Tectonic Shifts in Syria: What Can be expected Next?
If we look at the current situation from a panoramic perspective, then the fall of the Assad regime in Syria is highly likely to lead to serious geopolitical shifts in the Greater Middle East region, especially in its western and central sectors.
By David Petrosyan
On December 8, authoritative Russian publications reported that the now ex-president of Syria Bashar al-Assad had arrived with his family in the capital of Russia. Thus, the 53-year period of rule of the Assad family in this important country of the Middle East has ended.
It should be noted that Syria, with a population of almost 20 million, was a country with a very complex ethnic and religious composition when the civil war broke out in 2011. The conflict was preceded by a drought in 2006-2011 and it began under a state of emergency, which had been introduced since 1963 (!). The conflict went through several very complex stages: from escalating the situation in social networks to peaceful demonstrations, to a religious war in which radical Islamist groups joined like Al Qaeda, ISIS, and others joined in. Most of them are banned in the US, Russia, the EU and other countries. The war had a dominant religious component and mainly consisted of Alawite militia and its Shiite allies, fighting mainly against predominantly Sunni rebel groups.
In 2015, the Russian Air Forces, the Russian private military company Wagner, Iranian advisers and former servicemen of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and the Lebanese Hezbollah, who openly sided with the Assad government, came to the aid of the Syrian government forces. In turn, Turkey established control over the northern regions of Syria, where the Turkomans live, and supported not only the armed opposition, but also conducted active military operations against the Kurds, who from time to time became situational allies of the government. The Kurds were supported by the Americans and, in part, Israel. Israel also systematically struck military targets of Iran and the Lebanese Hezbollah in Syria. As for the Christians, they fought as part of the government troops and Kurdish militias.
Political and diplomatic processes were also underway in parallel with the military actions. Thus, as a result of the Astana process, in which Iran, Russia and Turkey played a leading role, but in addition to representatives of the Assad government, organizations representing the secular opposition and the Kurds also participated. As a result, in 2020, the “De-escalation Agreement” was signed, which led to a ceasefire and defused the situation, but did not bring a political solution to the conflict.
According to the Syrian opposition, this agreement, supposedly made in the interests of the Syrian people and the territorial integrity of Syria, led to the opposite results. All three states divided the Syrian territory among themselves. In the northwestern province of Idlib, which was in the zone of Turkish influence, the bulk of the Turkish-backed opposition was actually concentrated. According to the trilateral agreements, Turkey was supposed to disarm the opposition, but did not do so. On the contrary, it helped replenish the arsenals of the Syrian opposition and it acquired reconnaissance and strike unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), as well as other modern weapons.
Meanwhile, the ceasefire achieved as a result of de-escalation did not lead to the activation of the political process. UN Security Council Resolution No. 2254, which initiated the “Geneva process”, began to be sabotaged. The current Constitutional Committee is under the control of Turkey. According to the Syrian opposition, it does not work in the interests of Syrian citizens.
Meanwhile, the social and economic situation in the zone of control of the Syrian government and Russia remained difficult and much more problematic than in Idlib, where the local administration managed to at least partially solve a number of pressing problems. At the same time, President Assad refused to dialogue with the opposition and Turkey.
As a result, the Syrian opposition “got tired of waiting”. On November 27, the Syrian opposition, led by the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) group, violated the de-escalation agreement and launched an offensive on the Syrian province of Aleppo. On December 1, they managed to completely take control of the city of Aleppo. According to open sources, this operation had been in preparation for at least 6 months.
The Syrian Arab Army, i.e. government troops, did not offer any serious resistance to the opposition, which, after taking Hama, Homs, Daraa and a number of other cities, entered Damascus on December 8. Syrian Prime Minister Muhammad Ghazi al-Jalali announced his capitulation and readiness to cooperate with any new government.
Currently, power in Syria is in the hands of a temporary transitional government headed by Muhammad al-Bashir. Current Islamists are trying to calm the fears of the religious minorities and protect churches. But, at the same time, one of the leaders of the Syrian militants, Abu Muhammad al-Julani, said at his press conference in Damascus: “Our new country is no longer an Arab, but an Islamic republic. The Syrian Islamic Republic……. I also see no reason to fear a civil war – we will defeat all enemies as easily as we defeated the Assad regime…..”
This is the general trajectory of eventsin Syria, beginning with the outbreak of the civil war.
If we look at the current situation from a panoramic perspective, then the fall of the Assad regime in Syria is highly likely to lead to serious geopolitical shifts in the Greater Middle East region, especially in its western and central sectors. Thus, we can predict that an imbalance will form between Iran and Turkey, which will lead to the strengthening of Ankara’s position. The latter has become the main beneficiary of the current temporary transitional government coming to power in Syria. This large and so far non-nuclear state will have more opportunities to exert pressure on the Greater Middle East region and adjacent subregions, including the South Caucasus. In fact, statements are already being made about this. If Sunnis dominate in Syria, they will be controlled more by Ankara than by Washington.
