The Middle-East: a crossroad of conflicts. Syria multi-scale confrontations represents the complexity of this region. Here is an updated status of Syrian conflict now that the ISIS is about to be repelled from Syria borders.

Even if newspapers don’t place Syria in their front pages anymore, there is still a conflict there. On this special date of September 11th, 2018 (17 years after twin towers attacks), military leaders from the coalition backed by the United Stats have announced the final assault to expel remaining ISIS redoubts in Syrian territory.

Success of this expelling may become a new milestone for Syria, and therefore a new opportunity to change for a better life in this millennial country. Bachar al-Asad is still in power following the support of Vladimir Putin. West coalition limits itself to bomb ISIS settlements, observing (but not acting against) the use of chemical weapons against regime rebels and civilians. Turkey defends its southern borders of a potential secessionist movement in the north of Syria, interfering with US local allies. And on the top of everything, the fight for regional supremacy between Iran and Saudi Arabia… A complex scenario where allies and enemies cannot be longer understood as in the classic wars. Syrian conflict is the perfect definition of the asymmetric war.

Through this article, we will try to provide visibility on the roots of this conflict and the potential future that may experience Syrian society once the ISIS will be completely rejected.

The context: Middle East, a neverending theater of wars

The Middle-East is geographically positioned in a complex location. The area represented since millenniums the crossroad of three continents, their representative leaders and therefore, their expansion ambitions. As a contemporany example, let’s consider, China’s prime minister Xi Jimping commercial expansion project. He is defining a new “Silk road” that should cross the Middle-East.

On top, this region is still considered as a strategic provider of energy through hydrocarbons and petrol. Majority of the countries all over the world are net energy importers and need Middle East cargos and pipelines to respond their internal energy needs.

From a military perspective, still some countries in the area are willing to develop a combat nuclear program. This fact adds a geopolitical and military approach to the already conflictive area. Iran’s nuclear intentions generated a direct answer on its neighbors, leading to military escalation.

The historical approach also has to be considered: Sikes-Picot agreements dismantled the Ottoman Empire, generating border frictions, human displacements and religions clashes. Shiite awakening against some extreme Sunnite mentalities, the historical fight for power between Iran and the Saudi Arabia are some historical elements. These are now added to new destabilizing elements such as: the raise of radical Islam (not to be confused with terrorism), the fragility of governments, the failure of the “Arab Springs”, wrongly managed external interventions…

And finally, the existing status. Qatar blocus, Yemen civil war, the continuous menace of the remaining ISIS and more globally of terrorist groups. From this perspective, a specific mention should be given to Al-Qaeda, re-generating itself over the years after Osama Bin Laden leadership loss and ISIS international prioritization. Expansionist interests dangerously vested of fight for Religion, tribal conflicts…

In a TV news way of speaking, this area can be considered as incandescent. History, military, politics, terrorist and energetically unstable, the Middle East is an area that requires maximum attention nowadays. Syria is the best example of a cross of many interests and we will come back later.

Existing conflicts around Syria

This article describes Syrian conflict situation and therefore we will not enter into the roots of the multiple conflicts remaining. Therefore, from a high-level perspective, it is interesting to analyze Middle East existing conflicts from Denis Bouchard perspective:

Low intensity conflict:

Only one major conflict can be clustered in this family: the Israel-Palestine confrontation. Lately masked by the Arab Springs and the menace of Iran nuclear program, nothing has progressed on Palestina’s question. Despite important efforts driven by Barack Obama administration and the much lower support from his follower, Donald Trump, the conflict is now in a blocked situation.

A Gulf Cold War:

The June 5th, 2017, five countries led by Mohammed ben Salmane and heir prince of Abu Dhabi, Mohammed ben Zayed conducted a diplomatic-relations break between Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and their local allies against Qatar. This measure was also accompanied by an embargo. Reasons are known: Al-Jazeera creation, its freedom and maintenance (which is considered by the Saudi kingdom as a too much critical media and full of western ideas), Qatar support to Arab Springs (accepting the fact that a different government model exists and therefore adding a frustration touch to absolutist kingdom perpetuation in Saudi Arabia). The “kind” relations of the Qatari kingdom with Iran are also considered as an affront to its allies in the Gulf. In summary, a clash between government philosophies and allies.

