Syria: Western backers at an important crossroads

After almost seven years of gruesome warfare and hundreds of thousands of casualties it would seem like the Syrian conflict is entering a new phase. The Assad-regime has succeeded in re-establishing control in large swathes of the country thanks to the support of its allies. The rhetoric and the calculated political moves the regime continues to make are worrying since it shows that there will be almost no room for a lasting political solution that involves the other factions. 

The rebels are too fractured

The Syrian population initially took to the streets against the Assad-regime with the hope that it would implement a number of reforms. The Syrian people had enough of the authoritarian government that mainly looked after a privileged elite while using a large security apparatus to stamp out any form of dissent. When the protests turned violent, civilians began to organize themselves in militias to protect their homes, neighbourhoods and villages against raiding parties of Assadists who came to intimidate protesters. They mostly  consisted of paramilitary loyalists who sensed an opportunity to loot people’s homes without repercussions. As the resistance against the Assad-regime began to consolidate these groups became more organized thanks to a lot of soldiers that defected in large numbers.

The fragile cooperation and the ideological divide between the different rebel groups became apparent when the numerous groups began to pursue their own agendas to draw more support from their foreign backers and begin to bicker among themselves to carve up territory that they would begin to govern as they seemed fit. Matters were made worse with the emergence of several jihadist groups that saw an opportunity to gain support and influence in the region by fighting an enemy everyone wanted gone. The momentum these groups had on the battlefield at one point was lost because of this lack of cohesion.

The lack of coordination, gains and the enormous amount of money that was poured into these groups for tactical training and weapons through their foreign backers led to the decision that these programs would be either scaled down or shut down completely. The U.S. was one of these backers, and now numerous moderate rebels are at risk of being dissolved or absorbed by radical groups. The de-escalation zones that were implemented across Syria emphasize the critical situation in which the rebels find themselves, as the lack of cohesion between the groups leads to infighting and a waste of resources that could be used against their common enemy.

When the Assad-regime will focus its resources on these fronts it is unlikely that these groups will be able to mount a coordinated and an effective defence against the now military superior Assad forces. There will be also little to no political intervention on their behalf by the international community because of their radical beliefs.

The Assad-coalition has the upper-hand

The Assad coalition has succeeded in gaining the upper-hand both militarily and politically in the Syrian conflict, in no small part thanks to the contributions of its allies, of which Iran and Russia both played a crucial role. This allows them to focus their resources on a specific front, targeting certain groups in particular and gain another strategic or political advantage over the other factions. It gives them more leverage during the negotiations that aim to end the fighting and find a political solution.

At the start of the conflict the regime found itself in increasingly more trouble as it began to lose more and more control of the country. It only seemed a matter of time before the regime would fall as the loyalists were unable to mount successful offensives with the limited resources they had across the country. The regime was forced to concentrate its resources in a few elite units that would rush to the most critical fronts while a defensive posture was implemented across other fronts. Assad loyalists began to dig in and fortify their military bases and neighbourhoods while the air force began to systematically destroy rebel-held territory with a variety of ordnance. Barrel bombs, thermobaric ordnance and even chemical weapons were used on a large scale, mostly against its civilian population. This in turn resulted in a regional and international refugee crisis as millions were forced to flee the country. During all this the Assad-regime continued to claim that it was in control of most of the country.

The support the regime received was at first not enough to turn the tide in their favour as the rebels received increasingly more (in)direct support from their foreign backers. Turkey, the United States, Israel  and several gulf states in particular realised that the removal of the Assad regime could be a very good thing. The increasing amount of Iranian troops and Russian hardware however allowed the Assad-regime to mount its first series of offensives in the western part of Syria, taking control of the Khanassar-route and reaching its beleaguered forces in Syria’s largest city of Aleppo. The Assad-regime also began to push back against the rebel forces around the capital of Damascus and Daraa, more to the south. Large scale counteroffensives mounted by rebel forces were blocked and ultimately defeated.

The regime also succeeds in conquering more territory as it negotiates the surrender of rebel pockets across Syria, offering them amnesty or the opportunity to relocate with their families to rebel-held territory. These negotiations are undertaken by the reconciliation centre under the supervision of the regime’s Russian allies. This allows the regime to divert more troops to other fronts, avoid casualties while consolidating the rebels in certain parts of the country.

Both Iran and Russia have a lot to gain if the Assad-regime were to be victorious. Iran can expand its political influence in the country and put more pressure on its regional adversaries, Israel in particular. Russia on the other hand now has a permanent military presence in the Eastern Mediterranean thanks to the bases under its control in Latakia province. It is also very likely that Syria will become Russia’s most profitable foreign market in the foreseeable future. The possibility of a trial and conviction of the regime and its leader is also very unlikely as Russia continues to protect both with its right of veto. This led to the resignation of the head of the committee that was looking into war crimes committed in Syria as Carla del Ponte was convinced that there was more than enough evidence to convict the regime but it would just not be possible because of Russian interference. The regime might survive this conflict but it would seem that it has sold its soul to its allies as the main reasons that led to the outbreak of the protests and the revolt are still not addressed.

It is very likely that the regime will return to doing the same things that it has always done, which is using the security apparatus to stamp out any form of dissent. There is also the possibility that the security forces in due time will use the footage that was created by rebel forces and shared through social media to identify would-be rebels, apprehend and imprison them. 

The caliphate collapses

The Islamic State is desperately clinging onto the territory that remains under their control in al-Sham. After the fall of Mosul and Tal-Afar in Iraq the terror group only hold territory around Hawija and the deserts near the Syrian border.

In Syria the caliphate is buckling under increasing pressure from all fronts as the capital of Raqqa is under attack by Syrian Democratic Forces and its front lines in central Syria were overrun by the Assad-coalition’s forces. This offensive was aimed at lifting the siege of Deir Ez-Zour where a loyalist garrison held of the jihadists for three years. Now that the core territory of the caliphate is overrun many of its fighters begin to lose heart and look for ways to escape capture and prosecution.

