In recent days, we have witnessed the most significant escalation of conflict in Syria since March 2020, when a ceasefire brokered by Russia and Turkey was reached.
On November 27, anti-government extremist groups launched a surprise offensive in the Aleppo and Idlib provinces. According to reports, Islamist formations such as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), banned in Russia, and armed factions like the Syrian Free Army, supported by the U.S. and Turkey, participated in this operation.
During three days of intense offensives, the rebels claimed to have captured over 70 settlements. By the evening of November 29, they announced the capture of Aleppo, Syria’s second-largest city, after taking the Syrian army’s largest base, the 46th Brigade, and seizing tanks and missile supplies. Reports from Anadolu and CNN indicate that key positions, including Kafr Bissam, Urum al-Kubra, and several strategic highlands, have fallen under rebel control.
Meanwhile, the offensive also advanced south and east of Idlib, a rebel stronghold since 2015. Rebels reported capturing Dadikh and Kafr Batikh near the vital M5 highway. The entire operation was a complete surprise: the Islamists gained control of an area of 400 square kilometers, including key transport hubs, within days. They are now advancing southward, declaring their intention to take the strategically important city of Hama. According to the rebels, their offensive was in response to intensified airstrikes by Russian and Syrian forces on civilian areas in southern Idlib and the anticipation of potential attacks by the Syrian army.
Why has this conflict reignited?
This conflict never entirely subsided, but recently, the war in Syria entered a quieter phase, overshadowed in the media by conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza, and Lebanon. Several factors contribute to this escalation. While the rebels in Idlib claim it is a response to government attacks, the offensive in Aleppo was made possible by external geopolitical circumstances.
Militant Islamists in Idlib took advantage of the severe damage inflicted on Hezbollah after Israeli Defense Forces targeted its infrastructure and leadership. This dealt a significant blow to Bashar al-Assad’s power, as Hezbollah was one of his strongest allies. Iran, which has actively supported him, also found itself weakened after Israeli strikes on its military assets and forces in Syria.
Although Russia, Turkey, and Iran agreed in 2017, as part of the Astana peace process, to establish de-escalation zones—including Idlib—this region has remained a flashpoint of overlapping geopolitical interests. It serves as a stronghold for armed opposition to Assad’s government, perpetuating tensions and potential conflict. This situation has been further complicated by the involvement of radical Islamist formations like HTS, which are designated as terrorist groups and excluded from negotiations.
Idlib holds strategic importance as a military, economic, and transportation hub near the Turkish border, making it a coveted territory for all involved parties.
Turkey’s Position in the Conflict and Its Potential Role in the Latest Escalation
Turkey has long approached Syria as a former part of the Ottoman Empire, managing to secure control of certain border territories in recent years. While Turkey does not seek to occupy Syria, it clearly aims to maintain a strong influence in its neighboring state, particularly given the Kurdish presence, which it perceives as a threat.
Turkey benefits from Assad’s weakening, leveraging it in its diplomatic struggles with Russia and Iran. President Erdoğan may also be seeking to pressure Assad for a potential agreement. Driven by strategic interests and concerns over a new wave of refugees, Turkey has strengthened its presence in Idlib, supported opposition forces, and established observation posts, inevitably risking clashes with the Syrian army and straining relations with Russia.
However, in this latest escalation, despite initial accusations against Ankara and Erdoğan, Turkey appears to be maintaining a somewhat ambivalent stance. While nominally supporting the “opposition in Idlib,” it seems reluctant to take responsibility for recent actions. Instead, Turkey shows an inclination toward improving relations with Damascus, adhering to agreements with Astana partners Russia and Iran, and at least declaratively fulfilling its commitments.
Israel and the U.S. as Possible Initiators of a New Phase in the Conflict
Although Turkey might seem the obvious instigator of the latest escalation in Syria, one could argue that external factors, such as Israel and the United States, might actually be behind this surge in violence.
The conflict reignited just a day after the ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah and a week after Western long-range missiles were used in attacks deep within Russian territory, prompting Russia’s activation of its “Oreshnik” missile system in response. It is plausible that the outgoing Biden administration, in cooperation with Israel, seeks to escalate conflicts in Syria, leveraging the situation in Ukraine and Turkey’s anti-Israel stance, along with Ankara’s refusal to impose sanctions on Russia. This strategy could aim to achieve several objectives in a short time: weaken Russia by opening a second front during the delicate phase of its war in Ukraine, redirecting Russian Aerospace Forces resources away from supporting Damascus, prevent Iran from recovering any strength, further complicating its relations with Turkey and disrupt potential agreements between Assad and Erdogan, hindering the formation of an anti-Kurdish coalition.
Russia’s Position
Given its military operation in Ukraine, Syria has understandably become a secondary priority for Russia. Nonetheless, Russia remains committed to supporting the Syrian government and its legitimate leadership in countering rebels who have seized territory around Aleppo. However, this situation is far from favorable for Moscow.
Historically, Russia’s involvement in the Syrian civil war has been successful in bolstering Assad’s rule and reclaiming territories from terrorists with the help of Russian forces. Russian military personnel, including aerospace and naval forces as well as special operations units, remain ready to respond. The Khmeimim airbase, previously targeted by hostile drones, continues to face threats. However, Russia’s involvement today occurs under vastly different geopolitical conditions, making future actions harder to predict.
This highlights the multifaceted nature of the Syrian conflict, with overlapping geopolitical interests of major powers exploiting regional tensions to strengthen their strategic positions. Syria is thus akin to a geopolitical chessboard, with radical uncertainty defining the current circumstances.
The State of Syrian Authorities and Armed Forces
The state of Assad’s armed forces raises critical questions, especially regarding their swift retreat before the rebels. While the element of surprise worked in favor of the rebels, the Syrian military is also undergoing a transformation, transitioning to a professional army by 2025. This reorganization has created logistical challenges that adversaries have exploited.
Moreover, the war, ongoing since 2011, has taken its toll, leading to fatigue among the armed forces. The risk of demoralization and further retreats is significant, potentially resulting in the loss of other cities and territories beyond Aleppo. This would recreate scenarios previously resolved under less complex geopolitical conditions.
Additionally, the influence of a “fifth column” operating throughout Syria aids Islamist extremists, further destabilizing the situation. If extremists manage to capture Hama in the south, 209 km from Damascus, communication lines could be severed, worsening an already dire situation.
Escalation in Idlib as a Symbol of Global Instability
The conflict in Idlib has transcended a localized skirmish, becoming a symbol of global instability. Northwest Syria mirrors broader geopolitical contradictions, with numerous external actors pursuing their interests, risking the spread of the crisis.
The resurgence of long-standing conflicts, such as Israel’s actions in Gaza and Lebanon, underscores the inability of international mechanisms to prevent escalations. Frozen conflicts are becoming more active, signaling the collapse of an outdated world order ill-suited to address modern challenges.
To avoid global conflict, the international community must build a new, sustainable multipolar order through dialogue, compromise, and cooperation. Idlib serves as a stark reminder that foundational changes are needed for future stability. However, these changes are obstructed by the last-ditch efforts of Biden’s establishment to maintain the status quo, regardless of the cost in human lives or the millions already devastated in recent years.