But the embargo generated secondary effects. Effectively, almost 80% of ground, air and sea imports came to Qatar only from Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Seeing these breath ways blocked Qatar developed new supply lines coming from Turkey and Iran, therefore reinforcing the dependence Iran-Qatar. Both Iran and Turkey saw in this embargo the opportunity to fissure the gulf alliance and offered their supply lines, out of embargo borders, to Qatar. This has generated a clash in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and more globally, added a new tension layer to the Sunnite-Shiite clash. It consequently reduced the influence of the GCC (that has usually difficulties to impose its decisions) and interrupted cooperation projects previously launched by this organization.

A Gulf Cold War – Part II:

The confrontation of Saudi Arabia against Iran also presents sparkles in other areas. Saudi Arabia has changed its strategy in Irak. After having financed the insurgents that were fighting against the new democratic (and fragile) government placed by the US after the war, it seems to no longer wish to de-stabilize the Shiite elected government. Instead, Saudi Arabia is now pretending to defend Irak government from its owner, Iran. This strategy also comes along with a request to better defend Sunnite minority in Irak (certainly secluded by Irani influence).

Same approach can be seen in the Lebanon. After having strongly supported Hariri family and March 14th movement, Saudi Arabia direct influence seems to smooth. It couldn’t avoid Hezbollah internal grow (Shiite and supported by Iran). Hariri resignation in November 2017 seems like a failure for Saudian interests. While power remains in the hands of General Aoun, Sunnite remains fragile.

On the other side, in Bahrein, Saudi Arabia is leading the conflict. Iran is suspected to have supported a rebellion against Bahrein government vesting it as a “Arab Spring” raise in the country. With the agreement of the GCC, Saudi Arabia sent a military force supporting Bahrein to remain stable.

In Yemen, picture is still complex and conflict is completely stagnant. Saudi Arabia considers Houthis revolt (a Zahiri tribe close to Shiism) as a tactic from Iran to de-stabilize Saudian rearguard (geographically speaking). This rebellion allied with General Salem, conquered Sanaa and pushed out the legal government from Yemen. Saudi Arabia was then forced to intervene in the area with both diplomatic and military means. Conflict is blocked and neither Iran nor Saudi Arabia seem to start any peace intervention.

Syria is a similar situation…

Terrorist groups scattered around

Basically represented by the Jihadist groups, terrorist groups are the main concern in the area from the international community perspective. They appeared in 1980 decade and its recent growth can be understood for the next reasons:

Development of a “nonmilitary” radical and extreme interpretation of Islam (which is going to be the breeding ground of terrorist leaders) Manipulation (and financing) of violent groups in Afghanistan to fight against the Soviet Union. Dismantling of Saddam Hussein Iraqi army in 2003. Its members, unable to re-insert in the new Iraqi context (due to their past and Sunnite confession), joined the insurgent armies, closely linked to Al-Qaeda and later to the ISIS. Failure of Arab Springs generating plenty of empty political places that were avidly occupied by violent groups. The scission between Al-Qaeda and the ISIS that intensified their fight.

The ISIS clearly failed to create a new califate based on the Sharia. This, basically because of its excessively violent methods (that made them progressively loss the support of the initially-supportive Sunnite community). Also due to their inefficiency in governance. And, of course, also because of their military defeat against the international coalition.

But Al-Qaeda still remains active with a new organization much more de-centralized.

Syria in the middle of a regional conflict

As we have described earlier, communitarian structures remain extremely strong in the Middle East. Tribal, ethnical or religious, this communities have been maintaining relations that are usually conflictual, with stifled resentments. Minorities have usually also been put apart in this area. Orient Christians prosecution and their consecuent decrease is a good example of this religious communitarism. But is not the unique destabilizing phenomenon in the area.