Despite all this, the terror group is far from defeated as their caliph, al-Baghdadi, has eluded capture so far despite numerous attempts to kill and/or capture him, along with several prominent members. In the future the group will return to the shadow organisation it was before, using terror attacks to undermine the regional governments and inflame sectarian tensions while rebuilding its strength, support and forging new alliances with other terror groups, among which possibly Al-Qaeda.

It is very likely that the group in due time will resurface in another part of the world, at the moment the caliphate has a foothold in the Philippines, Afghanistan and West-Africa. It is also plausible that the group will try to gain a foothold in regions where it can ignite new violence and draw on new supporters, for example in Central Asia, or even reignite tensions in post-war regions such as the Balkans, where there are still numerous conservative Muslim communities with radical influences and where the authorities hesitate to go, creating effective no-go zones.

Are the Syrian Democratic Forces our best bet for change?

One of the moderate groups in the Syrian conflict that managed to achieve solid results are the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) that aim for a decentralised political system that guarantees the political and cultural rights of the country’s numerous ethnic and religious minorities. The movement consists of Syrian Kurds, Arabs, Turkmen, Yezidis, Syriacs (to name only a few) but is at the moment dominated by the Syrian Kurds.

The group received the (in)direct support of several western countries in their struggle against the Islamic State, the U.S., the U.K., Germany and France all made contributions varying from logistical support, fire support, arms, training and even Special Operation Forces.

The Obama-administration tried to fight the Islamic State through its proxies as much as possible, trying to avoid a situation where the U.S. would be sent into another costly long-term conflict in the Middle East. As the fight against the Islamic State became more intense, there was a need for more support which resulted into an increase of American troops and hardware in the region.

The Trump administration was partially elected thanks to the rhetoric of then candidate Trump where he claimed on numerous occasions that he would bring the fight against the Islamic State into a higher gear by ‘bombing the shit out of them’.

It didn’t take long after president Trump was elected that there was a significant increase in American troops noticeable in Syria, partially to help support the long-awaited offensive on Raqqa. This higher gear sadly also lead to a noticeable increase in civilian casualties as the battles for Mosul and Raqqa intensified despite implementing procedures that were aimed at avoiding these kind of casualties in the first place.

More war or Cold war?

The question is what the United States’ strategic objectives will be once Raqqa falls and Deir Ez-Zour is within reach. The main focus will be on clearing out the last pockets that will be under the control of the Islamic State and tracking down as many of the leadership as possible before they have the chance to flee the region. It is also vital that the Syrian Democratic Forces consolidate their hold on the northern bank of the Euphrates river to avoid that the Assad-coalition gains a foothold there. Both the Assad-coalition and the SDF will become the two prominent factions in the Syrian conflict which means that they’ll have to come together and start negotiating at some point. The question is whether both parties are interested at this point to begin negotiations because their agendas are as far apart from one another as possible.

Bashar al-Assad has declared on numerous occasions that he intends to regain control of every inch of Syrian territory. Thanks to the support of Iran and Russia is very likely that he will succeed in this if the West does not make it clear to him that this is no longer a realistic scenario in a post-ISIS Syria. At the moment the SDF are in control of a significant part of Syria and thanks to recent successful offensives around the Euphrates, are now also in control of strategic civilian infrastructure like oil fields and dams. This could give them some political leverage during future negotiations. The problem is that the Assad-regime does not recognize the SDF as a political actor in the conflict, which could possible lead to a military confrontation.

It is also unclear where the Trump-administration stands as there have been some very contradicting statements in the past. Initially it looked like the U.S. were planning to continue to support the SDF in Syria while maintaining a presence in the region for several years. This was reported as incorrect as an official announcement stated that the U.S. would end its support to the SDF after the Islamic State was defeated. The Western military presence in Syria is also unofficial and not legal according to international laws. The Assad regime has never given the U.S. or any other western country the permission to build up a military presence within its borders. This is the case with both Iran and Russia, who were officially asked to intervene on behalf of the regime.

The U.S. has also lost a lot of partners in the region over the past years and is trying to keep some sort of influence in the region and its changing dynamics. The relationship with Turkey has hit a low point because the U.S. is providing broad support to an organization which Turkey regards as a terror organization and has opted out of working with Turkey and its proxies in the past. There is also the matter in which Turkey has been cracking down on its people after the failed coup attempt and has become increasingly more authoritarian, which led to criticism from several prominent leaders in the West, among which German chancellor Angela Merkel. Turkey is also displeased with the U.S. because it refuses to hand over the presumed leader of the failed coup who lives in exile in the States, even after ‘a considerable amount of evidence’ was provided to them.

There is also an increasing amount of Russian and Iranian influence noticeable in the region. The Iraqi government announced that it was looking into ways to cooperate more closely with Teheran in the future, while it also began to court several Gulf states which led to a diplomatic crisis and the blockade of Qatar. It is also speculated that Iran has been supporting the Houthi rebels in the Yemeni conflict who are fighting a Saudi-led coalition and have on several occasions embarrassed the Saudi forces with numerous victories.

Russia was awarded an important military contract in both Iraq and Egypt and has also sold it newest air-defence system, the S-400, to Turkey. Russia has also begun with re-establishing ties with Libya, which is still in turmoil after the fall of Gadhaffi.

The U.S. will try to counter these new spheres of influence by securing one of their own with the help of new regional partners. The Syrian and Iraqi Kurds could therefor prove vital for the American strategic objectives in the Middle East. In both regions the U.S. has announced several projects to help these groups with the rebuilding effort and possibly paving the way for an American military presence. The problem with this is that the U.S. will be creating new regional actors and will have to sustain them for a certain period of time. This is very much the case for the northern Syrian democratic federation that is literally surrounded on all sides by hostile governments.

It is very likely that the Assad-coalition is going to test whether the Trump administration is really willing to risk a direct confrontation by standing with the SDF when a battle-hardened force with serious hardware comes knocking. As I mentioned earlier the United States’ presence in the country is unlawful which could lead to an international diplomatic embarrassment when the Assad-coalition calls on the international community to make the U.S. withdraw from Syrian sovereign territory. There are also not enough western troops in Syria to be stationed along the frontlines to discourage the regime’s forces from trying anything and the West doesn’t have enough political capital to enforce a political solution. It also seems unlikely that the Trump administration will be willing to invest enormous amounts of money in the region to help the SDF in fighting the Assad-coalition. Trump famously criticized the previous administration for jumping into another regional conflict that would cost enormous amounts of money to achieve unrealistic objectives that were a waste of time.

