Just hours after the announcement of a ceasefire in Lebanon, northwest Syria was engulfed in most violent clashes not witnessed in four years. A coalition of armed factions, including the Turkey-backed National Army, the Levant Liberation Front[1] — formerly known as Jabhat al-Nusra[2] — led by Mohammed al-Jolani, the Levant Front, and the Sultan Suleiman Shah Division, identified as terrorist organizations, launched an offensive on the city of Aleppo. This surge of violence raises critical questions about the stability of the region and the effectiveness of international diplomatic efforts.
In a well-calculated offensive, small factions have successfully infiltrated the western neighborhoods of Aleppo, steadily advancing to Abdullah al-Jabri Square — the city’s center and its symbolic heart. This attack followed the conquering of significant territories in the northern and western outskirts of Aleppo, and parts of eastern Idlib. Such methodical encroachment reveals a broader strategic objective, leaving many residents in shock and disbelief.
The recent official statement by the Syrian Ministry of Defense says that its armed forces were engaged in a “large” and “sudden” assault by opposition fighters. However, on the ground, the army’s response appeared tepid at best, raising questions about its operational effectiveness. At the same time, Russian and Syrian forces were reported to have made intensive airstrikes on vital supply routes used by insurgent groups in rural Idlib and Aleppo. This multifaceted situation highlights the complexities of the conflict’s escalation and the shifting power dynamics in the region.
The terrorists’ offensive against the Syrian army poses a formidable challenge to a vast region stretching to over 110 kilometers and extends 8 kilometers deep, from Aleppo’s northern outskirts to Idlib’s southern boundaries. The potential occupation of Aleppo by extremist factions will mean a severe strategic setback for the Syrian government. Syria’s largest governorate and economic hub, Aleppo is located just 310 kilometers away its the capital, Damascus.
The escalation has raised the pressing question about the apparent inaction of the Iranian forces that have significantly bolstered their presence in the country to support the Assad regime (which spans 477 sites nationwide, including 52 military bases and a staggering 177 in Aleppo alone. Despite such a substantial military footprint, the Iranian forces have not yet taken decisive measures against the proliferation of the terrorist groups operating in the region.
Having a significant number of troops, these forces have no air force or adequate air defense capabilities to execute substantial military operations. In addition, Iran has strategically repositioned their assets to minimize vulnerability to airstrikes from Israeli and international coalition forces, increasing dependence on cross-border militia units for support. Reliance on the overstretched Syrian military infrastructure is unlikely to provide the necessary defense against such attacks. This explains the ease with which terrorist groups were able to penetrate Aleppo, largely unopposed and unchallenged. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for assessing regional security and the effectiveness of current military strategies in countering threats in Syria.
The recent announcement by the Syrian Ministry of Defense regarding the increase of military supplies to reinforce the government forces must be viewed in the broader context of the escalating regional and international tensions. Specifically, the resurgence of hostilities calls into question the sustainability of the ceasefire agreement brokered by Turkey and Russia on 5 March 2020. As tensions mount, it becomes increasingly clear that the delicate balance of power in Syria is at a breaking point and that the geopolitical implications of the conflict’s escalation require a thorough examination.
The ongoing Syrian conflict remains mired in inertia and obstruction, which was highlighted by the recent briefing by UN envoy Geir Pedersen to the Security Council on 21 November 2024. This assessment reflects the prevailing political deadlock that has rendered significant progress elusive, complicating the international community’s response to the enduring crisis.
Regionally, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s efforts to engage with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad have also reached an impasse. Erdoğan stated: “We have extended our hand to the Syrian side in pursuit of normalization. We believe this will pave the way to peace and stability within Syrian territory.” However, attempts to reach any constructive initiatives on this matter have so far failed. It is important to keep in mind that Turkey is hosting over three million Syrian refugees and grapples with the Kurdish issue. Both these matters should have been addressed and resolved in dialogue with the Syrian government.
