What’s new? When the Syrian regime retook the south from rebels in mid-2018, Russian mediation limited the violence. Six months later, security and living conditions remain precarious; the regime has re-established authoritarian rule; and Iran-aligned groups may be trying to establish a presence near the armistice line with Israel.

Why does it matter? The regime is determined to reclaim remaining areas of Syria outside its control. Negotiated solutions may avoid further bloodshed but require far better conditions to enable safe refugee returns and reconstruction. Iran-backed activities near the Golan Heights could become triggers for an escalation with Israel.

What should be done? International actors should demand better humanitarian access to the south and not encourage refugee returns until conditions improve. Russia should provide better security guarantees to people in areas that revert from rebel to state control. Countries with influence over Iran and Israel should work with both to prevent inadvertent escalation.

Executive Summary

In July 2018, with the help of Russia, the Syrian regime retook the country’s south, where the popular uprising was born seven years earlier. State institutions, including security agencies, returned, and the population – civilians and defeated rebels – had to adjust. Six months later, recovery is moving at a snail’s pace; Russia is doing nothing to prevent the regime’s reversion to repressive rule; and Iran-aligned fighters reportedly are establishing a presence inside state security forces, raising the risk of Israeli intervention. Russia – urged by Western countries – should press Damascus to improve humanitarian access and conditions for safe refugee return, which Moscow purportedly supports. Russia and Western countries enjoying relations with Iran should try to dissuade Tehran from moving its proxies into the area. The south’s experience also carries lessons for the rest of the country: it suggests that negotiated solutions for areas still outside regime control will require more extensive involvement of external actors to prevent regime reprisals, enable aid to reach vulnerable populations and allow safe refugee returns.

The regime’s reconquest of the south was faster and less destructive than previous offensives against rebel strongholds. An important reason was that rebel commanders in many locations opted to accept Russia-mediated surrender deals (taswiyat) that returned areas they controlled to the Syrian government’s nominal authority, and enabled fighters to keep their light weapons and undergo a vetting process that would take them off security agencies’ wanted lists. Russia said it would guarantee these agreements by deploying its military police, as it has since done.

At first, the southern agreements looked moderately successful: people displaced by the fighting returned in short order and many rebels joined the Syrian army’s 5th Corps, sponsored by Russia, ostensibly to fight the Islamic State (ISIS) in nearby areas. Yet a closer look six months later reveals a more complex picture.

Two principal factors discourage refugees and the displaced from returning. The first is the glaring lack of functioning infrastructure, services and employment. Roads are open and supplies are coming in. Yet the state’s return also meant the end of cross-border assistance from Jordan, which the regime rejected as an infringement on its sovereignty. Medical and educational services that had been supported by international organisations operating out of Amman stopped. Thousands of southerners employed by NGOs running the cross-border response lost their jobs. Though aid provided by Damascus-based humanitarian groups has closed the gap somewhat, the regime’s restrictions on international aid access to the south have limited the type and quality of assistance to the area’s poorest and most vulnerable. Post-conflict recovery of critical infrastructure is halting, uneven and clearly insufficient.

The second factor is the evolving security situation. Upon its return, the regime arrested hundreds of formally cleared rebels and civilians with a track record of unarmed opposition activity, marking the reappearance of unaccountable security agencies. The Russian presence has somewhat mitigated the latter’s behaviour, but not knowing how long that engagement will last, people are anxious about the future. Moreover, residents of the south report a covert presence of Iran-aligned fighters in state security forces, which suggests that the area could become yet another flashpoint in the confrontation between Iran and Israel in Syria.

As long as the situation in the south does not improve significantly, refugees and the internally displaced will not return in substantial numbers, fearing joblessness, homelessness and arbitrary arrest. Opposition forces in other parts of Syria remaining outside regime control, such as the Turkish-controlled Afrin and Euphrates Shield areas further north, and the north east, held by the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, are watching. What they see is a cautionary tale. Negotiating a return of the state to the north and north east with Turkey and Kurdish forces, respectively, will require more solid guarantees of what would follow, and potentially a more extensive role for external actors than what Russia has provided in previous agreements. In the meantime, pushing for better humanitarian access would be the best way to alleviate the plight of the people in the south.

