ABSTRACT
The resurgence of conflict in northwestern Syria, particularly in the provinces of Aleppo and Idlib, marks a new chapter in the ongoing turmoil that has gripped the country for over a decade. The Syrian army’s recent counteroffensive against Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a powerful militant group rooted in the former al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra, has drawn renewed focus to the fragile balance of power in these regions. HTS has long held a significant foothold in northwestern Syria, using the chaos of the prolonged war to solidify its influence. The counteroffensive, reportedly resulting in the deaths of 400 militants, underscores both the intensity of the Syrian government’s military efforts and the broader dynamics that have shaped the civil war. This narrative aims to delve into the intricate details of these recent events, exploring the political, military, and humanitarian dimensions that make up the complex fabric of the Syrian conflict.
The recent developments in Aleppo and Idlib are not merely about tactical territorial gains; they are emblematic of a wider power struggle involving key regional and international actors. The conflict in Syria has transformed into a battleground where major powers, each with its own set of objectives and alliances, pursue influence and control over a strategically important region. Aleppo, once the economic hub of Syria, and Idlib, the last major opposition stronghold, are at the heart of this struggle. The battle for Aleppo, culminating in its capture by Syrian government forces in 2016, was a symbolic victory for President Bashar al-Assad. Yet, HTS’s re-emergence in the region highlights how fleeting peace can be in this conflict.
Idlib presents a more complicated picture, remaining under the influence of HTS and other militant factions, and serving as a focal point for numerous international interests. Its strategic importance is amplified by its proximity to Turkey, which has established observation posts throughout the province under de-escalation agreements made during the Astana peace process. Despite these efforts, Idlib has remained volatile, with frequent violations of ceasefires by HTS and other factions who use the province as a base for launching attacks. The Syrian government’s military response, supported heavily by Russian air power, aims to counter these threats while reinforcing Assad’s grip over the country.
Russia’s involvement in the Syrian conflict has been instrumental, not just for its direct military impact, but for the broader geopolitical implications. Russia’s intervention, beginning in 2015, marked a turning point, providing the critical support needed to turn the tide in favor of Assad. Russia’s military presence—highlighted by its airbases and naval facilities—demonstrates its commitment to maintaining influence in the Eastern Mediterranean and challenging Western dominance in the region. This is evident in Aleppo and Idlib, where Russian airstrikes have provided the cover needed for Syrian ground forces to engage effectively against entrenched militant positions like those of HTS.
Iran, another key ally of the Assad regime, has contributed heavily through its ground forces and affiliated militias such as Hezbollah. Iran’s strategy in Syria is driven by its broader regional ambitions—to secure a land corridor stretching through Iraq and Syria to Lebanon, thereby reinforcing its Axis of Resistance against Israel and Western influence. This strategy has seen Iranian-backed militias play a pivotal role in major battles, including those in Aleppo, and has been crucial in bolstering Syrian government offensives. For Iran, ensuring Assad’s survival is synonymous with maintaining its influence in the Levant and protecting its strategic interests.
Turkey’s position in Syria is more nuanced, reflecting both its geopolitical ambitions and its domestic security concerns. Turkey has supported various rebel factions throughout the conflict, partly to counter the rise of Kurdish forces in northern Syria, which it views as a direct threat due to their affiliations with the PKK, a Kurdish separatist group operating within Turkey. In Idlib, Turkey’s involvement is also about preventing a humanitarian disaster that could result in millions more refugees attempting to cross into Turkey. Thus, Ankara has established observation posts and supported opposition groups in an effort to prevent a total collapse that could lead to a mass exodus.
Beyond these regional players, the involvement of the United States and Israel further complicates the dynamics in Syria. For the U.S., the focus has shifted over the years—from seeking Assad’s ouster to combating ISIS and countering Iranian influence. The United States has largely supported Kurdish-led forces in the northeast, which has been a source of friction with Turkey. Its policy in Aleppo and Idlib has been less direct, focusing on targeted strikes against specific threats rather than deep engagement. For Israel, the primary concern has been the presence of Iranian forces and Hezbollah near its borders, leading to frequent airstrikes aimed at preventing Iran from establishing a permanent military presence in Syria.
The militant landscape in Idlib is a critical factor in understanding the ongoing instability. HTS remains the dominant force, exerting control over most of the province, but it is far from the only player. Hurras al-Din, an al-Qaeda affiliate, and other smaller factions add to the complexity, each pursuing its own agenda. HTS’s attempt to rebrand and distance itself from al-Qaeda was a strategic move aimed at gaining legitimacy, but it has retained its fundamental extremist ideology. Its control over Idlib has allowed it to establish a quasi-governmental authority, imposing strict religious laws and exploiting local resources, often at the expense of the civilian population.
The humanitarian impact of the ongoing conflict, particularly in Aleppo and Idlib, has been devastating. Thousands of civilians have been displaced by the recent escalations, adding to an already staggering number of internally displaced people in Syria. The infrastructure in these regions, including hospitals and schools, has been decimated, leaving civilians with limited access to essential services. The Syrian government’s use of heavy artillery and airstrikes in densely populated areas has led to widespread destruction and significant civilian casualties. Humanitarian organizations have struggled to provide aid due to security concerns, restrictions imposed by militant groups, and inadequate funding.
The interplay between these various actors and the presence of numerous militant groups like HTS, Hurras al-Din, and remnants of ISIS create an environment of perpetual instability in Syria. The Syrian government’s ongoing efforts to reclaim Idlib and Aleppo are not just about regaining lost territory; they are about attempting to dismantle the networks that sustain militant activities and stabilizing regions that have been outside of its control for years. However, the presence of multiple stakeholders with conflicting interests means that the path to peace is fraught with obstacles.
In essence, the conflict in Syria—especially in Aleppo and Idlib—remains a focal point for broader geopolitical rivalries and local power struggles. The involvement of Russia, Iran, Turkey, the United States, and Israel, coupled with the dominance of militant factions such as HTS, has created a deeply complex situation where military gains are often transient, and the humanitarian cost is immense. The recent escalations reflect the ongoing challenges of establishing lasting stability in a region where alliances are fragile, and interests are deeply entrenched.