===
If you have any constructive feedback on my writing skills or the content that is published here, feel free to leave me a comment so that I can improve my skills.

Syrië: Dreigt het Syrische conflict een afgang te worden voor het Westen?

Na bijna zeven jaar van gruwelijke oorlog en honderdduizenden doden lijkt het erop dat het Syrisch conflict een nieuwe fase ingaat. De Assad-coalitie slaagde erin zijn gezag opnieuw te vestigen in grote delen van het land dankzij de steun van zijn bondgenoten. De harde taal en de berekende zetten op politiek vlak die het regime zet doen de hoop op een politieke, duurzame vrede voor de belangrijkste betrokken partijen verdwijnen. De gematigde groepen die momenteel nog gesteund worden door het Westen staan voor een zeer moeilijke periode omdat het niet zeker is of deze een potentiële escalatie van het conflict kunnen afweren.

De rebellen zijn te verdeeld

De Syrische bevolking probeerde initieel door middel van grootschalige protesten druk uit te oefenen op het regime om een aantal hervormingen door te voeren. Zo hoopten ze onder meer  dat het een einde zou betekenen van de autoritaire wurggreep door een geprivilegieerde elite die elke vorm van dissidentie deed verdwijnen met behulp van een zeer uitgebreid netwerk van veiligheidsdiensten. Toen de situatie echter escaleerde werden milities opgericht door burgers om hun huizen, wijken en dorpen te beschermen tegen de knokploegen die door het Assad-regime werden uitgestuurd om dissidenten te intimideren. Deze knokploegen bestonden uit voornamelijk loyalistische paramilitairen die een opportuniteit zagen om zich te kunnen verrijken door schaamteloos te kunnen roven en plunderen. Naarmate het verzet zich begon te verspreiden begonnen deze groeperingen zich beter te organiseren met behulp van soldaten die in grote getallen begonnen over te lopen naar de rebellen.

De fragiele samenwerking tussen de verschillende rebellengroepen in het begin van het Syrische conflict kwam snel onder druk te staan door de uiteenlopende ideologieën en doelstellingen die de verschillende groeperingen hadden. De eerste successen werden overschaduwd door de opkomst van verschillende islamitische groeperingen die de agenda van hun buitenlandse sponsor probeerde door te duwen in het gebied dat ze controleerden. Het momentum dat ze hadden weten op te bouwen was opeens ondergeschikt aan de invloed en de rijkdommen die ze konden verdienen door hun gezag in bepaalde delen van het land te vestigen.

Het gebrek aan coördinatie, terreinwinst en de enorme bedragen die in deze groeperingen gepompt werden door buitenlandse actoren voor aanvullende training en oorlogsmaterieel leidde tot de beslissing om de geldstroom en levering van oorlogsmaterieel geleidelijk aan stop te zetten. Dit gebeurde onder meer door de VS omdat de huidige regering niet langer vond dat het een haalbare strategie was dat teveel geld kostte. Hierdoor dreigen gematigde rebellengroepen nu volledig te worden geabsorbeerd door meer radicale groeperingen. De verschillende de-escalatiezones die werden geïmplementeerd langsheen de frontlijnen benadrukken een belangrijk pijnpunt van hun situatie, namelijk dat er een groot gebrek is aan politieke cohesie tussen deze groepen dat voor voortdurende conflicten zorgt waarbij waardevolle middelen tegen elkaar worden ingezet in plaats van tegen hun gezamenlijke vijand.

Wanneer het Assad-regime zijn focus opnieuw verlegt naar deze regio’s lijkt het onwaarschijnlijk dat deze groeperingen in staat zullen zijn om langdurig effectief weerstand te bieden aan de militaire overmacht van de Assad-coalitie. Deze groeperingen zullen ook op weinig bijstand van de internationale gemeenschap kunnen rekenen vanwege hun radicale overtuigingen.

De Assad-coalitie heeft de bovenhand

De Assad-coalitie is erin geslaagd om momenteel zowel de militaire als de politieke bovenhand te halen in het Syrische conflict dankzij de belangrijke bijdragen in troepen en militair materieel van zijn internationale bondgenoten, met in het bijzonder Iran en Rusland. Dit stelt hen in staat om systematisch bepaalde oppositiegroeperingen te viseren, uit te schakelen en opnieuw hun controle te vestigen over grote delen van het land. Dit verstevigd hun politieke positie op nationaal en internationaal vlak tijdens de vredesonderhandelingen om het conflict te beëindigen.

Bij de start van het Syrische conflict had het regime een zwakke positie en begon het geleidelijk aan meer controle te verliezen over delen van het land waardoor het slechts een kwestie van tijd leek voordat het regime zou vallen. Het leger en de veiligheidsdiensten waren niet in staat om de verschillende groeperingen overal tegelijk effectief te bestrijden. Het regime werd gedwongen om hun middelen te concentreren op de belangrijkste brandhaarden terwijl op andere plaatsen een meer defensieve houding werd aangenomen. De soldaten verschansten zich in hun legerbasissen of bepaalde wijken van een stad. Met deze strategie probeerde het regime tevens aan te tonen dat het de controle niet over het land was verloren omdat het troepen in alle hoeken van het land had gestationeerd. Daarnaast werd de Syrische luchtmacht ingezet om systematisch wijken te verpulveren, wat tot grote aantallen burgerslachtoffers leidde en tot een internationale vluchtelingenstroom.