Beirut/Brussels, 25 February 2019

Loading Video Crisis Group's MENA Program Director Joost Hilternmann reflects on the lessons that could be drawn from the Syrian State’s return to the south. CRISISGROUP

I. Introduction

Daraa, the “cradle of the revolution” that broke out in Syria in 2011, has seen several rounds of fierce fighting during the country’s subsequent civil war. In 2017, Russia, the U.S. and Jordan designated the rebel-held parts of Daraa province and adjacent Quneitra province a “de-escalation zone”, one of four such areas, which were supposed to see a cessation of hostilities and more open humanitarian access. The war’s tide turned in the regime’s favour, however, and between February and April 2018 it overpowered rebels in the eastern Ghouta de-escalation zone in a bloody offensive. Rebels in the northern Homs de-escalation zone agreed to a negotiated surrender shortly afterward. In mid-June, the regime massed its forces around the jagged edges of rebel-held areas in the south, two fingers of land to the east and west of Daraa city. The rapid build-up, accompanied by heightened bellicose rhetoric from the regime and its Russian ally, suggested that Daraa and environs would be the next conquest.

In late June, fighting escalated in Daraa’s north-eastern corner. On 23 June, Russian aircraft began bombing targets there in support of regime forces shelling rebel positions. That night, the U.S. embassy in Jordan signalled to southern rebels that they were on their own, saying via WhatsApp: “You should not base your decision on the assumption or expectation of military intervention by us”. Soon afterward, amid intensified Russian bombing, the regime’s offensive began in earnest. International organisations warned of an impending humanitarian catastrophe along the lines of the assaults upon eastern Ghouta and east Aleppo. Such grim predictions seemed borne out at first; in early July, the UN reported that 270,000 people, roughly one third of the local population, were displaced.

Yet, as the regime advanced southward through the Daraa countryside to the Jordanian border, the fighting paused to allow negotiations between, on one side, Russia and the regime and, on the other, the local rebels, encouraged by Jordan. Meeting in the town of Busra al-Sham some 40km to the east of Daraa, the two sides reached an agreement on 1 July for a Russian-guaranteed negotiated surrender. The agreement stipulated the peaceful return of Syrian state institutions and allowed southerners to “resolve their [legal] status” (taswiyat al-wadaa), a reference to a vetting process run by the regime’s security agencies. It also gave rebel fighters the opportunity to join the Syrian army’s Russian-sponsored 5th Corps.

After the deal was signed, however, nearly all the rebel signatories withdrew from it, and fighting resumed. Only Busra al-Sham rebel strongman Ahmed al-Oudeh held to the agreement, sparing his area renewed bombing. Supported by Russian aerial attacks, the regime slowly pushed the other eastern rebels toward the Jordanian border. On 6 July, they reached a second agreement, whose provisions, in addition to many of the 1 July terms, also included a limited evacuation to Idlib in Syria’s rebel-held north for those who declined to “resolve their status”.

The 1 and 6 July deals neutralised the south’s largest and most potent rebel factions and restored regime control over the entirety of the rebel-held border with Jordan, except for the jihadist-held Yarmouk river basin. On 6 July, the Syrian army announced it had retaken the Nasib border crossing with Jordan, to the southeast of Daraa city, and raised the Syrian flag.

The regime has restricted outsiders’ access to the area, and international assistance has ended, greatly reducing available information.