An assessment of the military dynamics in Syria, reveals a striking contrast between the Iranian forces and the Turkish contingent. Currently, Turkey maintains an extensive presence with 12 bases and 114 military points, 58 situated in Aleppo and 51 in Idlib. While these numbers may be overshadowed by the size of the Iranian forces, the true significance lies in the superior capabilities of the Turkish military. The Turkish troops are not only armed with artillery, tanks, and armored vehicles but also possess advanced anti-aircraft systems, minesweepers, and sophisticated communication technologies. This military infrastructure positions Turkey as a serious player in Syria’s current geopolitical landscape.
The establishment of Turkey’s presence in Aleppo has been bolstered by the presence of various factions that are widely believed to receive Turkish support, even as Ankara refrains from formally acknowledging its involvement. This strategic maneuvering has enabled Turkey to assert its influence in Aleppo, showcasing both numerical superiority and advanced military equipment in a landscape marked by complex geopolitical dynamics.
This strategic maneuver aims to safeguard ongoing peace initiatives with Israel and to maintain robust control over the land borders between Syria and Iraq. Such control is critical for thwarting the infiltration of allied factions from Iraq into Syrian territory. Notably, it seems that both international and regional powers are actively looking for a new guarantor for Israel’s security, effectively seeking a replacement for the Assad regime.
The central focus of this realignment is the effort to neutralize resistance factions such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza, effectively eliminating their influence in any forthcoming political negotiations. This objective extends to put an end to the so-called “unity of the arenas” by diminishing Hezbollah’s hold in Lebanon, a campaign that involves eliminating the group’s military infrastructure and leadership.
Recent actions signal a clear intent to incapacitate Hezbollah’s political framework, including operations to eliminate high-ranking officials such as Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah and his deputy, Hashem Safieddine as well as Hezbollah’s Radwan Force.
This strategy appears to reflect an intention to replicate the dynamics observed during the Arab League’s intervention in Lebanon, particularly the Arab Deterrent Force’s maneuvers, where Syria got the international acknowledgment of its role in Lebanon in 1976. As Turkey continues to assert its influence in the region, the implications of its involvement raise critical questions about the future of Syrian sovereignty and regional stability.
In the Middle East’s complex geopolitical landscape, Ankara has opted to collaborate with various Syrian factions. This approach indicates a meticulously crafted strategy aimed at navigating the intricacies of Syrian politics.
Turkey stands out as a regional nation hosting the largest number of Syrian refugees, surpassing three million, thus underscoring its significant influence in the ongoing crisis. Furthermore, Turkey has demonstrated its capability to manage diverse fighting groups, positioning itself as a critical player in the conflict. From a sectarian perspective, Ankara’s alignment with the Sunni majority in Syria plays a pivotal role in shaping its regional approach.
Turkey finds itself in a strategically beneficial position, emerging as a potential partner for dialogue amid a rapidly evolving political landscape. This expected newfound status could prove unsettling for its neighbors, particularly in light of the potential establishment of a new regime in Syria that may be aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood[3], an outcome that raises significant concerns. Within this complex narrative, Israel seems to regard Turkey’s involvement as a more palatable alternative to a government swayed by Iranian interests, thereby adding another layer of complexity to the already intricate regional dynamics.
The coming period will be critical for understanding the dynamics at play as we watch for several key developments:
- Will existing factions remain restricted to the territory occupied now or will their influence extend into neighboring Syrian lands, potentially shifting the balance of power?
- What role will Iranian-backed Iraqi Shiite forces play, and will they intervene?
- Might Iran opt for a strategic de-escalation of tensions, accepting the new geopolitical reality, particularly its withdrawal from Syria—and granting Turkey the responsibility of filling the resulting vacuum? In exchange, will Iran pursue diplomatic agreements with the U.S. administration under Donald Trump, aimed at safeguarding itself from the widespread destruction already witnessed in Gaza and Lebanon, and the re-ignition of conflict in Syria?
The battle for Aleppo may indeed serve as a microcosm of the larger Syrian conflict, an arena where the risks are not only national but also profoundly regional and international.