| Date | Event | Region | Involved Parties | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| November 27, 2024 | Syrian army counteroffensive against HTS | Aleppo, Idlib | Syrian Government, HTS, Russia | The Syrian government launched a counteroffensive against HTS, resulting in 400 militant casualties. |
| September 2015 | Russian entry into Syrian conflict | Syria | Russia, Syrian Government | Russia initiated a large-scale air campaign to support Assad, significantly altering the war dynamics. |
| Late 2016 | Recapture of Aleppo by Syrian forces | Aleppo | Syrian Government, Russia | The battle for Aleppo culminated in a significant victory for Assad, supported by Russian air strikes. |
| 2017 | Formation of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) | Idlib | HTS, Jabhat al-Nusra | Jabhat al-Nusra rebranded to HTS, distancing itself from al-Qaeda to gain broader support. |
| 2018 | Splintering of Hurras al-Din from HTS | Idlib | Hurras al-Din, HTS | Hurras al-Din split from HTS, aligning with al-Qaeda, challenging HTS’s leadership in Idlib. |
| 2017 | Astana Process Initiation | Syria | Russia, Turkey, Iran | A diplomatic initiative to create de-escalation zones and reduce violence, including in Idlib. |
| 2019 | Fall of ISIS territorial caliphate | Eastern Syria | ISIS, SDF, International Coalition | The SDF, backed by international forces, dismantled ISIS’s territorial control in eastern Syria. |
| 2020 | Enactment of Caesar Act Sanctions | Syria | United States, Syrian Government | U.S. imposed economic sanctions targeting Assad’s regime to pressure political engagement. |
| 2016 | Battle for Aleppo and Victory by Assad | Aleppo | Syrian Government, Russia | The Syrian government, supported by Russia, regained control over Aleppo after intense urban warfare. |
| Ongoing | Turkish involvement in Idlib | Idlib | Turkey, Syrian Opposition, HTS | Turkey established observation posts in Idlib to prevent further escalation and a refugee crisis. |
| Ongoing | Israeli airstrikes targeting Iranian positions | Syria (Various) | Israel, Iran, Hezbollah | Israel conducted airstrikes to prevent Iranian entrenchment near its borders and deter Hezbollah. |
| Ongoing | Humanitarian Crisis in Idlib and Aleppo | Idlib, Aleppo | Civilians, HTS, Syrian Government | Civilians continue to face hardship due to bombardment, militant control, and limited humanitarian aid. |
The resurgence of conflict in the northwestern Syrian provinces of Aleppo and Idlib, marked by a recent large-scale counteroffensive by the Syrian army against the militant group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), symbolizes the ongoing turmoil in the region. HTS, a militant organization previously known as Jabhat al-Nusra and associated with al-Qaeda, has long maintained a foothold in these regions, taking advantage of the chaos created by more than a decade of war. The ongoing counteroffensive against HTS, which resulted in the elimination of at least 400 militants, according to reports from Captain 1st Rank Oleg Ignasyuk of the Russian Center for Reconciliation of Opposing Sides in Syria, has brought renewed focus to the complexity of the Syrian conflict.
The significance of the Syrian government’s military response extends beyond tactical gains and territorial control. It is emblematic of a wider struggle involving regional and global powers, all seeking influence over this critical geopolitical terrain. The intricate landscape of alliances, power plays, and unending conflict has rendered Syria a battleground for a myriad of conflicting interests, with each actor pursuing its own objectives. To understand the current military developments in Aleppo and Idlib is to understand the broader dynamics that have shaped and continue to define the Syrian civil war. This analysis provides a detailed, unbroken narrative exploring the strategic, political, humanitarian, and military dimensions of this ongoing conflict.
The historical significance of Aleppo, once Syria’s economic heartland, and Idlib, the last major stronghold of anti-government forces, cannot be overlooked. These territories have been flashpoints since the beginning of the Syrian civil war. Aleppo, a city once synonymous with cultural and economic vibrancy, has suffered greatly as a result of the war. Its fall to government forces in 2016, following a devastating siege, was a symbolic victory for the Assad government. However, the recent resurgence of HTS activity in the region illustrates the difficulty of securing lasting peace in Syria.
Idlib, unlike Aleppo, remains under the influence of HTS and a patchwork of other militant and rebel factions. It is a province where various interests converge, with the Turkish border playing a key role in its strategic calculus. The de-escalation agreements brokered under the Astana process, involving Russia, Iran, and Turkey, were intended to stabilize regions like Idlib. However, these agreements have often been violated, as militant groups, particularly HTS, have used Idlib as a base from which to launch attacks, further complicating efforts toward de-escalation and peace.
The recent attacks by HTS and the subsequent Syrian military response underscore the limitations of existing agreements and the volatile nature of the conflict. The Syrian army’s counteroffensive, supported by Russian airstrikes and reconnaissance, demonstrates the level of coordination and intensity required to challenge the entrenched positions of HTS in Idlib. The losses suffered by the militant group, as reported by Syrian and Russian officials, highlight the Syrian government’s ongoing commitment to reclaim these territories, despite the considerable risks involved.
The involvement of foreign powers such as Russia, Iran, and Turkey has fundamentally shaped the dynamics of the Syrian conflict. Russia, an ally of the Assad regime, has provided crucial air support, logistical backing, and diplomatic cover, allowing the Syrian government to regain much of the territory it had lost in the early years of the war. The recent counteroffensive in Aleppo and Idlib, which led to significant losses for HTS, was made possible by Russian support, underscoring the pivotal role Moscow continues to play in the conflict.
Iran’s role is equally critical but distinct. Unlike Russia, whose involvement is characterized by aerial campaigns and diplomatic initiatives, Iran’s influence is more entrenched on the ground. Iranian military advisors, along with Hezbollah and other Iranian-backed militias, have been instrumental in helping Syrian forces hold territory and counter insurgent threats. The current military operations in Aleppo and Idlib align with Iran’s strategic objective of maintaining a contiguous corridor of influence stretching from Tehran to the Mediterranean, passing through Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.
Turkey, meanwhile, occupies a complicated position in the conflict. It has provided support to various rebel factions, including those opposed to the Assad regime, and has established numerous observation posts throughout Idlib province. The Astana process, which involved Turkey alongside Russia and Iran, was intended to reduce hostilities, but Ankara’s relationship with HTS and other militant groups has been a source of tension. The presence of Turkish forces in Idlib is partly aimed at preventing a massive influx of refugees into Turkey, should Syrian government forces launch a full-scale offensive on the province. This has put Turkey in a delicate position, balancing its desire to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe at its borders with the broader geopolitical objectives of its involvement in Syria.
The recent escalations in Idlib and Aleppo have also been interpreted by Iran as part of a broader strategy involving external actors such as the United States and Israel. According to Esmaeil Baqaei, spokesperson for the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the activities of HTS are seen as part of a deliberate effort by these powers to destabilize the region and counter the influence of the so-called Axis of Resistance. The Axis of Resistance, consisting of Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah, represents a coalition opposed to Western influence in the region, and its members have been the target of various forms of intervention and pressure from both the United States and Israel.
This assertion by Iran is not without basis. The United States, while officially focused on combating the Islamic State, has supported certain factions within Syria that have operated in areas where HTS is also active. This has led to accusations that U.S. actions have indirectly benefited extremist groups by weakening the central government. Similarly, Israel has conducted airstrikes within Syria, targeting Iranian forces and Hezbollah positions. These actions, while justified by Israel as necessary to prevent the establishment of hostile forces near its borders, have contributed to the complexity of the Syrian conflict, often intersecting with the interests and activities of HTS and other militant groups.
The human cost of the recent escalations in Aleppo and Idlib is significant. The renewed fighting has led to the displacement of thousands of civilians, adding to the already overwhelming humanitarian crisis in Syria. The civilian population in these regions has borne the brunt of the conflict, with limited access to basic necessities such as food, clean water, and medical care. The destruction of infrastructure, including hospitals, schools, and marketplaces, has further exacerbated the plight of civilians. Humanitarian organizations operating in Syria have struggled to provide aid due to the ongoing violence, restrictions imposed by militant groups, and limited funding.
The Syrian government’s tactics, which have included heavy shelling and airstrikes, have drawn criticism from international human rights organizations. These groups have accused the Syrian military of using disproportionate force in densely populated areas, leading to significant civilian casualties. The Syrian government, however, argues that its military actions are necessary to eliminate the threat posed by HTS and other militant groups that use civilians as human shields. The challenge of conducting military operations in such environments underscores the difficulty of balancing military objectives with the need to minimize harm to civilians.
The persistence of HTS and other militant groups in Idlib is indicative of the broader challenges facing Syria as it seeks to stabilize and rebuild. Despite the successes achieved by Syrian forces, with the support of Russia and Iran, the situation in Idlib remains a significant obstacle to achieving lasting peace. The province’s proximity to the Turkish border, the presence of various militant factions, and the involvement of foreign powers all contribute to the complexity of the situation. The Syrian government’s efforts to reclaim Idlib are not only about territorial control but also about eliminating a key source of instability that has the potential to undermine broader efforts at reconciliation and reconstruction.