Facebook Email



From there, the regime and Russia proceeded west, concluding a patchwork of local agreements, some negotiated by Russia and the regime in partnership and some by the regime alone. The regime’s advance prompted another wave of displacement. The details of the western countryside deals differed, but all seem similar to the 1 July and 6 July agreements. By the end of July, the entire rebel-held countryside had surrendered. In late July, regime forces and former rebels who had joined them trained their fire on the Yarmouk valley in Daraa’s south-western corner, held by a local ISIS affiliate. On 1 August, the regime announced it had retaken the last ISIS-held town in the valley.

The regime transferred some southern rebels and their families to the rebel-held north on the basis of the 6 July agreement, but the numbers were smaller than from other reconquered areas on previous occasions. In negotiations, Russian representatives reportedly discouraged rebels from leaving for Idlib, which they said would be attacked later in the year. For the majority, the option to integrate into regime forces, in particular the Russian-sponsored 5th Corps, under terms guaranteed by the Russians, appears to have been more attractive. A former rebel fighter said:

These are our lands and hometowns. We are original residents here but in Idlib we will be displaced people or become refugees in Turkey and turned into [Turkey’s] fighters. It is better to fight under Russian command and stay on our lands.

This report looks at developments in the south in the aftermath of the regime takeover. As time has progressed, the regime has restricted outsiders’ access to the area, and international assistance has ended, greatly reducing available information. Representatives of aid organisations report that many of their previous partners have gone silent for fear of regime surveillance and reprisals. Thus, information from these sources, which was mostly gathered in Amman in October 2018, could cover only the initial phase of the state’s return to the area. Syrian opposition networks, many also based in Amman, remain a major source of information, yet it is often difficult to verify their accounts. To obtain a more differentiated and granular picture, Crisis Group conducted two extensive rounds of remote interviews, in mid-October and late December, with around 50 individuals, the majority of whom are living in the south, while around one fifth are residents of Damascus originally from the south.

II. The Mixed Blessing of Reintegration

As the Syrian state retook control, it reopened the roads to traffic and trade to and from the south. Since then, southern merchants no longer need to bring in supplies from inside Syria through extortionate checkpoints or smuggling routes. Accordingly, prices of staple goods fell dramatically, largely to the same level as in the rest of government-controlled Syria. For instance, the price for a cylinder of cooking gas, which stood at around 25,000 Syrian pounds (approximately $50) in June, plummeted to about 7,000 pounds (approximately $15) in October, after the fighting had ended, a 70 per cent drop.

Not everyone benefited from the reduced prices, however, and many have been struggling to make ends meet. Since the regime retook the area, it has cut humanitarian and “stabilisation” aid from Jordan-based organisations because it rejects cross-border assistance as an infringement on its sovereignty. The aid cuts affect the south’s most vulnerable in particular, including those who used to rely on medical care and other assistance provided by international aid organisations based in Amman.

The lack of options drives many young men to enlist in government forces; they feel bitter at having been abandoned by their outside supporters.

Facebook Email



In addition, thousands used to receive monthly salaries of $200-300 from parallel institutions built by the opposition to compensate for the state’s absence (such as health centres and field hospitals, schools, White Helmets civil defence units, police and local councils) or non-governmental organisations (often tasked with aid delivery), most of which received funding from external donors. Many of these people are now jobless; careful to hide their past employment from the regime’s security agencies, they have broken off contact with former donors. There are also reports that upon its return the regime fired a significant number of public employees who had continued to serve and collect government salaries under rebel rule.

Some find work in agriculture, a sector that remains functional, if hamstrung; developing its economic potential would require reliable supplies of water and electricity, which are now unavailable, and investments of a scale that few locals or potential returnees could mobilise. The lack of options drives many young men to enlist in government forces; they feel bitter at having been abandoned by their outside supporters. A former rebel fighter said:

We have nothing to do. The only thing I know is to be a fighter. I have been in an armed group for five years. I don’t know any job. I am thinking of joining Air Force Intelligence, the 5th Corps or the 4th Division. The Americans, Saudis and Jordanians used us like toilet paper, then threw us into a wastebasket. I want to join the regime’s security bodies to protect myself and my family, and to buy bread to feed my children.