Dat het regime steun kreeg van verschillende buitenlandse milities was niet voldoende om het tij te keren. De rebellengroepen kregen op hun beurt (in)directe steun van verschillende buitenlandse actoren die het regime liever zagen verdwijnen, waaronder buurland Turkije, de Verenigde Staten en verschillende golfstaten. Dankzij de directe steun van Iraanse elitetroepen en Russisch hoogtechnologisch oorlogsmaterieel was het Assad-regime in staat om haar eerste grote successen te boeken door haar garnizoen in Aleppo te bereiken langs de Khanassar-route. Daarnaast werd de druk opgevoerd op de rebellenposities in en rond de hoofdstad Damascus en meer naar het zuiden in de omgeving van Daraa. Grootschalige rebellenoffensieven rond Aleppo en Hama werden later ook systematisch geblokkeerd in omgezet in nederlagen voor de rebellen.

Het regime slaagt er ook herhaaldelijk in om rebellenposities tot overgave te dwingen dankzij het verzoeningscentrum dat mede door de Russen werd geïnstalleerd. Hierdoor krijgen rebellengroepen de kans om de wapens neer te leggen in ruil voor amnestie of kunnen ze ervoor kiezen om naar het noorden van het land getransporteerd te worden om zich daar bij andere groepen aan te sluiten. Op deze manier kan de Assad-coalitie de druk opvoeren op andere fronten en worden de rebellen meer en meer geconcentreerd in bepaalde delen van het land.

Zowel Iran als Rusland hebben veel te winnen bij een eindoverwinning voor de Assad-coalitie. Iran kan haar politieke invloed in het land versterken, haar aanwezigheid in de regio uitbreiden en meer druk uitoefenen op zijn regionale tegenstanders, in het bijzonder Israël. Rusland kan een permanente militaire aanwezigheid uitbouwen in het oostelijke deel van de Middellandse Zee dankzij de basissen die het in de Latakiaprovincie bemant. Daarnaast is het goed mogelijk dat Syrië de belangrijkste afzetmarkt wordt van Russische goederen en diensten in de nabije toekomst. Een potentiële vervolging en veroordeling van het regime omwille van de gruweldaden dat het regime pleegde tijdens het conflict, waaronder het gebruik van vaatbommen, thermobarische en chemische wapens,  is ook niet langer mogelijk omdat het beschermd wordt door Ruslands vetorecht, ondanks dat er meer dan voldoende bewijzen zijn. Het hoofd van de onderzoekscommissie met betrekking tot Syrië, Carla del Ponte, gaf hierdoor haar ontslag bij de onderzoekscommissie. Het regime mag dan wel voorlopig aan de macht blijven maar het heeft mogelijk zijn ziel verkocht aan zijn bondgenoten omdat de pijnpunten die het protest en het daaropvolgende conflict deden ontvlammen, niet behandeld werden.

Het Syrische regime zal dan ook waarschijnlijk terugkeren naar een gelijkaardige manier van werken door systematisch repressief op te treden tegen dissidenten. Syrische veiligheidsdiensten zullen systematisch mensen beginnen op te pakken die mogelijk gelinkt werden aan rebellengroepen en konden worden geïdentificeerd aan de hand van beeldmateriaal dat werd gemaakt door de rebellen en verspreid werd met behulp van sociale media tijdens het conflict.

Het kalifaat valt

De Islamitische Staat probeert wanhopig zijn grip te behouden op het territorium dat het nog onder zijn controle heeft. Na de val van Mosul en Tal Afar in Irak heeft de terreurgroep daar enkel nog de regio rond Hawija onder zijn controle in het noorden van het land en een deel van het woestijngebied dat grenst aan buurland Syrië.

In Syrië wordt de terreurgroep ook langs alle kanten onder druk gezet. De hoofdstad Raqqa wordt systematisch door de Syrische Democratische Strijdkrachten veroverd, in Centraal-Syrië werden de jihadisten compleet overrompeld door een offensief van de Assad-coalitie die probeerde de stad Deir Ez-Zour te bereiken waar een garnizoen van het regime gelegerd is. Nu het hartland van de terreurgroep systematisch veroverd wordt en ze er niet in slagen om weerstand te bieden aan al deze druk, beginnen veel van de strijders de moed te verliezen en de regio te ontvluchten. Verschillende bronnen melden dat (buitenlandse) jihadisten proberen naar de omringende landen te vluchten om te vermijden dat ze opgepakt worden.

De groepering is desondanks helemaal niet verslagen, hun zelfverklaarde kalief al-Baghdadi is ondanks verschillende pogingen hoogstwaarschijnlijk nog in leven en verschillende spilfiguren wisten de dans te ontspringen. De terreurgroep zal dan ook in de nabije toekomst terugkeren naar hun kernactiviteiten, een schaduworganisatie die aanslagen zal plegen op publieke doelwitten om regeringen te ondermijnen en in te spelen op sektarische spanningen. Daarnaast zal de groepering leren uit de fouten die ze gemaakt hebben en zich heruitvinden door nieuwe bondgenootschappen te sluiten met andere terreurgroepen, waaronder al-Qaeda.

Op termijn zal de groep dan ook opnieuw opduiken in een andere regio van de wereld. Momenteel heeft de groepering ook een aanwezigheid in de Filipijnen, Afghanistan en West-Afrika. Daarnaast is er ook de mogelijkheid dat de groepering afdelingen opzet in centraal Azië door daar in te spelen om socio-politieke spanningen. Het is zelfs mogelijk dat de groepering voet aan grond in Europa zal proberen te krijgen door oude wonden te openen. In het voormalige Joegoslavië zijn nog steeds verschillende conservatieve moslimgemeenschappen en no-go zones te vinden wat een potentiële broeihaard van extremisme zou kunnen betekenen.

Bieden de Syrische Democratische Strijdkrachten (SDF) een oplossing?

Eén van de gematigde groeperingen in het Syrische conflict dat wél systematisch successen wist te boeken zijn de Syrische Democratische Strijdkrachten (SDF) die streven naar een gedecentraliseerd politiek systeem dat de politieke en culturele rechten van de verschillende etnische minderheden in het land erkent en garandeert in het dagelijkse leven. Deze verzameling van groeperingen bestaat onder meer uit Syrische Koerden, Arabieren, Turkmenen, Yezidi’s, Assyriërs maar wordt momenteel gedomineerd door de Syrische Koerden.

