Tensions in Idlib have intensified in recent days due to the escalation between Syrian forces and Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham in the northwest of the country, raising the possibility of a broad confrontation between the two sides, including what has been termed a “de-escalation zone.” The resurgence of this kind of escalation from Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham against the Syrian forces raises several questions about the motives behind this escalation, the positions of international and regional parties, and the potential ramifications and scenarios resulting from these military operations.
Motives for Escalation:
The motives behind Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham’s escalation against the Syrian army are varied, with the most significant being:
Strengthening the Group’s Position within Syria: One of the primary reasons driving Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham to resume operations against Syrian forces is the desire to bolster its standing among opposition factions in northwest Syria. Even though the group is the dominant force in this region, it faces internal challenges, including the rise of other factions, as well as popular pressures due to the deteriorating economic and humanitarian situation. The military escalation appears to provide the group with an opportunity to reaffirm itself as a strong and influential military force. Additionally, renewed escalation may be part of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham’s strategy to pressure international powers for concessions or recognition of its political status. Through this escalation, the group may seek to present itself as a key player in the Syrian equation, making it difficult to overlook in any upcoming international discussions or agreements concerning Syria’s future.
Exploiting International and Regional Chaos: The escalation by Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham coincides with significant changes on both the international and regional stages, including the Russian war in Ukraine and current tensions in the Middle East. This “chaos” might open a window for the group to intensify its operations while major powers are preoccupied with other crises, allowing it greater freedom to act without immediate international intervention.
Tensions with Russian and Iranian Forces: Notably, the Syrian army is not the only target of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham’s escalation; the Russian and Iranian forces present in the region are also involved. Hence, the increasing tensions with these forces may prompt the group to launch military operations to pressure these parties, either to reduce their presence in northwest Syria or to gain military advantages on the ground.
External Positions:
The positions of international and regional parties regarding the escalation between the Syrian forces and Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham vary as follows:
United States: Washington is one of the international parties closely monitoring developments in the Syrian crisis, aiming to achieve various geopolitical goals while limiting Iranian influence in the region. Regarding Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham’s escalation, the U.S. position is marked by contradictions; while Washington classifies the group as a terrorist organization, it does not resort to direct escalation or take strong stands against its operations. The U.S. might view the group’s escalation as an opportunity to complicate matters for Russia in Syria. Washington believes that any developments hindering Moscow’s objectives in Syria, particularly in the northwest, could benefit it in its broader struggle with Russia internationally, especially concerning Ukraine.
Russia: Syria is a strategically significant sphere of influence for Moscow, and since its military intervention in 2015, Russia has supported Syrian forces in regaining control over most of the country. Therefore, the Russian stance regarding Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham’s escalation is resolute. Moscow views the group as a threat to the stability of the Syrian government but recognizes the importance of pressuring Turkey; any escalation by the group could embarrass Ankara, which is involved in northwest Syria and is responsible for controlling armed factions there. Moscow may exploit this escalation to pressure Ankara to rearrange its position and reduce the influence of armed factions, or to facilitate Syrian army operations in the region.
Turkey: Turkey is a key player in northwest Syria, particularly in Idlib, which it controls through supporting opposition factions against the Syrian government. Although Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham is not a direct ally of Ankara, the latter finds itself compelled to maintain a balance in its dealings with these factions to prevent large-scale escalation that could lead to new waves of refugees flowing into its territory. Thus, Turkey aims to contain the escalation in Idlib and avoid direct confrontations with the group or encouraging it to escalate against Damascus. Ankara understands that such an escalation could jeopardize the ceasefire agreements reached with Russia, putting it in a difficult position and compelling it to intervene more extensively to maintain border stability.
Iran: Tehran’s position on Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham is clear; it considers the group a terrorist organization aimed at destabilizing Syria. Consequently, Iran fully supports military operations against the group, either through direct military support or via its affiliated organizations in the region. Iran views Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham’s escalation as part of its broader support for the Syrian government and the desire to eliminate any armed threats that undermined state stability, even if its preoccupations with escalating tensions with Israel on several regional fronts might limit its level of intervention on the Syrian front currently.