The loss of the income that southerners generated through cross-border assistance means that many are now worse off. It also means that an important source of purchasing power in the south, and hence a significant part of the local economy, disappeared overnight. The reopening of the Nasib/Jaber border crossing on 15 October allowed a few local traders to have clients from Jordan, where prices are much higher across the board, yet the benefits are restricted to these traders and their suppliers outside the area.

Meanwhile, after the initial drop when the siege was lifted, additional demand from Jordan has driven prices of some staples back up. An Amman-based humanitarian worker said:

Having two thousand Jordanians cross into Syria daily to buy Suzuki [pickup]-sized quantities of consumer goods is driving up prices in the south. Diesel is subsidised and price-controlled, but meat is not.

Since then, a nationwide fuel shortage has also driven up the price of diesel, used for heating in the winter. Reopening the Nasib crossing was a milestone in the regime’s efforts to normalise its relations with Middle Eastern neighbours, and restored overland access to the Gulf countries through Nasib and other crossings may allow the regime to earn sorely needed hard currency from exports and transit fees. Whether any of these benefits will trickle down to people living in the border area is unclear.

The Syrian government requires that all humanitarian assistance be routed through Damascus. Some aid organisations are attempting to relocate their operations to the Syrian capital, but registration with the authorities involves a cumbersome, lengthy bureaucratic process, and many groups that previously provided cross-border assistance are not welcome. Organisations already operating from Damascus, including UN agencies, are finding that Syrian authorities have limited their direct access to the south.

Regular, direct access is critical for good humanitarian practices such as preliminary needs assessments and monitoring and evaluation, which ensure that aid is not diverted to government employees or armed groups. Access is also important for the provision of service-based aid such as medical care, as opposed to goods-based assistance such as food baskets. Instead, international aid organisations and UN agencies have to rely on government-aligned organisations such as the Red Crescent to deliver goods and services on the ground. One Amman-based humanitarian worker said: “When the UN talks about access, they say, ‘we delivered’, but it’s through the Red Crescent. … They haven’t been there themselves”.

Restrictions do not end there: reportedly, even the Red Crescent faces difficulties in gaining access to some newly recaptured parts of the south, as the security agencies delay required authorisations. Without easier, more regular access, aid to these areas is vulnerable to diversion. Some donor governments have also expressed broader concerns about the integrity of the Red Crescent and government-sanctioned NGOs.

The stabilisation projects and civil institutions set up and maintained with external support were supposed to fill the vacuum left by the state’s absence. With Damascus back in control, that vacuum no longer exists. The problem, however, is that while the reconquest halted cross-border assistance abruptly, the return of state institutions and services has been tentative and uneven. Supplies of electricity and drinking water have improved in some areas, but in others, such as the Yarmouk valley, they remain cut off. Overall, and while government agencies can be seen at work across the south, progress is slow.

Even some local regime supporters express frustration with the lack of resources allocated and the slow pace of recovery.

Facebook Email



Government representatives and local Baath officials emphasise that resources are insufficient and urge locals to contribute money and make privately owned trucks and bulldozers available to government departments undertaking public works, under the slogan “cooperation between the government and society”. In some towns, residents take the initiative to pool money so that government departments can buy cables, pipes and other hardware to speed up works.

Whether the scarcity of resources is a form of retribution against an area considered the birthplace of the uprising, as many opposition supporters maintain, or a result of the state’s degraded capacity after more than six years of war, is difficult to establish. Yet even some local regime supporters express frustration with the lack of resources allocated and the slow pace of recovery, seeing it as an expression of the central government’s habitual neglect for the rural periphery – arguably, the same attitude that primed the area to become the “cradle of the revolution” in 2011.

