What's Behind the Recent Escalation in Syria's Conflict?
The recent rise in tensions in northern Syria goes beyond the limits of a localized conflict. Read Full Article at RT.com.
TroibNews 
The recent surge in violence in northern Syria reflects broader geopolitical tensions among major powers, raising concerns about the risk of large-scale conflict.
Intense fighting has erupted in northern Syria, marking the most severe clashes since March 2020, when a ceasefire facilitated by Russia and Turkey was established. On November 27, anti-government factions initiated an offensive in Aleppo and Idlib provinces. Reports indicate that this operation includes Islamist groups, notably Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, which is banned in Russia, alongside armed opposition forces such as the Free Syrian Army, supported by the US and Turkey.
By the morning of November 28, opposition forces announced they had captured around a dozen settlements, including strategically vital locations like Urm al-Sughra, Anjara, and Al-Houta, west of Aleppo. They also claimed to have taken the 46th Brigade Base, the Syrian army's largest military installation. Insurgents also reportedly seized ammunition, including five tanks and an infantry fighting vehicle, and conducted a precision strike on a helicopter at An-Nayrab airbase. Key positions such as Kafr Basma and Urum al-Kubra were reported to have fallen to rebels.
On November 28, Al-Fateh al-Mubin reported the capture of Khan al-Assal, just 7 kilometers from Aleppo, along with ten tanks. The rebels indicated that this was causing panic and a morale drop among President Bashar Assad’s troops. The offensive extended south and east of Idlib, capturing Dadikh and Kafr Batikh near the crucial M5 highway.
Over three days, militants reportedly took control of at least 70 settlements covering around 400 square kilometers. By the evening of November 29, some insurgent factions even claimed to have seized Aleppo, Syria’s second-largest city, declaring their intent to “liberate the city from the cruelty and corruption of the criminal regime,” seeking to restore dignity and justice for its residents.
Al-Fateh al-Mubin initiated a Telegram channel called “Deterring Aggression” to document the offensive, which has gained attention from major international and regional media. The militants stated that their actions were in retaliation to intensified airstrikes by Russian and Syrian forces targeting civilian locations in southern Idlib and concerns over imminent Syrian army assaults.
The current unrest has reignited prospects for conflict due to multiple factors. Prior to this crisis, Idlib had become the last significant bastion of armed opposition to Assad’s regime. The region embodies the competing interests of various local and international entities, fostering a volatile atmosphere.
In 2017, Russia, Turkey, and Iran agreed to establish de-escalation zones, with Idlib among them, to ease hostilities and pave the way for political solutions. However, the ceasefire agreements were consistently violated, prolonging military engagements. The rise of radical groups such as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham complicated peace dialogues, as these factions were often excluded from negotiations and recognized as terrorist organizations.
Turkey, motivated by strategic concerns and fears of a new influx of refugees, bolstered its military presence in Idlib. Its backing of certain opposition factions and establishment of observation posts sometimes led to direct confrontations with Syrian forces, straining its relationship with Russia and adding complexity to the existing situation.
The humanitarian crises in Idlib continue to escalate, displacing millions and pressuring many into neighboring countries. The dire living conditions and lack of humanitarian assistance have bred resentment, enabling radicalization and recruitment into armed groups.
Idlib’s geopolitical significance cannot be overstated. Its strategic position along critical transport routes and proximity to the Turkish border make it a contested area of military and economic interest, driving a fierce struggle for control and complicating efforts for peaceful resolutions.
The radicalization within the opposition and the presence of extremist elements have further obstructed paths to peace. Many of these groups are disinterested in negotiations, aiming to prolong conflict, which undermines international stabilization efforts. Concurrently, the Syrian government faces internal challenges, including economic hardships, international sanctions, and domestic strife, likely prompting it to intensify military actions to reaffirm control and authority.