Syria is the best example. It is not only a civil war that faces Alawites (controlling the Government) and the other religious communities. As a matter of fact, Druzes and Christians and strongly supporting Bachar Al-Asad. Sunnites, traditionnally opposed to Shiites, present in Syria a mixed approach to government in terms of support…

Since 2011 Autumn, Riyad starts to encourage the internal opposition to Syrian government through a political, financial and military-equipment support. This support is especially strong to Salafist groups such as Ahrar al-Sham. But situation got complexified with the arrival of the ISIS, Iran intervention and Russian involvement.

December 2016: East-Alep capitulation. March 2017: Palmyra re-conquering. October 2017: Raqqa is freed from the ISIS. November 2017: Dier ez-Zor is also freed from the ISIS. The fate of Syrian war against the ISIS definitely changed after Russian intervention.

Russia: A decisive internvetion

Since September 30th 2015, Russian internvetion in Syria has been growing in terms of military involvement. This intervention followed a request direct request from Damas based on a bi-lateral agreement signed in 1980. While in parallel, Bachar al-Asad ticked American-led intervention as illegal.

In any case, avoiding the Syrian Government to collapse, Vladimir Putin shown the robustness of Russia political engagements and directly weakened western position (divided in terms of support to Syrian government). By the effect of the force, it also weakened ISIS forces, partially funded by Gulf kingdoms. V. Putin intervention therefore reinforced its force position in the region and weakens all his potential competitors’ positions (EU, US, Saudi Arabia and ISIS).

We cannot forget that this conflict is, for V. Putin, a scenario where he is showing to the rest of the world his military capacity: from his military enclaves of Tartus and Hmeimim, Russia has deployed its newest arsenal, sometimes giving the impression of an oversized deployment for such an asymmetrical war. Its intention is to place Russia again in the geopolitical chart. In a period where he is under the Western embargo and faces China’s Asia control leadership, strengthening his position in the middle east was a strategic success.

Supported by a strong internet campaign and combined to the Ukraine military violation (Crimea annexing and infiltration in Dombass region), Syria conflict erases the 80’s Afghanistan shame, gives V. Putin the aurea of a great leader and reverts forces balance in a strategic region for Russia.

Coming back to the conflict tactics and evolution, Alep was under dispute since 2012 between government forces and rebel forces. From a military perspective, when freeing Alep from rebel forces in 2016 (remember that Russia was not only fighting against the ISIS but against Syrian government enemies, including rebel forces), Russia established the control over the strategic axis of Alep, Homs, Hama and Damas: the “Useful Syria”.

For the government opponents, this is a strong defeat. And after a Turkish and Russian agreement (hardly accepted by Iran and Hezbollah), East-Alep civilians and insurgents are transferred from the ruined Alep city to the Idlib governorate under the control of islamists.

American coalition (22 countries were part of it) started bombing ISIS strategic positions from August 2014. In opposition, Government forces and Russian army didn’t attack the ISIS until 2016 (once the internal insurgence was under control). It is important to remember that Raqqa is promoted as capital of the new caliphate in 2014 summer. Many terrorist attacks have been organized from this area. Attacks that could have been avoided if Russian and Syrian forces would have considered ISIS as an objective earlier.

Raqqa is freed after an offensive combining the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) composed by Kurdish fighters from Rojava, tribal Arab forces and occidental special forces. Everything supported by air bombers.

17th of October 2017: Raqqa is freed just after Mosul.

On the government side, energies can be concentrated in the desert (east) and its petrol and gas deposits once Alep has fallen. The new offensive concentrates government forces, Iranian, Iraqi, Afghan and Pakistani forces jointly with Hezbollah and Russians. Abou Kamal being the last redoubt of the ISIS.

Actors re-positionning after the ISIS

On the side of the nationalist opponents to the Syrian regime, the brigades of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) are divided and instrumentalized by their neighbors (mainly Iran). They are extremely weakened after Alep defeat.