The medical sector also suffered a serious initial setback. Health centres and field hospitals either shut down or reduced their services when cross-border assistance, which had provided supplies and funded payrolls, stopped. Many medical personnel abandoned their posts. The regime and its Russian ally have systematically targeted health facilities and workers in rebel-held areas throughout the war, and many doctors who remained in these areas may have been involved in anti-regime activism. As a result, many of the medical personnel who abandoned their posts may have done so out of fear of retribution and/or arrest. Yet by the end of the year, the situation appeared to have improved. Partly relying on equipment confiscated from former rebel-run facilities, the Daraa health directorate has reopened the city’s public hospital and refurbished health centres across the province. Many doctors who fled hostilities for Damascus have returned and pharmacies are well stocked. Some medical facilities may lack expensive equipment, however, or may be unable to provide specialised care.

A similar trend is apparent in the education sector. In September, the government reportedly fired some school teachers who had continued to teach (and receive their government salaries) in the opposition-held south. Since then, a significant number of previously displaced teachers and administrators have returned from Damascus. Schools have reopened, which has persuaded other displaced people to return home. To spare themselves the cost of residing in Damascus, residents are contributing to local schools’ rehabilitation. A resident of Nawa said:

Families here make donations to equip local government schools. Keeping children in school in Daraa or Damascus requires renting a flat there, which costs 60,000-70,000 pounds ($150-180) in Damascus. Better to give that money to equip a school in the village and send our children there.

Other locals are thriving in the new environment, on the strength of their loyalty (longstanding or recently professed) to the Damascus government and security bodies. After the regime dismissed the south west’s opposition-era local councils, nationwide local elections on 16 September 2018 generated new municipal councils, including in Daraa and Quneitra provinces. Locals regarded most candidates as loyalists who had maintained contact with the regime during rebel rule, and were now being rewarded. Candidates appeared to be handpicked by local Baathist officials and security bodies. Voter turnout in previously rebel-held areas was sparse. A public employee in Daraa commented:

The Syrian government wants to have full control of Daraa, more even than before 2011. It cannot make any reforms. It is like a windowpane: when it is broken, it cannot be fixed. There is no hope that we’ll have local autonomy.

On balance, the state’s return appears to be a mixed blessing for the people of the south in terms of everyday life and survival. It is certainly a relief that freedom of movement is restored, and that essential supplies, including medication, are now freely available. Likewise, the threats of bombing and further violence have vanished, though life was reasonably safe already before the offensive, thanks to de-escalation. Many southerners are faring worse than before, however, due to the sudden severing of cross-border assistance and the Syrian government’s unwillingness to grant regular, direct access to Damascus-based aid organisations. Local governance has fallen back under the purview of the security agencies, signalling another key feature of agreements on the regime’s terms: the return of the security state.

III. The Fog of the Afterwar

For southerners who sided with the rebellion, the state’s return carries the imminent threat of reprisal. Males between 18 and 42 also face the prospect of compulsory military service, at a time when a major military operation in Idlib looms. The terms of local surrender agreements provided some respite, including a six-month grace period for conscription and the opportunity for residents and former rebels to be cleared of charges of “terrorism“ by “resolving their status. Some of these deals also included explicit offers whereby former rebels, once cleared, could become part of the government forces, in particular the Russian-sponsored 5th Corps, to fight against ISIS, first and foremost in the south.

Despite the negotiated deals and subsequent clearance procedures, and the presence of the Russian guarantors, security agencies have arrested dozens of former rebels since the state returned to the south.

Facebook Email



In practical terms, this arrangement meant that in a number of locations, rebels have retained their light weapons and part of their military structures to this day, with some of them formally joining the 5th Corps while de facto keeping a degree of autonomy under their previous rebel commanders. Some have retained local influence or have leveraged good relations with the Russians to bargain for better services and protect their men from arbitrary arrest by the security agencies, which have reasserted themselves in the area. In early October, a Western diplomat in Amman said:

Where the Russians negotiated reconciliation deals, things are different. Some of the commanders remain in charge of their militias. These commanders still have a say in the south.