The strategic importance of Idlib also lies in its role as a gateway to the northwest of Syria. Control over Idlib would allow the Syrian government to secure the region, reduce the influence of external actors, and reassert its sovereignty over areas that have been outside its control for years. The elimination of HTS and other militant groups would also serve to dismantle the networks that have enabled these groups to sustain their operations, including smuggling routes, taxation of local populations, and external funding. However, achieving these objectives is fraught with challenges, not least of which is the humanitarian impact of such military operations.
The international community’s response to the situation in Idlib has been mixed. While there is broad recognition of the need to combat terrorism and restore stability, there are also concerns about the humanitarian consequences of military action. The United Nations has repeatedly called for ceasefires and the protection of civilians, but these calls have often gone unheeded on the ground. The involvement of multiple actors with conflicting interests has made it difficult to establish and enforce lasting ceasefires. The Astana process, while successful in reducing violence at certain points, has not been able to bring about a lasting solution to the situation in Idlib.
The broader implications of the conflict in Aleppo and Idlib extend beyond Syria’s borders. The involvement of regional powers such as Turkey, Iran, and Israel, as well as global powers like Russia and the United States, has transformed the Syrian civil war into a proxy conflict with significant geopolitical ramifications. The recent military developments are not just about the Syrian government attempting to regain control over its territory; they are also about the broader struggle for influence in the Middle East. The outcome of the conflict in Idlib will have implications for the balance of power in the region, the future of Syria, and the broader dynamics of Middle Eastern geopolitics.
The Syrian conflict, particularly in Aleppo and Idlib, is a stark reminder of the challenges of modern warfare, where traditional military operations intersect with irregular warfare, terrorism, and the involvement of non-state actors. The complexity of the situation is further compounded by the presence of multiple external actors, each with their own agendas. The Syrian government’s counteroffensive against HTS is a clear demonstration of its determination to reclaim lost territory and restore its authority, but it also highlights the broader challenges of achieving stability in a region that has been torn apart by years of conflict and external intervention.
Turkey’s Strategic Calculus in Idlib: Balancing Geopolitical Ambitions, Regional Security, and Domestic Pressures
Turkey’s involvement in the Syrian conflict is rooted in a combination of strategic concerns, security imperatives, and regional ambitions that have evolved significantly since the war began in 2011. Turkey, which shares a lengthy border with Syria, initially sought to play a prominent role in influencing the outcome of the conflict by supporting opposition factions aiming to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. This approach was driven by Ankara’s broader geopolitical goal of expanding its influence in the Middle East, as well as by specific national security concerns—chief among them, the potential emergence of a Kurdish autonomous region along its southern border, which Turkey feared could fuel separatism among its own Kurdish population.
From the early days of the conflict, Turkey aligned itself with a variety of opposition groups, ranging from moderate factions to Islamist militias, with the aim of hastening the collapse of the Assad regime. However, as the conflict dragged on, the fragmentation of the opposition, coupled with the growing influence of extremist groups, complicated Turkey’s position. The rapid rise of groups such as ISIS and HTS, both of which operated within the broader Syrian opposition landscape, forced Turkey to recalibrate its policies. Ankara found itself grappling with the unintended consequences of its initial support for the Syrian opposition, as the conflict began spilling over into Turkish territory through terrorist attacks and the arrival of millions of Syrian refugees.
The refugee crisis has been one of the most visible and immediate impacts of the Syrian war on Turkey. Hosting approximately four million Syrian refugees, Turkey has borne a significant share of the humanitarian burden resulting from the conflict. This massive influx has put considerable strain on Turkey’s economy, social infrastructure, and public services. Domestically, the presence of such a large refugee population has become a contentious political issue, with increasing public pressure on the government to address the perceived socio-economic challenges associated with the refugees. The refugee crisis has also shaped Turkey’s military and diplomatic strategies in Syria, as Ankara seeks to establish a “safe zone” in northern Syria to facilitate the return of refugees, thereby alleviating domestic pressures.
Turkey’s strategic interest in establishing a buffer zone along its southern border has been a key driving factor behind its military interventions in northern Syria. Operation Euphrates Shield (2016), Operation Olive Branch (2018), and Operation Peace Spring (2019) were all aimed at creating a corridor free from both ISIS militants and Kurdish forces associated with the People’s Protection Units (YPG). The YPG, which forms the backbone of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), has been a significant partner for the United States in the fight against ISIS. However, Turkey views the YPG as an extension of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), a designated terrorist organization that has waged an insurgency against the Turkish state for decades.
The divergence between Turkish and American interests in Syria, particularly regarding the YPG, has led to considerable friction between the two NATO allies. While the United States has praised the SDF, including the YPG, for their effectiveness in dismantling ISIS’s territorial control, Turkey has consistently lobbied for a cessation of American support for these Kurdish forces. Ankara’s military operations in northern Syria, which were ostensibly aimed at securing its borders and combating terrorism, have also been an attempt to prevent the establishment of a contiguous Kurdish-controlled region that could serve as a base for PKK activities against Turkey.
The dynamics of Turkey’s involvement in Idlib are distinct yet intertwined with its broader concerns in northern Syria. Idlib represents a focal point for Ankara’s efforts to balance its support for opposition factions against the risks posed by extremist groups like HTS. In 2018, Turkey, along with Russia and Iran, negotiated the Sochi agreement, which aimed to establish a demilitarized zone in Idlib to prevent a full-scale offensive by Syrian government forces, which could trigger a humanitarian catastrophe and potentially send millions of additional refugees into Turkey. Under the terms of this agreement, Turkey established a series of observation posts in Idlib, which were intended to monitor compliance with the ceasefire and prevent further escalation.
However, the implementation of the Sochi agreement has been fraught with challenges. HTS, which controls a significant portion of Idlib, has refused to disarm or withdraw from key positions within the demilitarized zone. This has led to repeated violations of the ceasefire, prompting retaliatory actions by Syrian and Russian forces. Turkey’s ability to enforce the terms of the Sochi agreement has been limited by the realities on the ground, where HTS remains the dominant force. Despite designating HTS as a terrorist organization, Turkey has maintained a complex relationship with the group, as it seeks to manage its influence in Idlib while avoiding a direct confrontation that could destabilize the province further and undermine Ankara’s strategic objectives.
The precarious situation in Idlib has also tested Turkey’s diplomatic relations with Russia. Despite being on opposing sides of the Syrian conflict, Turkey and Russia have developed a working relationship based on mutual interests, including energy cooperation, defense trade—exemplified by Turkey’s purchase of the Russian S-400 missile defense system—and shared concerns about American influence in the region. In Syria, this relationship has been characterized by a series of tactical agreements aimed at managing their respective interests without escalating into open conflict. The Astana process, which brought together Russia, Turkey, and Iran as guarantors of de-escalation, has been one such mechanism through which Ankara and Moscow have sought to navigate their competing interests in Syria.
Yet, the underlying tensions between Turkey and Russia are evident in their handling of the Idlib situation. Russia, as a staunch supporter of the Assad regime, has consistently pushed for the full reintegration of Idlib under government control. For Moscow, eliminating HTS and other militant groups in Idlib is a prerequisite for stabilizing Syria and consolidating Assad’s authority. Turkey, on the other hand, is wary of a large-scale offensive in Idlib that could trigger a humanitarian disaster at its border and destabilize northern Syria, where it maintains a military presence.