Negative Ramifications:
The escalation of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham against Syrian forces could lead to several adverse consequences:
Complicating Political Solutions: The return of military escalation makes political solutions harder to achieve in Syria, as renewed battles increase divisions among warring parties, especially within the armed Syrian opposition in northwest Syria. With ongoing difficulties in international negotiations about Syria’s future, the escalation could delay any potential political solutions and complicate efforts to resolve the conflict that has persisted since 2011. Additionally, the renewed escalation might drive international actors, particularly the United States and Russia, to become more involved in the Syrian conflict. Furthermore, regional powers such as Turkey and Iran might amplify their interventions in the Syrian conflict to serve their strategic interests.
Redrawing Lines of Control: With Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham’s escalation, changes in territorial control lines might occur. If the group achieves military successes, it could regain areas it previously lost or expand its influence, affecting military dynamics between various factions and the Syrian government. This could lead to a reconfiguration of territorial control in northwest Syria, and the escalation might weaken existing security agreements in the region, especially since northwest Syria has typically experienced a degree of relative stagnation due to accords reached between different parties, including the ceasefire agreement between Turkey and Russia in March 2020. Military escalation by Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham could undermine these agreements and revert the area to a state of military chaos, increasing the fragility of the security situation and making any future de-escalation more complicated.
Straining Turkish-Russian Relations: Turkey plays an important role in northwest Syria, where it maintains a military presence; thus, the escalation between Syrian forces and Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham may impact Turkish-Russian relations, especially if Moscow intervenes forcefully alongside the Syrian army. Turkey and Russia had previously reached understandings regarding the situation in Idlib, but any new escalation may jeopardize these understandings. Furthermore, the escalation affects other armed factions that might find themselves compelled to side with Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham or confront it, depending on interests and alliances, potentially leading to the disintegration of existing coalitions or the establishment of new ones, thereby altering the balance of power in the region.
Obstructing the Return of Relations Between Damascus and Ankara: Syrian armed opposition factions fear any rapprochement between Turkey and Syria, especially with ongoing efforts recently to restore relations between the two countries. These factions fear that successful rapprochement could end their influence in areas under their control in northern Syria. Thus, Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham might find that escalating tensions with the Syrian army could undermine the currently “stalled” efforts to restore relations between Damascus and Ankara, particularly given President Bashar al-Assad’s demand for Turkish withdrawal from northern Syria and cessation of support for armed groups there.
Potential Scenarios:
Based on the local and international factors surrounding the Syrian conflict, several potential scenarios regarding the escalation between the Syrian army and Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham can be anticipated, including:
Continuation of Military Escalation: One of the more likely scenarios is the continuation of military escalation between Syrian forces and Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham. The latter may intensify its operations in an attempt to inflict greater losses on government forces. In turn, the Syrian army will continue its operations, with the assistance of its Russian and Iranian allies, to regain control over additional areas in Idlib. The primary outcome of sustained military escalation could be the tensions it could create between Turkey and Russia, complicating de-escalation efforts and opening the door to greater military interventions from external parties.
International Intervention to Enforce a Ceasefire: As the escalation worsens and pressure mounts on civilians in conflict zones, international momentum to pressure the warring parties to impose a new ceasefire may grow. This scenario could materialize through Turkish-Russian mediation or even United Nations efforts aimed at avoiding a complete security collapse in Idlib. Enforcing a ceasefire might lead to a temporary easing in the conflict, but it may not be sustainable given the deep divisions between the parties. Should a new agreement be reached, Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham might try to exploit it to enhance its control, while Syrian forces could prepare for larger operations once the ceasefire ends. If the military stalemate between the two parties continues, there could be an opportunity to launch political negotiations between Damascus and the group, with international mediation, a possibility that might materialize amid geopolitical changes, such as improved relations between Turkey and Russia or international pressure to end the conflict.
Expansion of the Conflict: If military escalation continues for an extended period without effective international intervention to halt it, this could lead to greater involvement from new regional and international parties. Turkey, for instance, may feel compelled to increase its military intervention in northern Syria to protect its security and economic interests. In contrast, Iran and Russia may seek to bolster their military presence to counter any Turkish attempts to expand its influence. Logically, this escalation could complicate the political solution and increase the cost of the conflict for all involved parties.
In conclusion, the escalation by Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham against Syrian forces in northwest Syria appears to be the result of a combination of political, military, and economic factors. While the group seeks to strengthen its position and expand its influence, the ramifications of this escalation could be catastrophic, especially concerning complicating the opportunities for a political solution to the Syrian crisis. Therefore, the future possibilities for the group’s escalation remain complex and multifaceted, to the extent that they cast uncertainty over the future of the “de-escalation zone” and its stability.