De groepering werd door een aantal westerse landen (in)direct gesteund in hun strijd tegen de Islamitische Staat, waaronder Groot-Brittannië, Duitsland, Frankrijk en de Verenigde Staten de grootste bijdragen leverden met logistieke steun, bombardementen, militaire training, wapenleveringen en het inzetten van Special Operation Forces. 

Onder de Obamaregering werd de strijd tegen de Islamitische Staat initieel zoveel mogelijk met een hands off-mentaliteit gevoerd om te vermijden dat de Verenigde Staten zich opnieuw in een langdurig conflict zouden storten dat mogelijk weer astronomische bedragen en Amerikaanse levens zou kosten. Naarmate de strijd vorderde bleek er nood aan meer ondersteuning, wat leidde tot een gevoelige stijging van mensen en materieel in de regio.

De Trumpregering kwam aan de macht mede dankzij de retoriek van de toenmalige kandidaat Donald Trump waarbij hij meermaals verkondigde dat hij de strijd tegen de Islamitische Staat niet alleen in een hogere versnelling zou jagen, maar ook beslissend zou beëindigen door ‘hen tot pulp te bombarderen’. Het duurde dan ook niet lang voordat er een gevoelige stijging van Amerikaanse grondtroepen in Syrië opgemerkt kon worden om het langverwachte offensief om Raqqa te ondersteunen. Deze hogere versnelling leidde jammer genoeg ook tot een gevoelige stijging van burgerslachtoffers in de gevechten in Mosul en Raqqa ondanks dat de internationale coalitie een aantal procedures heeft geïmplementeerd om het risico op burgerslachtoffers te beperken.

Totale oorlog of Koude oorlog?

De vraag is echter nu wat de doelstellingen van het Westen, en in het bijzonder de Verenigde Staten, zullen zijn nu Raqqa binnenkort lijkt te vallen en Deir Ez-Zour binnen bereik ligt. De focus zal ongetwijfeld liggen op het opruimen van de laatste gebieden die onder de controle van de Islamitische Staat vallen het opsporen van zoveel mogelijk hooggeplaatste figuren binnen de organisatie voordat ze de kans krijgen de regio te ontvluchten. Daarnaast is het ook belangrijk dat de Syrische Democratische Strijdkrachten de noordelijke oever van de Eufraat onder hun controle krijgen om te vermijden dat de Assad-coalitie hier een aanwezigheid kan opbouwen. Op deze manier worden zowel de Assad-coalitie als de Noord-Syrische Democratische Federatie de twee grootste facties in het Syrische conflict, waardoor de twee partijen wel met elkaar moeten onderhandelen om een vreedzame oplossing te vinden. De vraag is echter of de beide partijen wel met elkaar willen onderhandelen omdat de doelstellingen van de twee facties mijlenver uit elkaar liggen.

Bashar al-Assad heeft verschillende malen verkondigd dat hij elke intentie heeft om enkele vierkante meter van Syrië te heroveren om zijn gezag opnieuw over het hele territorium te vestigen. Dankzij de steun van Iran en Rusland is het dan ook zeer goed mogelijk dat hij hierin zal slagen indien het Westen hier niet tijdig een duidelijk signaal stuurt dat dat niet langer een realistisch scenario is in een post-ISIS Syrië. Momenteel controleren de SDF een belangrijk deel van het Syrisch grondgebied en hebben ze ook de controle verworven over een aantal strategische civiele infrastructuur, waaronder olievelden in het oosten van het land, en verschillende dammen langsheen de Eufraat. Dit geeft hen een zeker politiek kapitaal bij de onderhandelingen die in de toekomst plaatsvinden. Het probleem is echter dat het Assad-regime tot op heden de SDF niet erkend heeft als een politieke factor in het conflict, waardoor een militaire confrontatie niet uitgesloten is. 

De houding van de Trump-regering is ook allesbehalve éénduidig geweest omdat het er eerst op leek dat de Amerikanen de SDF in Syrië zouden blijven steunen. Dit werd ook bevestigd door een hooggeplaatste functionaris van de Amerikaanse regering, wat enkele dagen nadien weerlegd werd door een officiële mededeling dat de Amerikaanse steun aan de SDF zou eindigen zodra de Islamitische Staat verslagen zou zijn in het land. De westerse aanwezigheid in Syrië is tevens ook niet officieel, noch legaal volgens internationale wetten. Het Assad-regime heeft nooit officieel toestemming gegeven aan de westerse coalitie om een militaire aanwezigheid uit te bouwen in het land, in tegenstelling tot Iran en Rusland, waaraan wél officieel hulp werd gevraagd.

De Amerikanen zijn ook veel vrienden in de regio kwijtgespeeld de laatste jaren en proberen hoe dan ook een zekere invloed in de regio te behouden. De relatie met de Turkije is de laatste jaren aanzienlijk verzuurd doordat de Amerikanen (in)direct steun verleenden aan een groepering die door Turkije als een terreurorganisatie wordt beschouwd in plaats van nauwer samen te werken met groeperingen die door Turkije gesteund worden. De manier waarop Turkse autoriteiten na de mislukte couppoging in 2016 zeer autoritair begonnen op te treden tegen elke vorm van politieke oppositie deed ook heel veel bondgenoten van Turkije de wenkbrauwen fronsen en leidde zelfs tot scherpe kritiek van verschillende prominente leiders, waaronder Angela Merkel. Turkije is ook nog steeds bitsig omdat de Amerikanen weigeren de vermoedelijke leider van de couppoging, Fethullah Gülen, uit te leveren nadat een aanzienlijke hoeveelheid bewijsmateriaal werd overgedragen.

Daarnaast is er een groeiende invloed van Iran en Rusland te bemerken in de Arabische wereld. Bagdad maakte bekend dat het in de toekomst nauwer wenst samen te werken met Teheran en begon ook politieke relaties uit te bouwen met Qatar, wat tot een diplomatieke crisis en een economische blokkade leidde. Daarnaast wordt er ook gespeculeerd dat Iran sinds geruime tijd de Jemenitische Houti-rebellen steunt wat leidde tot een interventie geleid door Saudi-Arabië.