The balancing act that Turkey has attempted in Idlib—supporting opposition elements while engaging in de-escalation negotiations with Russia and Iran—reflects Ankara’s broader regional strategy. Turkey’s ambitions in Syria are part of its effort to reassert itself as a regional power capable of shaping outcomes in its immediate neighborhood. This ambition has been evident in other areas of Turkish foreign policy as well, including its military interventions in Libya and its involvement in the Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh. In Syria, Turkey’s actions are driven not only by security concerns but also by a desire to carve out a sphere of influence that aligns with President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s vision of Turkey as a pivotal player in regional politics.
Turkey’s domestic political landscape also plays a significant role in shaping its policies in Syria. President Erdoğan’s government has faced growing domestic discontent, fueled by economic challenges, including high inflation, unemployment, and the burden of hosting millions of refugees. The nationalist sentiment within Turkey has been stoked by the presence of Syrian refugees, with segments of the Turkish population viewing the refugees as a drain on public resources and a source of socio-economic strain. Erdoğan has leveraged military operations in Syria, particularly those aimed at creating “safe zones,” as a means of addressing these domestic pressures by promoting the idea of refugee repatriation and enhancing national security.
The complexities of Turkey’s position are further highlighted by its interactions with the United States. The relationship between Ankara and Washington has been strained by several factors, including Turkey’s purchase of the Russian S-400 missile defense system, which led to U.S. sanctions and Turkey’s removal from the F-35 fighter jet program. In Syria, the divergence over the YPG has only exacerbated tensions. While the U.S. views the YPG as an essential ally in the fight against ISIS, Turkey perceives it as an existential threat. Ankara’s decision to launch military operations against the YPG in northern Syria, despite objections from Washington, underscores the depth of this strategic rift.
In response to Turkey’s actions in Syria, the United States has attempted to mediate between its NATO ally and the Kurdish forces, resulting in temporary ceasefire agreements that have allowed for the withdrawal of YPG fighters from areas targeted by Turkish operations. However, these agreements have often been short-lived, and the underlying tensions remain unresolved. The complexity of the U.S.-Turkey relationship in Syria illustrates the broader challenges faced by NATO in managing the divergent interests of its member states, particularly when those interests intersect with broader regional conflicts.
The situation in Idlib remains a microcosm of the broader Syrian conflict—a space where local dynamics, regional ambitions, and international rivalries intersect. Turkey’s role in Idlib is emblematic of its broader strategy in Syria: a combination of military intervention, diplomatic engagement, and a desire to maintain a foothold in any future political settlement. However, the presence of HTS and other extremist groups complicates this strategy. Turkey’s challenge is to balance its commitment to opposition factions with the need to prevent Idlib from becoming a staging ground for terrorist operations that could destabilize not only Syria but also Turkey itself.
Moreover, Turkey’s military presence in Idlib and its observation posts, established under the terms of the Astana and Sochi agreements, have come under increasing pressure as Syrian government forces, backed by Russia, have pushed deeper into the province. The vulnerability of these observation posts, some of which have been surrounded by Syrian government forces, underscores the precariousness of Turkey’s position. Despite this, Ankara has been reluctant to withdraw, viewing its presence in Idlib as a crucial bargaining chip in negotiations over Syria’s future. This stance has led to periodic escalations, including direct clashes between Turkish and Syrian forces, which have the potential to draw Turkey into a broader confrontation.
Turkey’s involvement in Syria, particularly in Idlib, is also influenced by its relations with the European Union. The refugee issue has been a point of leverage for Ankara in its dealings with Brussels. The 2016 EU-Turkey refugee deal, in which Turkey agreed to stem the flow of migrants to Europe in exchange for financial aid and political concessions, has given Ankara significant influence over European policy towards Syria. The prospect of another wave of refugees from Idlib has been used by Turkey to press the EU for continued support and to justify its military actions in northern Syria. This has placed European countries in a difficult position, as they seek to balance humanitarian concerns with their own domestic political pressures related to migration.
In addition to its immediate strategic and security concerns, Turkey’s actions in Syria are also driven by its broader ideological vision. Under President Erdoğan, Turkey has pursued a foreign policy that seeks to project power beyond its borders and influence political outcomes in the region. This neo-Ottoman approach, which draws on Turkey’s historical ties to the Middle East and North Africa, has been evident in its interventions in Syria, as well as in other regional conflicts. In Syria, this vision has translated into a policy of active engagement—both military and diplomatic—that aims to shape the post-conflict order in a way that serves Turkish interests.
The broader geopolitical ramifications of Turkey’s involvement in Idlib are significant. The province is the last major area of Syria outside of government control, and its future will be a key determinant of the overall outcome of the Syrian civil war. For Turkey, maintaining a presence in Idlib is not just about preventing a humanitarian disaster or countering Kurdish influence; it is also about ensuring that it has a voice in any future political settlement. Ankara is acutely aware that its influence in Syria will be determined by the facts on the ground, and as such, it has been unwilling to cede control in Idlib, despite the challenges posed by HTS and the pressure from Syrian and Russian forces.
The dynamics in Idlib, therefore, represent a microcosm of the broader struggle for influence in Syria. Turkey’s position is one of both strength and vulnerability. Its military presence and its role as a guarantor in the Astana process give it significant leverage, but its dependence on Russian goodwill and the challenges posed by HTS and other extremist groups limit its options. The Syrian government, backed by Russia and Iran, is determined to reclaim Idlib, while Turkey is equally determined to prevent a full-scale offensive that could undermine its interests. This deadlock has led to a fragile status quo, punctuated by periodic escalations and a constant risk of broader conflict.
Turkey’s position in Syria, and particularly in Idlib, will continue to be a key factor in the evolution of the conflict. The interplay between Turkey, Russia, and Iran, as well as the involvement of the United States and other international actors, will shape the future of the province and, by extension, the future of Syria. For Ankara, the stakes are high. Its involvement in Syria is not just about securing its borders or countering terrorism; it is also about asserting itself as a regional power capable of shaping outcomes in its immediate neighborhood. The challenges it faces in Idlib are a reflection of the broader complexities of the Syrian conflict—a conflict where local, regional, and international dynamics intersect in a volatile and unpredictable manner.
The path forward for Turkey in Idlib is fraught with challenges. Balancing its relationships with Russia and Iran, managing the presence of HTS, addressing domestic political pressures related to refugees, and maintaining its strategic interests in Syria all require a delicate and nuanced approach. The situation in Idlib remains one of the most complex and high-stakes aspects of the Syrian conflict, and Turkey’s actions in the coming months will be crucial in determining the trajectory of both the province and the broader war.
Russia and Iran’s Strategic Alliance in Syria: Balancing Geopolitical Objectives and Tactical Necessities in Aleppo and Idlib
Russia and Iran have emerged as the two principal allies of the Syrian government under President Bashar al-Assad, and their roles in the ongoing conflict have fundamentally shaped the dynamics of the war. Both nations have invested heavily in ensuring the survival of the Assad regime, but their involvement is driven by distinct strategic interests and considerations that align in crucial areas yet diverge in terms of broader regional ambitions. Their commitment to supporting the Syrian government has been pivotal in enabling Damascus to regain large swathes of territory, including the decisive battles for Aleppo and the ongoing operations in Idlib.
Russia’s involvement in Syria is deeply rooted in its geopolitical strategy to maintain influence in the Middle East, secure its naval and military footholds, and project power in a region historically dominated by Western interests. Moscow’s entry into the Syrian conflict in September 2015, with a large-scale air campaign, marked a turning point in the war. At a time when Assad’s forces were losing ground to both moderate opposition factions and extremist groups like ISIS and HTS, Russian air support provided the crucial backing needed to stabilize the frontlines and enable the Syrian army to go on the offensive.