Moreover, Syria is a country that is the key to the region. At the same time, there is also an opinion of Armenian experts that Turkey will not be able to fully “digest” this victory and effectively manage the “new Syria”, which will remain unstable for a long time. Turkey does not have enough resources to carry out serious economic and social rehabilitation in Syria. Those countries in the region (Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, etc.) that could contribute serious funds to the restoration of Syria will most likely take a wait-and-see position, since the Syrian government will be patronized by Turkey. There is a possibility that Western countries will take a largely similar position, waiting for stabilization in Syria, which may not come there soon.
What is interesting in this context is that everything that is happening in Syria plays into the hands of opponents of the normalization of Armenian-Turkish relations, since Ankara has once again demonstrated in practice that, if necessary, it can trample any agreements (including with major players), as well as treaties, and interfere in the internal affairs of neighboring and formally friendly state.
Another main beneficiary of the current situation is Israel, which has managed to expand its security zone in the north of the country in the Golan Heights region. The Israel Defense Forces are systematically destroying the fleet, ammunition and weapons depots of the Syrian Arab Army, heavy weapons, etc. It is doing everything possible to ensure that Syria’s military potential is not restored for as long as possible. In addition, Israel has expanded its capabilities in supporting the Kurds in Syria and in general in creating the state of Kurdistan.
Another beneficiary in Syria is the United States, which benefits greatly from the departure of Iran and Russia from this country. The Americans have good approaches to the current leaders. In particular, we are talking about the aforementioned Abu Muhammad al-Julani, who spent several years in the American filtration camp Camp Bucca in Iraq. It is highly likely that the Americans will continue to support the Kurds, who have combat-ready infantry. However, it will be possible to talk more specifically about future US policy in the Middle East and, in particular, with regard to Syria closer to the middle of next year, when the administration of President Donald Trump determines its priorities.
Iran may become the next target of external and strong pressure. There is a serious danger of a rupture of the so-called “Shiite belt”, which currently blocks the activity of Turkey, Israel, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the USA, Great Britain and, partly, France, in a number of azimuths and, conversely, will contribute to an excessive strengthening of the positions of the Sunnis, including religious radicals. Iranian influence in Syria allowed the IRGC to project power to the West and transfer weapons, ammunition and reinforcements to its proxies and allies/partners on the borders of Israel. This military and strategic advantage has been lost, which will seriously undermine Iran’s future efforts to restore the same Hezbollah in Lebanon. If the trend of pressure against Tehran intensifies, then there is a high probability that Iran, which suffered a serious defeat in Syria, may launch the final processes to create nuclear weapons.
A serious threat of destabilization of the entire region of the Greater Middle East, which is the “oil barrel” of the planet, may arise, the format of interaction of various radical groups, including terrorist organizations, will expand. Convenient conditions will be created for the special services and diplomats of large states to manipulate the unstable situation, including for the implementation of various scenarios such as the “New Greater Middle East” project. Including the creation of a pro-American and pro-Israeli state of Kurdistan, which, quite possibly, will border the South Caucasus.
Russia is the main loser. It suffered a serious and painful defeat in the region, which can be assessed as close to strategic. In many ways, this was another result of its “partnership”, flirting with Turkey and personal, excessively “trusting relations” of President Vladimir Putin with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. It is very likely that the geopolitical dimension of Russia’s power will shrink, at least in the Middle East and Africa. With the probable loss of the naval base in Tartus, the Russian Federation will lose the ability to project naval power in the Mediterranean Sea and, partly, in the Indian Ocean. In the Black Sea, the Russian fleet was pressed to the shore, the Baltic Sea turned into a NATO lake. The loss of the airfield in Latakia practically deprives the Russian Federation of the opportunity to operate not only in the Middle East, but also on the African continent. There is also a possibility that Russia’s few allies in the post-Soviet space, especially from among the Central Asian countries, will begin to look for new partners in the security sphere.
Thus, it is obvious that the Middle East region has “moved”, although its statics have always been relative. It is obvious that the coming to power of the temporary transitional government in Syria does not mean that the turbulent processes in this country have ended. Most likely, we can say that the process has only reached the equator.
I would like to conclude the article with an excerpt from the address to the people of November 11, 2014 by the then President of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev: “Today, the whole world is facing new challenges and threats. The global economy has not yet recovered from the consequences of the global financial and economic crisis. Recovery is proceeding at a very slow and uncertain pace, and in some places the decline is still continuing. The geopolitical crisis and the sanctions policy of the leading powers are creating an additional obstacle to the recovery of the global economy. From my own experience, I have a premonition that the coming years will be a time of global trials. The entire architecture of the world will change. Not all countries will be able to go through this difficult stage with dignity. Only strong states and united nations will cross this line..
The author is a Yerevan-based political commentator.
Views are personal and IAR neither endorses nor is responsible for the same.