Yet it remains unclear how long these ex-rebels can keep their relative margin of manoeuvre. Already in September, Russia dissolved the western section of the 5th Corps when local commanders could not muster fighters for a then-impending regime offensive against rebels in Idlib. This step left roughly two thousand men without a salary, according to pro-opposition media. Some of them subsequently enlisted in the army’s elite 4th Division under Maher al-Assad, the president’s brother, with offers of pay, security cards (which protect against arbitrary arrest) and renewed promises that the army would post them only in their home areas. Interviews conducted by Crisis Group in those areas in late December suggest that the security services keep a close watch on such former rebel groups as remain, setting up checkpoints around their villages. A former rebel fighter from Nawa said:

The security agencies can arrest anybody they want to in Nawa. There are some rebel leaders who still have a few dozen fighters, but the government leaves them to become weaker by the day. The rebels are deserting their leaders and joining the army and security bodies looking for protection and to make money after they lost their salaries.

In the medium term, these former rebel commanders are unlikely to retain whatever relative autonomy they still have, in particular once Russian engagement in the area end. They may continue to exist as permanent auxiliaries of the Syrian military, as has occurred with pro-regime militias throughout the course of the war.

Moreover, despite the negotiated deals and subsequent clearance procedures, and the presence of the Russian guarantors, security agencies have arrested dozens of former rebels since the state returned to the south. While the scope of the phenomenon is difficult to assess, by mid-October it apparently had become enough of a nuisance for the Defence Ministry to issue a circular, calling on the intelligence agencies and armed forces to refrain from arresting individuals able to show clearance papers, even if their names still appear on a “wanted” list.

One problem appears to be that the various security agencies operating in the area may not coordinate among themselves. In Daraa, Military Intelligence issues clearance papers and supposedly strikes cleared individuals from the “wanted” lists it uses at its checkpoints. Yet Air Force Intelligence, Political Security and State Security, which run their own checkpoints and employ separate layers of screening at particularly important checkpoints, often ignore the clearance papers issued by Military Intelligence because they may not have received the updates that remove cleared individuals. As a result, clearance papers do not reliably protect the bearer from arrest. A former rebel reports:

I was going into Daraa city to register my newborn daughter. The Military Intelligence checkpoint at the entrance checked my name on the computer and told me that I am wanted. I showed them my clearance paper. They asked if I knew about hidden weapons and ammunition. They kept me for a week, after which I was released with help from my father, who had gone to a Russian officer who made phone calls to get me released.

Russian officers are routinely called upon in such cases and often intervene, in particular for former rebels whose former commanders still maintain a direct relationship to the Russian military. Yet they do not intervene when individuals are apprehended for alleged crimes perpetrated in the course of the conflict, creating a loophole that security agencies can use to target former rebels or opposition activists. Individual citizens who give evidence of abuse or violence committed by particular rebels against themselves or relatives have the option to initiate criminal proceedings, and there are consistent claims that security agencies encourage people to do just that.

There are also an increasing number of assassinations of former rebel leaders with little clarity as to who is behind them. In some cases, the circumstances suggest that the security agencies are the culprits. In others, it appears equally plausible that former rebels who have gone underground are exacting revenge upon those they see as having betrayed the cause. Rebels sold off numerous weapons through the smuggling networks, as suggested by a steep decline in prices in the regime conquest’s aftermath. Yet locals claim that lack of trust in the agreements led many to hide lighter weapons away. Sporadic attacks on regime checkpoints suggest that a residual insurgent potential exists.

The overwhelming dread is that once the Russian presence ends, whatever mitigating influence it now exercises will dissipate.