The strategic importance of Syria to Russia cannot be overstated. For Moscow, Syria represents a key ally in the Middle East and provides Russia with its only naval facility in the Mediterranean, located at the port of Tartus. This base not only serves as a critical logistical and operational hub but also symbolizes Russia’s military presence in a region where Western influence has traditionally been predominant. Additionally, the establishment of the Khmeimim Air Base near Latakia has given Russia a vital platform for conducting air operations across Syria and projecting power throughout the Eastern Mediterranean. These military assets are crucial for Russia’s broader strategy of challenging NATO’s presence and asserting its influence on the global stage.
In Aleppo, Russian air power played a decisive role in the recapture of the city by Syrian government forces in late 2016. The battle for Aleppo, which had raged since 2012, was one of the most brutal and consequential confrontations of the Syrian civil war. The intervention of Russian forces, with precision airstrikes targeting opposition positions and logistical supply lines, effectively turned the tide in favor of the Syrian army. The retaking of Aleppo was not only a military victory but also a significant political one, reinforcing the legitimacy of the Assad government and sending a clear message to both domestic and international audiences about the resilience of the Syrian state with Russian backing.
Russia’s approach in Idlib, however, has been characterized by a different set of challenges. Unlike the battle for Aleppo, which eventually resulted in a clear military victory, the situation in Idlib is more complex due to the concentration of various militant groups, including HTS, and the province’s proximity to Turkey. Russia’s strategic objective in Idlib has been to support the Syrian government’s efforts to regain full control over its territory, while simultaneously managing its relationship with Turkey, a key regional player and a member of NATO. The presence of Turkish military observation posts in Idlib, established under the terms of the Astana and Sochi agreements, has added another layer of complexity to Russian operations in the region.
The Astana process, initiated in 2017 by Russia, Turkey, and Iran, was aimed at reducing violence through the creation of de-escalation zones, with Idlib being one of the main areas of focus. For Russia, the Astana process represented an opportunity to shape the political landscape of post-conflict Syria, secure its interests, and reduce the influence of Western powers in the diplomatic resolution of the Syrian crisis. The agreement with Turkey to establish a demilitarized zone in Idlib was part of this broader strategy. However, the persistence of HTS and the continuous violations of the ceasefire have frustrated Russian efforts to stabilize the region fully.
The strategic calculus for Russia in Idlib involves a careful balancing act. On one hand, Moscow is committed to helping Assad regain control over Idlib, thereby eliminating one of the last major pockets of resistance against the Syrian government. On the other hand, Russia must manage its relationship with Turkey, whose military presence in the province and influence over various opposition factions make it an essential actor in any potential resolution. The repeated violations of the Sochi agreement by HTS have led to periodic escalations, with Russian forces providing air support to Syrian government offensives aimed at pushing back militant advances. These operations have often been characterized by heavy bombardment, which, while effective in degrading militant capabilities, has also resulted in significant civilian casualties and displacement, complicating the humanitarian situation and drawing international criticism.
Iran’s involvement in Syria, while aligned with Russia in terms of supporting the Assad government, is driven by a distinct set of regional and ideological considerations. For Tehran, Syria represents a critical link in its so-called “Axis of Resistance,” a coalition that includes Hezbollah in Lebanon, various Shia militias in Iraq, and Palestinian groups that oppose Israeli and Western influence in the region. By supporting the Assad government, Iran aims to secure its influence in the Levant, maintain its supply routes to Hezbollah, and project power across the Middle East in direct opposition to the interests of Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the United States.
Iran’s support for the Syrian government has been multifaceted, involving military advisors, financial assistance, and the deployment of allied militias. The role of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), specifically the Quds Force, has been instrumental in shaping the ground strategy of Syrian forces. Iranian-backed militias, including Hezbollah, have played a crucial role in major battles, such as the recapture of Aleppo, and have been deeply involved in ongoing operations in Idlib. The participation of these militias has provided the Syrian army with the manpower needed to conduct sustained offensives against well-entrenched militant groups.
Iran’s strategy in Idlib, like Russia’s, is focused on supporting the Syrian government’s efforts to reclaim territory, but it is also shaped by broader regional considerations. The presence of Iranian-backed forces in northern Syria has been a point of contention with Israel, which has repeatedly conducted airstrikes against Iranian and Hezbollah positions in Syria, citing concerns over the establishment of a permanent Iranian military presence near its borders. These airstrikes have highlighted the limitations of Iran’s strategy in Syria, as Tehran has had to contend not only with the challenges of supporting Assad against domestic insurgents but also with the external threat posed by Israeli military action.
The relationship between Russia and Iran in Syria is one of tactical alignment rather than strategic convergence. Both countries share the goal of preserving the Assad regime, but their broader regional ambitions differ. Russia’s focus is on maintaining a stable client state that can serve as a platform for projecting power and securing its interests in the Eastern Mediterranean. Iran, by contrast, is motivated by its ideological commitment to the Axis of Resistance and its desire to counterbalance the influence of its regional rivals. This divergence is evident in their respective approaches to the political future of Syria. While Russia has expressed support for a political settlement that could involve a broader coalition of Syrian political actors, including some opposition elements, Iran has been more staunchly supportive of Assad personally, viewing his leadership as essential to maintaining its influence.
Despite these differences, the cooperation between Russia and Iran in Syria has been largely successful in achieving their immediate military objectives. The recapture of Aleppo, the stabilization of Damascus, and the weakening of opposition forces across much of the country have all been made possible by the combined efforts of Russian air power and Iranian-backed ground forces. In Idlib, the challenge remains more formidable due to the concentration of militant groups and the involvement of Turkey, but both Russia and Iran have demonstrated their commitment to supporting the Syrian government’s efforts to reclaim the province.
The broader geopolitical implications of Russia and Iran’s involvement in Syria extend beyond the immediate battlefield. For Russia, its successful intervention in Syria has served as a demonstration of its capabilities as a global power capable of shaping outcomes in complex conflicts. This has enhanced Moscow’s standing in the Middle East, where it has positioned itself as a key player, capable of engaging with all sides—from the Syrian government to Israel, Turkey, and even some elements of the Syrian opposition. This diplomatic flexibility has allowed Russia to expand its influence in the region, negotiate arms deals, and secure economic agreements, such as contracts for the reconstruction of Syria’s energy infrastructure.
Iran, meanwhile, has used its involvement in Syria to expand its network of influence across the region. By establishing a land corridor stretching from Tehran to the Mediterranean, Iran has secured supply routes to Hezbollah and increased its ability to project power in the Levant. This has also allowed Iran to present itself as a key actor in the “resistance” against Israel and Western influence, bolstering its standing among Shia communities across the Middle East. However, this strategy has come at a significant cost, both financially and in terms of human casualties, as Iranian forces and allied militias have faced sustained losses in the Syrian conflict.
The current dynamics in Idlib represent a microcosm of the broader challenges faced by Russia and Iran in Syria. Both countries are committed to supporting the Syrian government, but the presence of Turkish forces, the persistence of HTS, and the complex humanitarian situation make a full-scale offensive in Idlib a high-risk endeavor. For Russia, the challenge is to balance its military objectives with its diplomatic relationship with Turkey, which has become an important partner in managing the conflict. For Iran, the challenge is to maintain its influence in northern Syria without provoking a broader confrontation with Israel or undermining its broader regional strategy.