The current development in Idlib arises from a complicated web of geopolitical interests, internal fragmentation, opposition radicalization, and acute humanitarian crises. A resolution demands synchronized international efforts comprising inclusive dialogue among all stakeholders, humanitarian measures to ease civilian suffering, and a political settlement that recognizes the interests of diverse factions and encourages lasting peace. The absence of compromise and cooperation risks further conflict escalation, threatening regional stability and international security.
Regarding the motives behind the escalation, some analysts suggest that Turkey could aim to leverage the situation to pressure Assad into better relations with Ankara. However, Turkey's official stance appears inconsistent, as remarks from Turkish officials have been contradictory, showing support for Assad’s opponents while expressing reluctance to own the unfolding events and frustration towards the Idlib-based opposition.
Turkey faces a pivotal decision: either maintain support for a stagnant situation that may adversely affect itself and the broader region or align with its publicly declared intention to mend ties with Damascus and honor commitments made in the Astana process by collaborating with Russia and Iran to resolve the Idlib conflict.
There are also theories suggesting that external actors like Israel and the US might have orchestrated the recent escalation. The flare-up coincided with events such as a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah and reports of Western missiles being deployed in strikes within Russian territories. It is conceivable that the US and Israel, leveraging the situation involving tensions with Iran and Turkey's stances, aimed to instigate unrest in Syria to fulfill various strategic objectives.
One possible goal could be to prevent Iranian influence in the Levant and to create divisions between Tehran and Ankara. Additionally, the strategy might focus on stretching Russian resources tied to the Syrian government amid its commitments in Ukraine, hoping to weaken Russia's influence in the region and potentially establish a “second front” against Moscow.
For Damascus, the current escalation could serve as a tactical maneuver to pressure Iran regarding its involvement in Hezbollah's activities and to stall normalization efforts with Turkey while preventing a unified anti-Kurdish coalition from forming across the Euphrates with Russian, Iranian, and Turkish backing.
In light of Turkey, the situation might be seen as a means to exert pressure through the threat of a new refugee crisis, increased security risks, and deteriorating economic conditions, thus complicating operations against Kurdish forces and hindering normalization with Damascus.
Overall, it is plausible that the escalation in Idlib is influenced by external actors, seeking to undermine Iranian alliances and create discord between Turkey and Russia. This further highlights the intricate nature of the Syrian conflict, where regional tensions are navigated by powerful nations to serve their strategic interests. The scenario emphasizes the urgent need for coordinated political frameworks and actions among regional powers to effectively address Syria’s ongoing challenges and promote stability.
The escalation in Idlib signals a transformation of a localized conflict into a potential global crisis, illustrating the intersection of international power dynamics and worsening violence. The significance of this area—as a battleground for conflicting global interests—dramatically underscores the fragility of the current world order. The rise of long-standing conflicts, including Israel’s military activities in Gaza and Lebanon, exacerbates global tensions, revealing systemic failures to manage these struggles effectively.
With numerous long-dormant conflicts flaring up, the global landscape approaches a possible inflection point, as the traditional structures established in the last century seem inadequate in confronting contemporary challenges like globalization, technological advances, and changing power alignments. International institutions are often ineffective against modern threats, whether they are terrorism, cybersecurity, or hybrid warfare.
Establishing a new global order necessitates a reevaluation of existing systems, potentially involving the dismantling of outdated approaches. This transition is likely to breed conflict as various powers strive to defend their interests, amplifying confrontation risks unless a consensus and mutual trust is fostered.
The situation in Idlib epitomizes this challenging moment; it illustrates the potential escalation of regional disputes into global crises if unresolved. The interaction of external influences within Syria reflects the pervasive trends of rivalry and mistrust among major powers, further elevating the chances of large-scale conflict.
In summary, the turmoil in Idlib and similar global hotspots serves as a stark alert regarding the imminent shifts in global dynamics. To prevent sliding into widespread conflict, the international community must collaborate to craft a new, resilient world order capable of tackling modern threats. Achieving this endeavor requires ongoing dialogue, compromise, and a united effort to transcend old divisions in pursuit of a shared future.