Rusland kreeg een belangrijk militair contract toegewezen voor het leveren van nieuw oorlogsmaterieel aan de Iraakse regering, wat enkele weken later een gelijkaardig resultaat opleverde voor Egypte. Daarnaast verkocht Rusland ook zijn nieuwste luchtafweersysteem, de S-400, aan Turkije. Rusland is ook begonnen met enige invloed uit te bouwen in Libië, een land dat na de val van Gadhaffi nog steeds geen politieke stabiliteit heeft gevonden.

De Amerikanen zullen deze groeiende invloedsfeer dan ook met lede ogen aanzien en zullen dit proberen te counteren door een eigen militaire aanwezigheid op te bouwen met nieuwe regionale partners. De Iraakse en Syrische Koerden lijken hiervoor de beste keuze. In beide regio’s zijn al verschillende projecten van start gegaan om bij de heropbouw te helpen en de drempel voor een mogelijke Amerikaanse militaire aanwezigheid te verlagen, zo werd in Iraaks Koerdistan een project voor een nieuwe Amerikaanse ambassade goedgekeurd en begonnen de heropbouw van een ziekenhuis in Syrië. Het probleem hiermee is dat de Amerikanen mogelijk op een kunstmatige manier nieuwe politieke actoren in de regio gaan creëren die zonder de regelmatige steun van Amerikaanse fondsen niet op eigen benen kunnen staan. Dit is in het bijzonder een potentiële valkuil voor het Noord-Syrische Democratische Federalisme, dat omringd zal worden door regeringen die dit democratisch model het zonlicht niet gunnen. 

De kans is bijzonder groot dat de Assad-coalitie de VS gaat testen om te zien in welke mate ze bereid zijn noordoost Syrië bij te staan wanneer er een getraind leger met hoogtechnologisch en zwaar oorlogsmaterieel aan de frontlijn staat. Zoals eerder vermeld is de westerse aanwezigheid in Syrië er om de Islamitische Staat te bestrijden en kreeg het daarvoor niet eens de toestemming van het Assad-regime. Dit is in strijd met het internationaal recht wat tot een diplomatieke kaakslag kan leiden wanneer de Verenigde Staten hiervoor op het matje geroepen zouden worden langs de betrokken kanalen. Daarnaast zijn er niet genoeg Westerse troepen om ze langsheen de volledige frontlijn te stationeren en een directe militaire escalatie te vermijden, noch is de politieke positie van de westerse coalitie sterk genoeg om een politieke oplossing te forceren. Het lijkt ook onrealistisch dat de Trump-regering bereid zal zijn om jarenlang enorme investeringen te doen waardoor de SDF in staat zouden kunnen zijn om de Assad-coalitie effectief te bestrijden omdat Trump tijdens zijn campagne meermaals de gigantische uitgaven in buitenlandse avonturen hekelde als onrealistisch en een verspilling.

De westerse landen staan op dit moment voor een moeilijke keuze, proberen ze een politieke oplossing af te dwingen door resoluut aan de zijde te blijven van hun regionale partner of kiezen ze ervoor om eieren voor hun geld te kiezen en de aftocht te blazen...

-----
Indien u enige constructieve feedback wenst te geven omtrent mijn schrijfstijl of de inhoud van mijn artikel, aarzel dan niet om een bericht achter te laten.

Syria: Why Israel is not interested in peace as of yet.

The Syrian Civil War has presented Israel with a number of opportunities to help it solidify its influence in the region. It is arguably one of the few surrounding countries that has actually benefitted a lot from the turmoil. Whether the FSA, ISIS or the SDF have the upper-hand in Syria doesn’t matter much to Israel as these factions are not allied to its most important enemies in the region.

The conflict weakened an enemy, since Syria and Israel are technically still at war with one another, that has provided valuable support to another threat to Israel in neighbouring Lebanon, the Hezbollah group. The idea that the Assad regime could be replaced by a more moderate government that would frown upon supporting an international labelled terror group is something that would strengthen Israel position while it would ultimately weaken its nemesis’ position… Iran.

Israel has provided valuable support to the FSA’s southern front in terms of weapons and supplies and even resorted to occasionally bombing regime positions. It has also gradually expanded its influence along the Golan Heights border region by supporting the population there, creating an additional buffer zone. If the Assad government could be forced to terms at some point in the conflict, it is very much possible that Israel would want Syria to release its claim from the Golan Heights for all eternity, strengthening its position in the region even more by securing valuable resources, fresh water, for itself in the future.

Now that more and more de-escalation zones have been installed across Syria, including to the south, Israel must realize that the war has entered an entirely new phase, as all parties are moving to secure as much territory as possible from ISIS, taking one more player off the board.

I am convinced that Israel has too much to gain from a weakened Syria and will seek ways to keep the fighting in the southern part of the country going, one way or another. The Israelis are a patient people and have been playing the long game all along.

= = = = = = = = 

If you have any questions, remarks or constructive feedback on the content or my writing, please do not hesitate to leave a comment. I would love to use this platform to interact with people to discuss topics like these and gain new perspectives and improve on my writing skills.

Syria: Why the Assad-coalition is not interested in peace as of yet

The Syrian Civil war might be an absolute nightmare in terms of destruction, casualties and political complexity but it would seem that the major players in the conflict have their own goals before they will make a genuine effort to bring an end to the fighting.

There have been some serious shifts in the balance of power during this conflict and at the moment it seems that all parties involved are taking a moment to consider their next big move in order to force a breakthrough. This article is aimed at giving an overview of the factions involved that have a lot to win and lose.

The Assad-coalition:

The Assad-regime

The Assad regime consists of mainly a Shia minority (and members from other ethno-religious communities who have proven their loyalty) in the government and the broad security and military apparatus that was established back in the 70s when Hafez al-Assad took power.

The Assad regime had to deal with numerous setbacks early on in the Syrian Uprising as thousands of men that were called upon to return to the barracks and take up arms against the rebels, refused to do so. They either joined the opposition groups or fled to neighbouring countries to avoid being drafted. What meagre forces that could be mustered had to be bolstered with patriotic and opportunistic men who joined the National Defence Forces and were given weapons to hold onto as much territory as possible while the regime’s elite units were rushing from one crisis to another. As much of the country’s wealth is in the hands of the privileged few, many chose to back the regime out of necessity and survival rather than duty since a defeat would result in the loss of all their assets in Syria. 