The strategic partnership between Russia and Iran in Syria is one of necessity, shaped by their shared interest in preserving the Assad regime. However, as the conflict evolves and moves toward a potential political resolution, the differences in their broader regional objectives may become more pronounced. Russia, with its focus on stability and its desire to secure a political settlement that can end the conflict on terms favorable to its interests, may find itself at odds with Iran’s more ideological approach, which prioritizes the consolidation of influence and the continuation of the Axis of Resistance.
The roles of Russia and Iran in Syria, particularly in the context of the ongoing conflict in Aleppo and Idlib, are driven by a combination of strategic, geopolitical, and ideological factors. Their involvement has been instrumental in shaping the course of the war and ensuring the survival of the Assad government. However, the complexities of the Syrian conflict, the involvement of other regional actors like Turkey, and the divergent long-term objectives of Moscow and Tehran suggest that the future of their partnership will be shaped by both cooperation and competition. The battle for Idlib, with its multitude of actors and high stakes, encapsulates the challenges that lie ahead for both Russia and Iran as they navigate the evolving landscape of the Syrian conflict.
Israel and the United States: Strategic Calculations and Influence in the Syrian Conflict
The roles of Israel and the United States in the Syrian conflict are characterized by a complex interplay of strategic, security, and geopolitical considerations, driven by both nations’ overarching interests in countering perceived threats and shaping the post-war political landscape. Israel’s primary focus has been on preventing the entrenchment of Iranian influence near its borders, while the United States’ involvement has been multifaceted, involving both counterterrorism efforts and broader regional power dynamics. These two allies, while sharing common objectives regarding limiting Iranian expansion and securing regional stability, have adopted distinct approaches and tactics that reflect their respective strategic imperatives.
For Israel, the Syrian conflict presents both immediate security challenges and opportunities to shape its regional environment in ways that minimize threats to its national security. Israel’s primary concern is the presence of Iranian forces and Iranian-backed militias, particularly Hezbollah, in Syria. The expansion of Iran’s influence in Syria has been seen by Israel as a direct and existential threat, given Iran’s explicit hostility towards the Israeli state and its support for proxy groups that have engaged in armed conflict with Israel. This strategic imperative has driven Israel to undertake a series of preventive and reactive military actions aimed at curtailing Iran’s footprint in Syria.
Since the beginning of the Syrian conflict, Israel has conducted hundreds of airstrikes targeting Iranian and Hezbollah positions across Syria. These strikes have primarily focused on logistical hubs, weapons depots, and convoys believed to be transporting advanced weaponry intended for Hezbollah. By targeting these assets, Israel aims to disrupt the supply chains that enable Hezbollah to increase its military capabilities and to prevent the establishment of permanent Iranian military infrastructure in Syria. The Israeli air campaign has been sustained, precise, and, to a significant extent, effective in limiting the operational reach of Iran’s forces, although it has not been able to eliminate them completely.
One of Israel’s main operational doctrines in Syria has been the “campaign between wars,” which involves continuous, low-intensity military actions designed to deter and degrade the capabilities of its adversaries without triggering a full-scale conflict. This doctrine has enabled Israel to address the immediate threats posed by Iranian military activity while avoiding a broader regional confrontation that could draw in multiple actors and potentially destabilize the region further. The focus on airstrikes, intelligence-driven operations, and selective engagements has allowed Israel to exert considerable influence over developments in Syria without becoming directly embroiled in the wider ground conflict that has consumed much of the country.
The dynamics in Aleppo and Idlib are particularly pertinent to Israel’s strategy due to the strategic positioning of these provinces in relation to Hezbollah’s supply routes. Aleppo, a key transit point for weapon shipments, has often been a target for Israeli air operations aimed at disrupting the flow of advanced weapons from Iran to Hezbollah. In Idlib, the presence of various militant groups, including HTS, provides a level of complexity that complicates Israel’s objectives. While HTS is primarily focused on fighting the Assad regime, its existence in close proximity to areas of Iranian influence presents both opportunities and risks for Israel. The chaotic situation in Idlib allows Israel to engage in targeted operations without necessarily provoking a direct confrontation with other actors in the region.
However, the risks associated with Israeli military actions in Syria are significant, particularly in relation to Russia, which has established itself as a key power broker in the region. Russia’s military presence in Syria, including advanced air defense systems, requires Israel to carefully calibrate its operations to avoid unintended escalations. To manage this delicate situation, Israel and Russia have established a deconfliction mechanism designed to prevent accidental clashes between their forces. This mechanism has allowed Israel to continue its air campaign against Iranian targets while avoiding direct conflict with Russian forces. However, the relationship between Israel and Russia remains inherently fragile, as Moscow is simultaneously an ally of the Assad regime and Iran—both of which are targets of Israeli military actions.
The involvement of the United States in the Syrian conflict has been characterized by a dual focus on counterterrorism and containing Iranian influence, while also attempting to shape the broader political outcome of the conflict. Initially, U.S. policy in Syria was centered on supporting opposition groups as part of a broader strategy aimed at removing Bashar al-Assad from power. This approach was driven by the belief that Assad’s removal was essential to achieving a political transition that could bring stability to Syria and end the humanitarian crisis. The U.S. provided financial, logistical, and military support to various opposition factions, although this policy was fraught with challenges, including the fragmentation of the opposition and the growing influence of extremist groups within their ranks.
The rise of ISIS in 2014 dramatically shifted U.S. priorities in Syria. The group’s rapid territorial gains and the establishment of a self-declared caliphate spanning parts of Syria and Iraq represented a significant threat not only to regional stability but also to global security. In response, the United States led an international coalition aimed at degrading and ultimately defeating ISIS. This campaign involved extensive airstrikes, intelligence operations, and support for local forces, most notably the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which became the main partner for the U.S. on the ground. The SDF, a coalition of Kurdish and Arab fighters, played a crucial role in dismantling ISIS’s territorial control, with significant U.S. air and logistical support.
The partnership between the United States and the SDF, however, has been a source of tension with Turkey, a NATO ally. The backbone of the SDF is the YPG, a Kurdish militia that Turkey views as an extension of the PKK, a designated terrorist organization that has waged an insurgency against the Turkish state for decades. This divergence in priorities led to significant friction between Washington and Ankara, particularly after the U.S. began supplying the SDF with heavy weapons to aid in their fight against ISIS. For Turkey, the empowerment of the YPG represented a direct threat to its national security, prompting Ankara to launch several military operations in northern Syria aimed at curtailing Kurdish influence along its borders.
The United States’ approach to the conflict in Aleppo and Idlib has been more limited compared to its extensive involvement in northeastern Syria. In Aleppo, U.S. involvement was largely focused on supporting opposition factions during the height of the battle for control of the city. However, as Russian and Syrian government forces intensified their assault on Aleppo in 2016, leading to its recapture by Assad’s forces, the U.S. role diminished significantly. The complexity of the situation, combined with the presence of extremist groups among the opposition, made direct U.S. involvement increasingly untenable. In Idlib, the U.S. has primarily focused on counterterrorism operations targeting al-Qaeda-linked elements, while largely avoiding direct involvement in the broader conflict between the Syrian government, HTS, and other factions.
The U.S. position on Idlib is also influenced by its broader strategic goal of countering Iranian influence in Syria. While the U.S. has not engaged in direct military action against HTS, it has conducted targeted strikes against al-Qaeda-affiliated leaders in the province, seeking to limit the capabilities of jihadist groups that could pose a threat to American interests. At the same time, the U.S. has been cautious about engaging too deeply in the dynamics of Idlib, in part because of the complex interplay between Turkish forces, Syrian government forces, and Russian influence in the region. The de-escalation agreements brokered by Russia, Turkey, and Iran have effectively sidelined the U.S. from direct involvement in Idlib, although Washington continues to monitor the situation closely, particularly with regard to the activities of Iranian-backed forces.
