Idlib Conquers Damascus

In 2005, CNN’s Christiane Amanpour questioned Assad on his concern over the US’s desire for regime change in Syria; “they are actively looking for a new Syrian leader… they are looking at isolating you diplomatically, perhaps a coup d’etat or your regime crumbling.” Foreign designs over Syria and plans to topple the Assad regime have undoubtedly been in place for over a decade.

The 13-year Syrian revolution marks the end of 61 years of Ba’ath party rule, and 53 years of Assad control over Syria. The retreat of Bashar Al Assad from Damascus, and his arrival in Moscow signifies the dawn of a new regional chapter, but the involvement of Western and Turkish backed armed opposition forces begets the question as to what a free Syria will look like.

The regional power balance has been upended, and the forthcoming role of Turkey, Israel, and Russia in Syria will be decisive in determining the future trajectory of the region. The triumph of the Syrian opposition marks the final victory of the Arab spring, now, questions posed over who will benefit from the new Syrian order, as well as whose interference, or lack thereof is responsible?

Earlier this year, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan attempted a rapprochement, encouraged by Russia, with Syria’s Assad. However, their conflicting political interests led to a failed reconciliation. Erdogan sought to expand Turkish influence in Syrian politics, as well as an expanded military presence; Assad demanded the complete withdrawal of Turkish troops from Syria. Assad’s plans to extend a gas pipeline to Iran also went against Turkey’s own interests, who sought to build a pipeline through Syria, from Qatar to Turkey and Europe.

The regional power balance has been upended, and the forthcoming role of Turkey, Israel, and Russia in Syria will be decisive in determining the future trajectory of the region. The triumph of the Syrian opposition marks the final victory of the Arab spring, now, questions posed over who will benefit from the new Syrian order, as well as whose interference, or lack thereof is responsible

Since 2016, Turkey has been occupying parts of northern Syria. It comes as no surprise then that Syrian opposition forces were armed and backed by Turkey. The Syrian military could not defeat the opposition groups without major foreign military intervention, which seemed unlikely.

Assad’s realization that Iran was unlikely to send troops to intervene in Syria, based on their noninterference in Gaza and Lebanon, made Russia rethink its strategy on Syria and support of the former regime. The war in Ukraine had reduced its ability to support the Syrian army, and the Turkish backed rebels, and Syrian opposition were heavily armed. The calculation that Israel was likely to advance into Syria whether the army intervened against the opposition or not made the situation a decidedly unstable one. Realizing that the Syrian army could not defeat the opposition, Assad resigned himself to his fate, and Russia to the new regional reality. But an overwhelming number of Syrians supported the opposition, and Turkish support is also strong among Syrians, particularly among the Syrian Turkmen. Assad and Putin’s resistance to an expansion of Turkish influence was unrealistic, and failed. As Putin said, “It’s only the Syrian people who are entitled to decide who should govern their country and how.”

Russia’s permittance of the fall of the Assad regime may have served its own, larger interests. While Assad’s Ba’athist doctrine prevents him from dealing with either Turkey, or Israel directly, both which are illegally occupying Syrian land, Vladimir Putin has no such qualms. The capitulation of Assad to the rebels may have been an indirect détente with Turkey. Assad instructed the army to stand down, allowing the rebels to enter Damascus virtually unopposed. All signs point to a deal, brokered by larger, third parties with vested regional interests. Namely, Russia and Turkey. Appeasing the Chechens, instrumental fighters in the war with Ukraine, as well as Muslim Russians, which make up 15% of Russia’s population, may have factored into the renewed alliance with Turkey. With Russian and Turkish interests now aligned, Assad’s resignation may have been the price Russia paid to nurture the alliance.

Iran’s competition with Turkey for regional dominance and influence over the last decades has led to Turkey emerging the indisputable victor. The assassination of Qassem Soleimani in 2020, and the recent deaths of Ebrahim Raisi and Hassan Nasrallah, all staunch supporters of Assad’s Syria, left the former regime vulnerable. The deaths of Soleimani and Raisi, who had previously supported Assad through military intervention, meant the former Syrian regime did not see any chance for substantial foreign assistance. Assad was left with no powerful representative among the Iranian regime.

The Iranians have proven to be the ficklest of friends, and ineffectual of allies. Their passivity as their regional influence disintegrated, and the region’s upheaval, has shattered the confidence of many in Tehran’s willingness to defend its allies. Their ineptitude as they distribute promises of prophetic victory and smooth-tongued speeches has ensured their legacy will be of a futile ally that could not protect anyone. While Turkey’s support came in the form of tanks and NATO issued weapons, Iran’s support came in the form of fatwas and fourth-dimensional victory, imperceivable to the naked eye. The emergence of Turkish backed Sunni primacy will likely be the next phase in the region. The shape this neo-Ottomanism will take depends on numerous variables, including the deal which was made with Russia regarding Syria.

While Turkey’s support came in the form of tanks and NATO issued weapons, Iran’s support came in the form of fatwas and fourth-dimensional victory, imperceivable to the naked eye. The emergence of Turkish backed Sunni primacy will likely be the next phase in the region

Those still looking to Iran are now looking to the past, as the Iranian regime has lost regional consequence. The emerging Turkish influence, and their role as both a regional power in the Middle East, and NATO member, is ambiguous. If Turkey’s expansion of territorial and political regional influence pushes them to abandon NATO, this would be perceived by the Russians as reason to abandon its support for Assad’s government. If Turkey’s goal is a revival of Ottoman regional influence, through a neoliberal structure, and Russia wishes to maintain its gains in the area, an alliance is likely. A new regional political structure is emerging, marked by an increase of Israeli, moderate Arab, and Turkish influence.

Weeks earlier, PM Benjamin Netanyahu sent Ron Dermer, his closest foreign policy aide to Moscow, where he informed the Kremlin that if Assad does not close off Syria to the Iranians, and does not stop weapons transfer to Hezbollah, “we are going after him.” Today, Israel’s fabricated concern over the Islamist elements of the Syrian opposition forces has been weaponized in the media to advance its own geopolitical agenda. The modus operandi of the Israeli government is to use regional Islamic fundamentalism to justify expansion, military action, and Zionist politics. Abu Mohammed al-Julani, former member of Al-Qaeda, and current leader of designated terrorist group HTS, is being propped up as a potential leader of new Syria, giving Israel decades of pretext to advance their Jewish oriented policies in the region under the excuse of countering Islamic radicalism.

When Damascus fell to the opposition, Netanyahu immediately ended the 1974 border agreement with Syria, under the pretext of needing a ‘Golan buffer zone.’ The biblical Mount Hermon has been seized by the Israeli army, expanding the Israeli border into Syrian territory. Israel has also begun bombing military positions and airports across Syria, claiming on doing so to prevent them falling into the hands of Islamic jihadist groups.

This new geopolitical alliance would also set the stage for the return of Trump in 2025, and a revival of the Abraham Accords at a larger, more impactful scale. If this new regional power balance is in the interest of the Trump administration, and his regional policy of Abrahamic peace, was he involved in brokering a deal between Erdogan and Putin? What will the new development in Syria mean for the Kurds, who are still being targeted by Turkish forces? Developments in the forthcoming weeks will indicate the level of Russian and Turkish interference, and potential Trump involvement, in the Syrian deal.