Its initial strategy to have a military presence in all corners of Syria in order to argue that it remains in control of its sovereign territory resulted in the Syrian Arab Forces being dispersed to a dangerous level. The regime was therefor forced to carefully pick and choose its battles to avoid losses that it could not replenish afterwards, or having to defend territory that it would not be able to hold. As the different opposition groups moved against Assad forces, it often came down to the commanders in the field to make the difference. For example, When Deir ez-Zour came under siege by the jihadists of the Islamic State and was under serious threat, republican guard general Issam Zahreddine was sent in to hold onto the city at all costs. His leadership skills and inspiring presence at the front lines helped the men under his command to hold onto the territory despite being under tremendous pressure. Another example is the commander of the now famous Tiger Forces, Suheil al-Hassan, his unwavering loyalty and leadership made him the ideal candidate to lead an elite unit that would be the deciding factor in numerous offensives across Syria, whether it was blocking an enemy offensive and reversing all their gains or spearheading an offensive.

Bashar al-Assad vowed to retake all of Syria many times and now, with the backing of powerful regional and global powers, it would seem that he is well on his way to do so. It seems unlikely that he will accept an agreement which would result in the division of Syrian territory or where he would be forced to share power with both moderates and the extremists. He is clearly set on taking every inch back and keep it in a tight grasp.

The true cost of the war, however, is something that might be impossible to predict at the moment. The regime has always claimed that its elaborate security apparatus was necessary to prevent extremist groups from gaining a foothold in Syria. At the moment al-Assad has managed to present himself as the defender of the Syrian people from the extremists and opportunists who would see an end to Syria if it were to serve their own goals. This had led to an increased popularity among the people, even among the people who became disillusioned with how the rebels' misconduct and mismanagement began to hurt the ideals of the Syrian Uprising. 

It could very well be that one of the causes for the Syrian Uprising could be enforced even harsher when the Assad regime regains control of Syria, leading to an all-out purge of any form of dissent against the regime. It is also unclear what kind of deals were made with its allies in exchange for the enormous amount of support in manpower, materials and logistics. It may very well be that in order for Syria's survival, al-Assad might have sold his soul and that of his country.

Hezbollah

Hezbollah has been very much dependant on the support it received from the Assad regime in terms of weapons, logistics, training and finances by acting as an access point for Iran to continue a strong presence in Lebanon and countering the Israeli influence there.

The fall of the Assad regime could have meant an end to this support as a government that looked more favourable towards the West and would not seek to continue to fund this terror organization, as designated by numerous western countries and regional allies. Hezbollah backing the Assad regime was there for a matter of survival, but of opportunity as well.

It was able to test its organization’s military capabilities by actively taking part in the fighting and launching offensives in a variety of combat zones across Syria. The experience it gained by doing this allowed the organization to boost its political presence in the region and more importantly, test out and adjust its tactics and strategies based on the successes it had in the field and send a clear signal to adversaries that it is still a force to be reckoned with.

Iran

Iran is one of the few countries that has actually managed to capitalize on the turmoil in the al-Sham region as has now more influence, both political and military, than (ever) before.

 It has (in)directly supported moves by the Shia communities to gain more political and military prominence in both theatres of war. In Iraq it was the main supporter for the Popular Mobilization Units that were eager to take the fight to ISIS forces when they were on the verge of breaking through to Baghdad. In Syria it was responsible for providing valuable strategic advice and supplementing elite Iranian forces to help turn the tide in several critical battles. One of Iran’s prominent generals and commander and of the al Quds force, Qasem Soleimani, has been Iran’s most valuable asset in the region as he was responsible for the most important offensives which Shia units launched successfully against both ISIS (in Iraq) and rebel forces (in Syria).

Iran aims to keep the Shia dominant minority in power at all costs as it has invested a lot of time and resources in the regime for its long-term strategic objectives in the region. It is there for more than likely that Iran will continue to support Assad in its efforts to regain control of the whole of Syria and therefor putting an end to the presence of western coalition forces in Syria. It has already begun its elaborate plan by launching an offensive in north-western Iraq with the help of PMU forces to gain control of an important military airbase to the south of Tal-Afar, which can be used as a launch point against future attacks across the Syrian-Iraqi border into northern Syria’s SDF territory, forcing them to fight on numerous fronts.

Iran is also moving on establishing closer ties with some of the nations in the Arabian Peninsula, which is basically its nemesis’ back yard. The Saudis have been fighting a war in Yemen for some time now and have little to show for it. Its forces have suffered embarrassing defeats at the hands of Yemeni fighters on the ground, but Saudi warplanes keep attacking Yemen’s populated areas resulting a high civilian casualties. The Saudis’ reputation has suffered internationally because of this.

Russia

Russia is the second country that managed to capitalize on the turmoil in the region as it has established itself as a prominent powerbroker in the regional theatre as well as on the international stage. Before that the country was basically ‘in the doghouse’.

Russia’s (for the most part) successful campaign has given Putin international prestige for acting decisively against international terror groups whereas the West was blamed for supporting the enemy of their enemy in order to get what they wanted, resulting in a loss of face and credibility as a major player in the conflict.

The war has also provided the Russian armed forces with a valuable opportunity to test their new equipment in a real battlefield and already suggestions for enhancements were made to make their equipment even more efficient in future warzones. It also saw the first Russian aircraft carrier of the Kuznetsov class perform in a theatre of war.

The participation in the Syrian Civil War has also provided Russia with a way to boost its economy as the new Russian hardware that is used on the battlefield, has attracted the attention of numerous would-be buyers, countries that before that were customers with western manufacturers. The cutting-edge technology and the battle performance of the newest Russian armoured vehicles and helicopters had a major impact on and off the battlefield.

Its alliance with the Syrian regime has also resulted in the agreement of having a permanent presence in the region as Russia will continue to have a military presence in the airbase and the naval base it currently uses, giving it a foothold in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea.