The broader U.S. strategy in Syria has evolved to prioritize the containment of Iranian influence, which is seen as a key component of America’s regional policy aimed at countering Iran’s activities across the Middle East. The withdrawal of U.S. troops from northern Syria, announced in 2019, was a controversial decision that significantly impacted the dynamics on the ground. The move was widely seen as abandoning America’s Kurdish allies and allowing Turkish forces to expand their influence in the region. However, it also reflected a broader shift in U.S. policy under the Trump administration, which sought to reduce American military commitments in the Middle East while focusing on strategic priorities such as countering Iran.
In addition to the military aspect, U.S. policy in Syria has included a significant economic component aimed at weakening the Assad regime and curtailing Iranian influence through sanctions. The Caesar Act, enacted in 2020, imposed sweeping sanctions on the Syrian government, its military, and individuals and entities supporting Assad. These sanctions have targeted sectors critical to Syria’s reconstruction, including energy, construction, and finance, with the stated aim of denying resources to the regime and pressuring it to engage in a political process that could lead to a negotiated settlement. However, the impact of these sanctions on the civilian population has also been significant, exacerbating the humanitarian crisis in a country already devastated by years of conflict.
The divergence between the U.S. and Israeli approaches in Syria is notable, particularly in their handling of the Iranian presence. While both countries share the objective of limiting Iran’s influence, Israel has taken a far more proactive military approach, conducting regular airstrikes to prevent the establishment of Iranian military infrastructure. The United States, by contrast, has relied more on economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure to achieve this goal. The differences in their strategies reflect their respective capabilities and risk assessments—Israel, with its proximity to Syria, views the Iranian presence as an immediate and existential threat, necessitating a military response. The U.S., with broader regional commitments and a desire to avoid deeper military entanglement, has favored economic and political tools.
The involvement of Israel and the United States in the Syrian conflict also reflects their broader regional alliances and rivalries. For Israel, the Syrian war is part of its long-standing struggle against the Axis of Resistance, which includes Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah. By targeting Iranian assets in Syria, Israel aims to weaken this alliance and reduce the threat posed by Hezbollah’s rocket arsenal, which has been significantly enhanced with Iranian support. The U.S., meanwhile, views Syria through the lens of its broader strategy towards Iran, Saudi Arabia, and its regional allies, including Israel and the Gulf states. The American presence in Syria, though reduced, remains part of its commitment to containing Iranian influence and ensuring the security of its allies.
The relationship between the U.S. and Russia in Syria is another key factor that shapes American policy in the region. The deconfliction mechanism established between U.S. and Russian forces has been critical in preventing unintended clashes, particularly in the crowded airspace over eastern Syria. However, the broader U.S.-Russia dynamic is characterized by competition for influence, with Russia seeking to establish itself as the dominant power broker in Syria, while the U.S. aims to limit Moscow’s ability to expand its influence. This competition has led to a situation where the two powers, while avoiding direct confrontation, are engaged in a strategic struggle for control over the future of Syria.
The continued presence of U.S. forces in Syria, particularly in the northeast, is also tied to the broader counterterrorism mission. Despite the territorial defeat of ISIS, the group remains a threat, with sleeper cells and insurgent activities continuing to pose challenges to stability in the region. The U.S. military, along with its partners in the SDF, continues to conduct operations aimed at targeting ISIS remnants and preventing the group from reconstituting itself. This ongoing counterterrorism mission serves as a justification for the continued U.S. military presence, even as broader strategic objectives have shifted.
The future role of the United States and Israel in Syria will be shaped by several factors, including the evolving relationship between Iran and its regional allies, the dynamics of U.S.-Russia relations, and the broader geopolitical shifts in the Middle East. For Israel, the priority will remain the containment of Iranian influence and the prevention of weapons transfers to Hezbollah. This will likely involve continued air operations, intelligence gathering, and, where necessary, targeted strikes. For the United States, the focus will be on balancing its commitments in Syria with its desire to reduce military involvement in the region, while continuing to use economic and diplomatic tools to influence the outcome of the conflict.
In conclusion, the roles of Israel and the United States in the Syrian conflict are driven by a combination of immediate security concerns, broader geopolitical objectives, and regional alliances. Israel’s proactive military approach, aimed at curtailing Iranian influence and preventing the transfer of advanced weapons to Hezbollah, reflects its perception of an existential threat emanating from Syria. The United States, meanwhile, has focused on counterterrorism, containing Iranian influence, and shaping the political landscape through economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure. Together, these two allies have exerted considerable influence over the course of the Syrian conflict, though their strategies and methods have differed significantly based on their respective capabilities, risks, and objectives.
Militant Groups in Syria: The Role of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and the Web of Terrorism in the Conflict
The Syrian civil war, now in its thirteenth year, has been characterized by the proliferation of numerous militant groups, each with its own motivations, ideology, and objectives. Among these groups, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) stands out as one of the most powerful and influential factions in the ongoing conflict, particularly in the northwestern province of Idlib. HTS, formed in 2017, has evolved from its origins as Jabhat al-Nusra, an al-Qaeda affiliate, into a quasi-political entity that dominates the opposition-held areas of Idlib. The evolution of HTS, its role in the Syrian conflict, and its interactions with other militant factions reflect the broader complexities of the war and the difficulties in achieving a lasting resolution.
HTS emerged as a coalition of various jihadist groups, including Jabhat al-Nusra, with the aim of presenting a more unified and acceptable front within the broader opposition landscape. The decision to rebrand and distance itself from al-Qaeda was a strategic move aimed at gaining greater legitimacy among other opposition factions and the local population in Idlib. This rebranding also served to mitigate international pressure and potentially attract external support from actors who were hesitant to back a group explicitly linked to al-Qaeda. Despite this rebranding, HTS has retained its extremist ideology and has continued to engage in tactics characteristic of jihadist insurgencies, including guerrilla warfare, targeted assassinations, and the imposition of strict religious laws on the local population.
HTS’s control over Idlib has been marked by its ability to consolidate power and eliminate rival factions, thereby establishing itself as the de facto authority in the province. This consolidation has involved both military campaigns against rival groups and a more subtle campaign of co-optation and coercion. HTS has systematically dismantled or absorbed smaller militant groups, effectively eliminating any significant opposition to its authority within Idlib. This has allowed HTS to maintain a monopoly on power in the region, which it has used to establish a proto-government that administers various aspects of life in Idlib, including security, taxation, and the judiciary.
One of the key elements of HTS’s strategy has been its ability to adapt to the changing dynamics of the conflict and present itself as a pragmatic actor capable of governance. In contrast to its earlier incarnation as Jabhat al-Nusra, which was primarily focused on military operations, HTS has sought to portray itself as a political entity capable of administering territory and providing services to the local population. This shift in focus has been partly motivated by the need to gain the support of the local population, which has been weary of years of conflict and instability. By providing basic services, such as water, electricity, and education, HTS has sought to establish a degree of legitimacy that extends beyond its military capabilities.
However, HTS’s governance in Idlib has been characterized by coercion and the imposition of strict religious laws. The group operates a network of religious courts that enforce a harsh interpretation of Sharia law, with punishments that include flogging, amputation, and execution for those found guilty of offenses such as theft or blasphemy. HTS has also targeted activists, journalists, and anyone perceived as a threat to its authority, using intimidation and violence to suppress dissent. This authoritarian approach has alienated significant segments of the local population, many of whom view HTS as little more than a repressive force that has replaced one form of tyranny with another.
