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.
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.