In the north, some extremist groups have merged into the Hayat Tahrir al-Charm (Organization for Levant Freedom) financed by Gulf kingdoms and in strong competition against the ISIS for the control of Islamic extremism. This organization is close to Al-Qaeda.

ISIS is almost dismantled in the area and the idea of a caliphate is now obsolete. The redoubts and remaining fighters will scatter across the middle east, get in clandestine mode again. Leaders (as Al-Qaeda did and does) will exit Syria and create new enclaves in the chaos the Middle East is experiencing in this moment. Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Somalia, Sahel area, desertic areas with tribal governments are the preferred destinations of the ISIS fighters. This war hasn’t terminated the ISIS but has reverted it to the original status. Not to obliteration. During this past years, the ISIS held a state and collected billons of dollars from forced taxes, drug traffic and petrol selling. This money allowed them to provide services to their population (garbage collection, islamic schools…). But they have also experimented and learned how to make weapons, guns, bombs and their military knowledge has obviously grown.

Ideologically motivated, the Rojava Kurdish, formerly supported by the United States, are since 2012 a tactical allied of Damas.

Turkey has abnegated from reversing Bachar al-Asad regime and supporting Jihadist organizations to achieve this objective. Criticizing the Americans for their support to separatists movements close to the Kurdish forces, Turkey main objective is now to avoid any risk on its territory sovereignty. Operation “Euphrates Shield” is intended to secure its border from Rojava Kurdish forces. Turkmenistan special forces are supporting Turkey in this objective (mainly because of their common interest in reducing Kurdish movement). Away from the US, Turkey has also moved closer to Moscow and Teheran, being even included in the “de-conflictuation” agreements of Astana.

On their side, Gulf kingdoms have supported both financially and militarily, the Salafists and radical Islamists in the fight that faces Iran and Saudi Arabia. As we have seen before, petro-kingdoms support to Jihadists groups was intended to de-stabilize and make fall Bachar al-Asad regime, close to Iran. Nevertheless, affected by the instability in the GCC and not aligned in the Yemeni conflict, gulf kingdoms are losing diplomatic presence and reducing their intervention in Syrian conflict. There is even a diplomatic approach to Russia. This, bringing a positive and non-expected side-effect to V. Putin: King Salmane of Saudi Arabia visited Russia in October 2017 reinforcing V. Putin’s image of the new middle-east leader, replacing Donald Trump’s figure (that never raised himself as a real international leader).

Iran has been present in the conflict since 2012. On top of the official reason for its military intervention (which really was to “protect the Holy Places”), the Guardians of the Revolution are looking to establish a strategic corridor linking Irak, Iran and Syria. A stable alliance would secure an extended area of influence and control from Iran and opening the Mediterranean Sea and securing the link (a strong influence) with Hezbollah in Lebanon. This alliance, if robustly made, would certainly secure a strong supremacy to Iran and could raise the risk of a strong conflict between Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran as the three main powers looking the control of Middle East. Russian support to general Qasem Soleimani (leader of Al-Qods Iranian force) has led to the current successful situation.

Nevertheless, Iran remains cautious in regards to Russia and its relations with the United States and therefore with Israel. Because Israel, invisible actor of this conflict but directly positioned on the Golan plateau, is strongly looking for stopping Hezbollah raise by bombing the stocks or deliveries of Iranian weapons before they arrive in Iran’s territory. Israel also wants to avoid permanent Iranian military bases in Syrian territory considering them as a risk for their national integrity. These requests are being directly addressed to Moscow (again, as major actor in the area) by Israel government.

Conclusion / My interpretation

Syrian regime has put his military destiny in the hands of Iran, Hezbollah and Russia and it also benefits from Kurdish and American actions. A risky bet but today the war is being won by Bachar al-Asad. In November 2017, he was controlling more than 80% of the territory compared to 20% before war starts in 2011. Demographically, he also controls 12 million from 16 million of Syrian having remained in the country.