The presence of HTS in Idlib has complicated efforts to achieve a lasting ceasefire and a political resolution to the conflict. The group’s control over the province has effectively made it the gatekeeper for any negotiations involving the opposition-held areas of northwestern Syria. This position of power has allowed HTS to exert considerable influence over the dynamics of the conflict, often using its military capabilities to launch attacks against Syrian government forces and provoke retaliatory actions. These attacks, in turn, have undermined ceasefire agreements and contributed to the cycle of violence that has characterized the conflict in Idlib.
The relationship between HTS and other militant groups in Syria is complex and often fraught with tension. While HTS has managed to absorb or co-opt many of the smaller factions operating in Idlib, it has also faced challenges from rival groups that reject its authority or seek to carve out their own areas of influence. One such group is the Hurras al-Din, a faction that emerged in 2018 as a splinter from HTS. Hurras al-Din, which has maintained its allegiance to al-Qaeda, has positioned itself as a more ideologically pure alternative to HTS, accusing the latter of compromising its jihadist principles in favor of pragmatism and political expediency.
The rivalry between HTS and Hurras al-Din has led to sporadic clashes, as both groups vie for influence and control over resources in Idlib. Hurras al-Din, while smaller and less well-resourced than HTS, has managed to maintain a presence in parts of Idlib by aligning itself with other jihadist factions and presenting itself as a champion of the original goals of the Syrian jihad. This rivalry has added another layer of complexity to the conflict in Idlib, as both groups have occasionally collaborated against common enemies, such as Syrian government forces, while also competing for dominance within the jihadist landscape.
Another key player in the militant landscape of Syria is ISIS, which, despite losing its territorial caliphate in 2019, continues to operate as an insurgent force in parts of Syria. ISIS has adapted to its loss of territory by reverting to guerrilla tactics, including ambushes, bombings, and targeted assassinations. The group’s activities are concentrated primarily in the desert areas of eastern Syria, where it exploits the vast and sparsely populated terrain to conduct hit-and-run attacks against both Syrian government forces and the SDF. While ISIS no longer poses the existential threat it once did, its continued presence in Syria is a significant source of instability, particularly in areas that have already been devastated by years of conflict.
The resurgence of ISIS in Syria has also been facilitated by the ongoing chaos in Idlib and other parts of the country. The lack of a centralized authority and the proliferation of armed groups have created an environment in which ISIS can operate with relative impunity, using the instability to rebuild its networks and recruit new fighters. The group’s ability to adapt to changing circumstances and exploit the weaknesses of its enemies has allowed it to survive despite the sustained efforts of the international coalition to eliminate it. The continued presence of ISIS in Syria is a reminder of the broader challenges facing the country as it seeks to emerge from the shadow of a decade-long war.
In addition to HTS, Hurras al-Din, and ISIS, there are numerous other militant groups operating in Syria, each with its own agenda and set of alliances. These include various factions aligned with the Free Syrian Army (FSA), which was initially formed as a coalition of defected Syrian military personnel and opposition fighters. Over the years, the FSA has fragmented into numerous sub-groups, many of which have aligned themselves with external powers such as Turkey. These groups, often referred to as the Turkish-backed National Front for Liberation, have played a key role in Turkey’s military operations in northern Syria, particularly in areas such as Afrin and the border regions near Idlib.
The Turkish-backed factions in Syria have been instrumental in Turkey’s efforts to establish a buffer zone along its southern border, aimed at preventing the establishment of a Kurdish autonomous region and countering the influence of groups such as HTS and ISIS. These factions have also participated in the fighting against Kurdish forces associated with the SDF, which Turkey views as an extension of the PKK. The involvement of Turkish-backed groups has added another layer of complexity to the conflict in Idlib, as these factions often find themselves in direct competition with HTS for control over territory and resources.
The dynamics between HTS and the Turkish-backed factions are shaped by a combination of cooperation and rivalry. While both sides have occasionally worked together to counter Syrian government offensives, their long-term objectives differ significantly. HTS seeks to establish a jihadist emirate governed by its strict interpretation of Sharia law, whereas the Turkish-backed factions are more closely aligned with Ankara’s vision of a decentralized Syria that includes a role for the opposition in any future political settlement. This divergence in goals has led to periodic clashes between the two sides, as each seeks to assert its dominance in the opposition-held areas of northwestern Syria.
The presence of multiple militant groups in Idlib, each with its own agenda and set of alliances, has made the province one of the most volatile and dangerous areas in Syria. The proliferation of these groups has also made it extremely difficult to implement and enforce ceasefire agreements, as any truce is vulnerable to being undermined by factions that are not party to the negotiations or that have an interest in continuing the conflict. The result has been a cycle of violence in which periods of relative calm are followed by renewed hostilities, with devastating consequences for the civilian population.
The humanitarian situation in Idlib has been dire for years, with millions of civilians trapped in a conflict zone that is subject to frequent bombardment and fighting between various armed groups. The dominance of HTS has only added to the suffering of the local population, as the group has used its control over the province to extract resources through taxation and extortion. HTS has also restricted the activities of humanitarian organizations, often demanding a share of aid supplies or imposing conditions on the distribution of aid. This has left many civilians in Idlib without access to basic necessities, including food, clean water, and medical care.
The international community’s response to the presence of militant groups in Idlib has been limited by the complexities of the situation. While there is broad agreement on the need to combat terrorism and eliminate extremist groups like HTS, there are also concerns about the humanitarian consequences of a full-scale military offensive in the province. The risk of mass displacement and a humanitarian catastrophe has led to calls for a negotiated settlement that would involve the disarmament of militant groups and the establishment of a civilian administration in Idlib. However, achieving such a settlement has proven to be elusive, as HTS and other groups have shown little willingness to relinquish their power.
The role of external actors, particularly Turkey and Russia, has also been a significant factor in shaping the dynamics of militant activity in Idlib. Turkey’s military presence in the province and its support for certain opposition factions have provided a counterbalance to HTS, but Ankara’s ability to control the group has been limited. Russia, meanwhile, has used its air power to target HTS positions, but it has also sought to avoid a direct confrontation with Turkey, which could escalate into a broader conflict. This delicate balance has resulted in a situation where HTS remains in control of much of Idlib, despite the efforts of both the Syrian government and its allies to reclaim the province.
The continued presence of HTS and other militant groups in Idlib represents one of the most significant obstacles to achieving a lasting resolution to the Syrian conflict. The group’s control over the province has made it a key player in any potential peace process, but its extremist ideology and authoritarian governance have made it an unacceptable partner for most international actors. The challenge for the international community is to find a way to neutralize the threat posed by HTS while minimizing the impact on the civilian population and avoiding a broader escalation of the conflict.
In conclusion, the role of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and other militant groups in Syria is central to understanding the complexities of the ongoing conflict, particularly in the province of Idlib. HTS, through its consolidation of power and its ability to adapt to the changing dynamics of the war, has established itself as a dominant force in northwestern Syria. The presence of multiple other militant factions, including ISIS, Hurras al-Din, and Turkish-backed groups, has further complicated the situation, creating a web of alliances and rivalries that make achieving a lasting peace extremely challenging. The international community, regional powers, and the Syrian government all face significant obstacles in their efforts to address the threat posed by these groups and bring an end to the cycle of violence that has devastated the country for over a decade.