Facebook Email



Arrests also affect civilians, that is, residents of the area who did not join an armed rebel faction but have a history of opposing the regime through participation in protests or on social media. Many of those arrested at checkpoints are interrogated for a few days or even hours, and then let go. Detainees are asked about political activities throughout the war, including the uprising’s largely peaceful early phase, their own as well as those of relatives and friends, suggesting that the security apparatus is working off blacklists from six or seven years ago, and seeks to forestall the re-emergence of dissent. Civilians mostly lack the direct links to the Russian military that former rebels can rely on, but relatives sometimes succeed, through well-connected intermediaries, to secure Russian officers’ help in facilitating releases. Again, though, the Russians say they cannot help if someone has been detained on criminal charges.

Amid such pervasive uncertainty, many individuals with an activist or rebel past limit their physical movements to the inescapable minimum to avoid checkpoints, while still living in fear of being rounded up at home. More than anything, however, the overwhelming dread is that once the Russian presence ends, whatever mitigating influence it now exercises will dissipate, giving the regime free rein to unleash its wrath on the “cradle of the revolution”, after collecting abundant fresh data on its residents and their political orientation. The former rebel quoted above recalls an exchange immediately before his Russian-mediated release:

When I was released, I heard a direct threat from a young Alawite officer. He said to me: ‘Do you, people of Daraa, think Russia will protect and cover you forever? The Russians will leave after one month or one year but we will arrest you all and teach you to worship Bashar al-Assad. We won’t forget what you did’.

IV. The Spectre of Iran

Some southerners, especially opposition supporters, allege that Iran and the irregular forces it backs, in particular the Lebanese Hizbollah, have surreptitiously started to expand their influence in the south since the government’s return. They claim that Hizbollah and Iran are recruiting locals, building a base in the Lajat area in north-eastern Daraa, running training camps and placing fighters in the state’s Iran-friendly branches, such as the army’s 4th Armoured Division and Air Force Intelligence. According to these accounts, Hizbollah offers better pay than the Russian-sponsored 5th Corps, protection from security agencies and a guarantee not to send recruits to other fronts in Syria. Formally, these fighters are part of the 4th Division and are wearing its uniforms and insignia, yet according to locals, they receive independent funding, better food and equipment than regular units, and are under the purview of Lebanese or Iranian commanders.

Iran is also reportedly engaged in outreach to residents of the south west. Indeed, in October, the representative in Syria of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, made a well-publicised visit to Daraa city, meeting with local notables and promising that Iran would contribute to the area’s reconstruction.

Israel has expressed concerns about Iran-backed fighters seeking to infiltrate the south in the midst of Syrian security forces. In the immediate aftermath of the regime’s mid-2018 offensive, Israeli officials asserted that “a new Hizbollah front” on Israel’s northern border would be unacceptable. To alleviate such concerns, Russia made at least implicit guarantees to Israel to exclude Iranian and Iranian-linked paramilitaries from the offensive, and to keep them away from the Israeli-occupied Golan afterward. Russian officials subsequently emphasised Russia’s faithful delivery on those promises. Russia has taken other steps to reassure Israel and facilitate a return to the pre-war status quo in Syria’s south west, including deploying military police to patrol Syrian territory adjacent to the occupied Golan and facilitate the return of the UN Disengagement Observer Force. An expanding Iranian role in the south west would seem to contravene Russian assurances.

Without free access to southern Syria it is extremely difficult to validate these claims or judge the scope of the presence of Hizbollah and Iran-aligned fighters in the south, let alone whether they are building up offensive capabilities. What is more, emphasising Iranian involvement is likely the best chance for the Syrian opposition to keep President Donald Trump’s administration in Washington engaged and convincing it to exert pressure on the regime.

Tel Aviv has faced constraints on its room for manoeuvre after Syrian air defences accidentally downed a Russian aircraft, prompting Moscow to adopt a more restrictive policy toward Israeli attacks in Syria.