Its opponents, divided, are now confined in the south of the country and ISIS is collapsing within Syrian borders.

Vladimir Putin has taken the opportunity of the UN paralysis to step in and give bright new visibility to Russia in a strategic region, contributing also to his internal figure as a strong leader. He is the mandatory diplomatic gate to unlock any solution in this conflict. This western paralysis is maybe one of the major mistakes at the origin of this conflict. Now we see the success of Bachar al-Asad. A man that has forced millions of Syrians to leave their country, launched chemical weapons against civilians and did not attacked the ISIS until his internal fights were terminated. B. al-Asad (with the support of Iran and Russia) contributed in Raqqa to a perverse “loan” to the ISIS: a base without almost no enemies upfront, perfectly adapted to manage West-East-South terrorist attacks. Not to say the indirect impacts of the flows of migration from Syria to Europe have generated in the Old-Continent democracies health.

Bachar al-Asad has his power secured, at least until mid-term. No relevant actor is promoting its dismiss or requesting his place. In parallel, international justice “menaces” are really far from becoming a risk for his government. He can now promise general elections without any risk and without having given any step towards a more respectful democracy. Even if pushed by Russia and Iran to move in this way, his strong position allows him to defend his inmobilist position. Moscow intends to reduce its military participation in the area and pushes for a political compromise between all parts inside Syria.

As Jean-Paul Burdy says, Bachar al-Asad is winning the war but he is far from winning peace. Re-building the country will cost around 200 billon of dollars (according to the World Bank) and human result is frightening: 500 000 deaths and around 6 million displaced internally and almost the same amount of international migrants. For the remaining ones, almost 70% of Syrians below the level of big poverty.

New and stronger military interventions will not bring benefits, on the other side Syrian population has to be protected. We as western society cannot be satisfied with the result of this war… Hypocrisy, wrong decisions, loose of influence in the area, re-inforcement of a strong enemy as Russia is… But we will certainly hear about leaders being glad of having rejected the ISIS, despide the heavy human cost and the hidden interests that we have described above. When we will hear these songs of victory, do not forget that:

Bachar al-Asad is still the President of Syria ISIS, ISIL or Daech is still alive even if they do not have a “territory” any longer (the band still has the same amount of fighters as it did in 2014: around 25.000 soldiers) Al-Qaeda took the opportunity to re-structure itself during this period Iran and Saudi Arabia are still fighting for the power of the region. Vladimir Putin is in political, diplomatic and military control of the area (with the risk that this means in terms of energetic supply to the west)

At this stage, it is time to stop firing and bombing and think in the future. Syrian conflict is still a very complex scenario where religion, politics, beliefs, history are instrumentalized in the name of power, control and selfish of some arrogant leaders. Solution will not come fastly and will take decades to be completely implemented (if ever started).

It is the turn for concensus (as after each war). A wide international community should develop a plan to take profit of Moscow and Teheran interests in a more democratic solution to define a global governance based in Syrian community: re-insertion, Syria territory construction, long term plans to bring the war exodus back to Syria (upon a full individual / familial agreement), transports, education, medical and territorial organization. Pursuing, cutting any source of revenue to the scattered ISIS organizations and eliminate any group will also be important to avoid any mutation of the band. Finally, let’s not forget treating the Kurdish topic and the social justice need. The attacks against human rights and chemichal bombings should also be treated by Justice. Otherwise, people will not forget and a source for a potential future conflict will be born. Not to forget that stabilizing this area could bring stability to the entire Middle East. Syria is now an strategic (but also economical) investment area if enough stability is brought to the area.

References

Diplomatie GD – Décembre, Janvier 2017/2018. – “Moyen Orient: un champ de bataille sans fin” by Denis Bouchard

The New York Times – “Last ISIS Redoubt Under Attack in Syria”, September 11th, Rukmini Callimachi (link)

https://syriancivilwarmap.com/