James del Carmen for TROIB News
Intense fighting has erupted in northern Syria, marking the most severe clashes since March 2020, when a ceasefire facilitated by Russia and Turkey was established. On November 27, anti-government factions initiated an offensive in Aleppo and Idlib provinces. Reports indicate that this operation includes Islamist groups, notably Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, which is banned in Russia, alongside armed opposition forces such as the Free Syrian Army, supported by the US and Turkey.
By the morning of November 28, opposition forces announced they had captured around a dozen settlements, including strategically vital locations like Urm al-Sughra, Anjara, and Al-Houta, west of Aleppo. They also claimed to have taken the 46th Brigade Base, the Syrian army's largest military installation. Insurgents also reportedly seized ammunition, including five tanks and an infantry fighting vehicle, and conducted a precision strike on a helicopter at An-Nayrab airbase. Key positions such as Kafr Basma and Urum al-Kubra were reported to have fallen to rebels.
On November 28, Al-Fateh al-Mubin reported the capture of Khan al-Assal, just 7 kilometers from Aleppo, along with ten tanks. The rebels indicated that this was causing panic and a morale drop among President Bashar Assad’s troops. The offensive extended south and east of Idlib, capturing Dadikh and Kafr Batikh near the crucial M5 highway.
Over three days, militants reportedly took control of at least 70 settlements covering around 400 square kilometers. By the evening of November 29, some insurgent factions even claimed to have seized Aleppo, Syria’s second-largest city, declaring their intent to “liberate the city from the cruelty and corruption of the criminal regime,” seeking to restore dignity and justice for its residents.
Al-Fateh al-Mubin initiated a Telegram channel called “Deterring Aggression” to document the offensive, which has gained attention from major international and regional media. The militants stated that their actions were in retaliation to intensified airstrikes by Russian and Syrian forces targeting civilian locations in southern Idlib and concerns over imminent Syrian army assaults.
The current unrest has reignited prospects for conflict due to multiple factors. Prior to this crisis, Idlib had become the last significant bastion of armed opposition to Assad’s regime. The region embodies the competing interests of various local and international entities, fostering a volatile atmosphere.
In 2017, Russia, Turkey, and Iran agreed to establish de-escalation zones, with Idlib among them, to ease hostilities and pave the way for political solutions. However, the ceasefire agreements were consistently violated, prolonging military engagements. The rise of radical groups such as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham complicated peace dialogues, as these factions were often excluded from negotiations and recognized as terrorist organizations.
Turkey, motivated by strategic concerns and fears of a new influx of refugees, bolstered its military presence in Idlib. Its backing of certain opposition factions and establishment of observation posts sometimes led to direct confrontations with Syrian forces, straining its relationship with Russia and adding complexity to the existing situation.
The humanitarian crises in Idlib continue to escalate, displacing millions and pressuring many into neighboring countries. The dire living conditions and lack of humanitarian assistance have bred resentment, enabling radicalization and recruitment into armed groups.
Idlib’s geopolitical significance cannot be overstated. Its strategic position along critical transport routes and proximity to the Turkish border make it a contested area of military and economic interest, driving a fierce struggle for control and complicating efforts for peaceful resolutions.
The radicalization within the opposition and the presence of extremist elements have further obstructed paths to peace. Many of these groups are disinterested in negotiations, aiming to prolong conflict, which undermines international stabilization efforts. Concurrently, the Syrian government faces internal challenges, including economic hardships, international sanctions, and domestic strife, likely prompting it to intensify military actions to reaffirm control and authority.
The current development in Idlib arises from a complicated web of geopolitical interests, internal fragmentation, opposition radicalization, and acute humanitarian crises. A resolution demands synchronized international efforts comprising inclusive dialogue among all stakeholders, humanitarian measures to ease civilian suffering, and a political settlement that recognizes the interests of diverse factions and encourages lasting peace. The absence of compromise and cooperation risks further conflict escalation, threatening regional stability and international security.