It is also very likely that Syria will become one of Russia’s most important trading partners in a post-conflict scenario as I think Russia will be one of the few suppliers of all the materials and hardware needed in the rebuilding effort. 





= = = = = = = = 

If you have any questions, remarks or constructive feedback on the content or my writing, please do not hesitate to leave a comment. I would love to use this platform to interact with people to discuss topics like these and gain new perspectives and improve on my writing skills.

Syria: How the Syrian Uprising was hijacked

How the Syrian revolution was hijacked.

The Syrian Civil War is one of the bloodiest conflict of the 21^st century, raging across most of the country for almost eight years, killing hundreds of thousands and displacing millions. And it doesn’t look like it is going to stop any time soon.

 It all started at the start of 2011 when Arab Spring movement was gaining momentum across the region and the peaceful mass protest around Syria, calling for an end to the socio-political repression and lack of substantial economic reforms, turned violent when government security forces started arresting protesters en masse, using live ammunition and other means of excessive force to quell the movement. After that the situation spiralled out of control quickly: people took up arms to defend their neighbourhoods against bands of government loyalists that came to intimidate, kill and plunder hotspots of dissent. Army helicopters started dropping barrel-bombs on areas packed with people, causing panic, terror and killing dozens. Battle-lines were drawn across cities and neighbourhoods and people who lived side by side for years were now killing each other. The international community repeatedly demanded that Assad should step down in an attempt to de-escalate the growing level of violence, but Assad rejected this by stating that the people who had taken up arms against him were nothing more than terrorists and foreign agents that would be rooted out and dealt with.

Now almost eight years later, the war is still going on as it is without any doubt one of the most complicated conflicts we’ve seen in modern history. and it wasn’t long before the gloves came completely off and the systematic destruction of ancient buildings and historic sites, the deployment of heavy weapons against civilian areas, massacres and the usage of chemical weapons became all too real.

The question is how this situation spiralled out of control so quickly and isn’t showing any signs of settling any time soon. In order to take a critical look at the present, we often have to look back and identify the things that had a critical impact on the general situation.

When looking at different aspects of the country, it quickly becomes clear that modern Syria is very diverse in a variety of ways.

Historically the region was one of the earliest places where the human race started to build its first civilisations around 4,000 years ago. It has seen the rise and fall of numerous empires that wanted control of the region as it was at the centre of trade routes from every direction. These empires brought with them their own culture and religion which resulted in a very unique ethnic (Arab, Hebrew, Turkmen, Syriac, Kurdish) and religious (Sunni Islam, Shia Islam, Jews, Christianity) demographic composition and is represented in communities all across Syria.

Although the country is officially known as the Syrian Arab Republic, the structure of the government shows that the actual power lies predominantly with a minority, and a select few within that minority. The ruling minority consists of Alawites which is a branch of Shia Islam and came to power after Hafez al-Assad took power in 1970, installing a regime where all the important positions in the military, state security and intelligence were dominated by loyal people from the Shia community.

This security apparatus was also designed in a way that no high-ranking position had the possibility of gaining enough influence to attempt at a coup himself. It resulted in a leadership that was well insulated, protected by a broad security force that aimed to stamp out any sign of dissent, resulting in a society where one simply had to come to terms with this new way of life or risk everything by voicing his opinion too loud.

When Hafez al-Assad died in 2000 and his Bashar succeeded him there was a hope that this new leader would herald in a new era for Syria in which the socio-political repression would end and necessary reforms would be implemented. Although the first indications were hopeful as political prisoners were released and  steps were taken to introduce certain new laws, it became clear that the balance of power was to remain unchanged and that any attempts to do so would resort in severe punishment.

When the socio-political movement, which would become known in the West as the Arab Spring, gained momentum across northern Africa and saw several controversial governments fall, the people in Syria saw a chance for a similar chance and took to the streets to give voice to opinions and hopes they had to speak about in small circles behind closed doors for so long. Cities like Daraa, Damascus and Hama became some of the prominent places where thousands of Syrians marched for change.

Although the Assad government initially didn’t seem to take it too seriously, as the protest marches continued day after day government security forces suddenly responded by arresting protesters en masse and using force to break up the groups. When they arrested a number of youngsters who were part of the protest movement, violence broke out after the situation quickly deteriorated. Military vehicles appeared in the streets and security forces were ordered to shoot at the masses with live ammunition.

These actions were defended by stating that the protest movement in Syria was the work of extremists and foreign agents who were working to undermine the stability and unity of the country. There are numerous reports that the Assad government released extremists from its prisons in order for them to mingle with the movement and re-establish contact with their own movements. It is by doing this that the Assad government was able to cause the first rift in the Syrian revolutionary movement. By injecting extremist elements into the mainly democratic movement it was able to bolster its claims that extremists were moving against the state and therefor justifying its extreme measures that could be seen in the streets. It also caused the opposition to lose coherence and break up into multiple factions of moderates and more radical groups.

It is one of the oldest lessons in warfare and is still accurate today: If you succeed in dividing the opposing force into multiple smaller, less effective forces you will ultimately succeed in defeating them.

Throughout the Syrian Civil War the Assad government would exploit the rifts and animosity between rebel groups to gain a tactical or strategic advantage where it could have suffered a defeat. For example, the government would negotiate a ceasefire with certain groups in one part of the country for then to relocate a portion of the troops from that front to a another where the situation was critical. The most recent example of this strategy is, in my opinion, the instalment of these de-escalation zones across Syria, among one of them in the Idlib province, the bulk of the Assad loyalists started a new campaign shortly after to finish the conquest of the Aleppo province and attack territory held by the Islamic State who was too busy concentrating on the Syrian Democratic Forces who were working their way through Tabqah and to Raqqa.

By successfully doing this, the Assad loyalists have secured the majority of Aleppo province, cut off both the Syrian Democratic Forces moving west from Manbij and the Turkish backed Free Syrian Army groups from moving south and strengthening its position and the negotiation table.





= = = = = = = = 

If you have any questions, remarks or constructive feedback on the content or my writing, please do not hesitate to leave a comment. I would love to use this platform to interact with people to discuss topics like these and gain new perspectives and improve on my writing skills.