Iranian cooperation altered the course of the war in Syria and survival of the Syrian regime became a fact that could not be ignored when discussing solutions to the conflict there. However, those banking on the rise of a “Russian Syria” at the expense of an “Iranian Syria” were left disappointed after a few years.
Russia failed in leading a major political solution that would pave the way for a broad reconciliation that would ensure the return of the displaced and rebuild the country. The Russian intervention in Syria was just one step because Putin had set his sights on launching a major coup a decade later in Ukraine and on European soil.
The Russian-Iranian-Turkish triangle in Syria is formed of wounded countries haunted by memories of their respective fallen empires. Russia dreams of its former Soviet glory and wants to expand its influence beyond its own borders. Ankara and Tehran also dream of winning something of the legacy left over from the Soviet collapse.
Over the past decade, Türkiye tried to lead a major coup in the region through the so-called “Arab Spring”. It believed that it boasted an ideal model that could be replicated in or inspire other countries. Its warm relationship with Bashar al-Assad's regime turned into an attempt to overthrow him. This was no secret. Years later, I met with ISIS fighters imprisoned in Iraq who spoke frankly of how they entered Syria through the Turkish borders.
Türkiye's ambitions, however, collided with the Russian-Iranian cooperation in Syria. The Arab Spring ended in failure and Ankara shifted its focus in Syria to combating the “Kurdish threat”. Now, its forces are still in Syria and in some areas of Iraq.
For its part, Iran grew restless within its own borders. It has waged a major coup in the region, allowing it to play a decisive role and have the final word in Beirut, Damascus, Baghdad and Sanaa. Syria was vital for Iran, especially with the route from Tehran to Beirut now open and passing through Baghdad and Damascus, which was made possible after the ouster of Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq.
Syria is of vital importance for the great Iranian project, amid talk of the so-called “major strike” it may deal Israel. Hamas’ late leader Yehya al-Sinwar was probably banking on this strike when he launched his Al-Aqsa Flood Operation.
We are now confronted with a new reality in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria. Israel’s war on Lebanon and its strikes on Syria have weakened Hezbollah and pro-Iran militias in Syria. This new reality may have been among other factors that prompted the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham to launch its offensive on Aleppo and beyond. The Syrian authorities will in no way agree to this new reality. Neither will Russia. Türkiye, meanwhile, has little room to maneuver in Syria.
Syria is not an island. It is located in the heart of the region. Its stability will undoubtedly ensure the stability of its neighbors without exception. Syria’s stability is a unanimous Arab demand. It is demanded by Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt and the Gulf. It is not in any Arab country’s interest for Syria to be plunged again in the horrors of the not-so-distant past.
An imperiled Syria is a danger to itself and the region. It cannot afford to drown again in its own wars and the wars of others as the world waits on Donald Trump to be sworn in as US president. An “Iranian Syria” and “Turkish Syria” are no longer possible, while the “Russian Syria” is not high on the Kremlin’s list of priorities as it focuses on Ukraine and Trump’s return to office.
Syria has no choice but Syria itself. It needs a normal state to be established. A political solution that isolates the “terrorist” groups and rebuilds bridges between various communities is necessary. The solution will pave the way for the return of the displaced and launch a reconstruction process that will be embraced by the Arab world.