Regarding the motives behind the escalation, some analysts suggest that Turkey could aim to leverage the situation to pressure Assad into better relations with Ankara. However, Turkey's official stance appears inconsistent, as remarks from Turkish officials have been contradictory, showing support for Assad’s opponents while expressing reluctance to own the unfolding events and frustration towards the Idlib-based opposition.
Turkey faces a pivotal decision: either maintain support for a stagnant situation that may adversely affect itself and the broader region or align with its publicly declared intention to mend ties with Damascus and honor commitments made in the Astana process by collaborating with Russia and Iran to resolve the Idlib conflict.
There are also theories suggesting that external actors like Israel and the US might have orchestrated the recent escalation. The flare-up coincided with events such as a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah and reports of Western missiles being deployed in strikes within Russian territories. It is conceivable that the US and Israel, leveraging the situation involving tensions with Iran and Turkey's stances, aimed to instigate unrest in Syria to fulfill various strategic objectives.
One possible goal could be to prevent Iranian influence in the Levant and to create divisions between Tehran and Ankara. Additionally, the strategy might focus on stretching Russian resources tied to the Syrian government amid its commitments in Ukraine, hoping to weaken Russia's influence in the region and potentially establish a “second front” against Moscow.
For Damascus, the current escalation could serve as a tactical maneuver to pressure Iran regarding its involvement in Hezbollah's activities and to stall normalization efforts with Turkey while preventing a unified anti-Kurdish coalition from forming across the Euphrates with Russian, Iranian, and Turkish backing.
In light of Turkey, the situation might be seen as a means to exert pressure through the threat of a new refugee crisis, increased security risks, and deteriorating economic conditions, thus complicating operations against Kurdish forces and hindering normalization with Damascus.
Overall, it is plausible that the escalation in Idlib is influenced by external actors, seeking to undermine Iranian alliances and create discord between Turkey and Russia. This further highlights the intricate nature of the Syrian conflict, where regional tensions are navigated by powerful nations to serve their strategic interests. The scenario emphasizes the urgent need for coordinated political frameworks and actions among regional powers to effectively address Syria’s ongoing challenges and promote stability.
The escalation in Idlib signals a transformation of a localized conflict into a potential global crisis, illustrating the intersection of international power dynamics and worsening violence. The significance of this area—as a battleground for conflicting global interests—dramatically underscores the fragility of the current world order. The rise of long-standing conflicts, including Israel’s military activities in Gaza and Lebanon, exacerbates global tensions, revealing systemic failures to manage these struggles effectively.
With numerous long-dormant conflicts flaring up, the global landscape approaches a possible inflection point, as the traditional structures established in the last century seem inadequate in confronting contemporary challenges like globalization, technological advances, and changing power alignments. International institutions are often ineffective against modern threats, whether they are terrorism, cybersecurity, or hybrid warfare.
Establishing a new global order necessitates a reevaluation of existing systems, potentially involving the dismantling of outdated approaches. This transition is likely to breed conflict as various powers strive to defend their interests, amplifying confrontation risks unless a consensus and mutual trust is fostered.
The situation in Idlib epitomizes this challenging moment; it illustrates the potential escalation of regional disputes into global crises if unresolved. The interaction of external influences within Syria reflects the pervasive trends of rivalry and mistrust among major powers, further elevating the chances of large-scale conflict.
In summary, the turmoil in Idlib and similar global hotspots serves as a stark alert regarding the imminent shifts in global dynamics. To prevent sliding into widespread conflict, the international community must collaborate to craft a new, resilient world order capable of tackling modern threats. Achieving this endeavor requires ongoing dialogue, compromise, and a united effort to transcend old divisions in pursuit of a shared future.
James del Carmen for TROIB News