Facebook Email



Still, there is sufficient reporting to suggest that Hizbollah and Iran-aligned fighters are present and engaged in recruitment and training. That could potentially trigger an Israeli-Iranian military escalation. Thus far, Israeli officials do not appear overly alarmed about developments in the south west. An Israeli defence official said:

The Iran-backed presence in south west Syria is mostly happening through a Shiisation of Syrian army units with the aim of making Israel’s life difficult. Shia militia fighters, both Iraqi and Hizbollah-recruited Druze, are embedded within Syrian army forces while donning its uniform and carrying Syrian documents. We have informed Russia of this.

But Israel remains determined to roll back what it considers a strategic Iranian presence across all of Syria. It has conducted a covert military campaign against Iranian assets there. Since September 2018, Tel Aviv has faced constraints on its room for manoeuvre after Syrian air defences accidentally downed a Russian aircraft, an act which Moscow blamed on “irresponsible” Israeli behaviour, prompting it to adopt a more restrictive policy toward Israeli attacks in Syria. The subsequent lull has apparently come to an end. Thus the possibility of direct confrontation in south-western Syria, as may have occurred in May 2018 and again on a smaller scale in January 2019, cannot be excluded. A senior Israeli official said:

So far, we have managed to target Iran’s presence without provoking an uncontrolled escalation. That is quite an achievement. But Iran seems willing to absorb the blows and keep trying to expand its presence. At some point, one of us could miscalculate. And then, all bets would be off.

V. Policy Implications

After retaking the south, the regime has begun to reassemble its infrastructure of authoritarian rule. The process appears disjointed but basic outlines are emerging. The regime started by wiping out local self-governance structures that had existed during the period of rebel control. Former rebel commanders who were left in charge of armed fighters have retained some bargaining power and local influence, in particular through relations with the Russian military. Once the Russian presence ends, their limited autonomy will be further diminished. Their future status, and perhaps their survival, will therefore depend on their relationship with the security agencies.

Regime retribution against former rebels and opposition activists, in particular in the form of arbitrary arrest, appears haphazard, but is frequent enough to keep a significant part of the population in a state of continuous uncertainty and fear. Many are additionally concerned that a Russian disengagement, when it occurs, will expose them to further reprisal. Local governance has been re-established under the apparent auspices of the security agencies and remains subject to their vetting. Security control appears to be the regime method of choice for consolidating its hold on the south.

External actors can glean a couple of lessons from these trends. One is that international donors, UN agencies and Jordanian authorities should refrain from organising large-scale return to the area. For the time being, the area cannot absorb a significant number of returning refugees and displaced persons, since it can barely sustain the people living there now. Health care, educational services and essential infrastructure are slowly improving, but without opportunities to work and generate an income, returnees will be unable to repair destroyed dwellings and provide for themselves. The government’s restrictive access policies are preventing humanitarian assistance from more effectively plugging the holes.

Refugees may be struggling in Jordan, where most of those from the south live. But the absence of jobs and aid at home – both available in Jordan – will dissuade most of them from returning. The threat of arbitrary arrest will further deter those who have a record of opposition to the regime, as will conscription into the military. Unless their situation in Jordan deteriorates dramatically, only a few refugees are likely to return voluntarily any time soon. Therefore, donors and the Jordanian state should maintain assistance for refugees in Jordan to avoid economic pressure that would push refugees into unsustainable and perhaps unsafe return.

Russia’s professed desire to achieve a sustained refugee return to Syria is a potential entry point for Western donor countries. They could start a conversation with Moscow about how conditions in the south stand in the way of substantial returns; they could further press the Kremlin to lean on its Syrian ally about making the process of “resolving status” more transparent and reliable, and opening up humanitarian aid access. Damascus-based aid organisations and UN agencies like the World Food Programme need regular, direct access to the south to best serve the area’s vulnerable residents and to ensure the integrity of the humanitarian response is up to a standard that allows donors to continue their support.

The experience of the south also provides further evidence that “settlements” and “reconciliation”, the terms that the Syrian regime uses to refer to negotiated surrenders in the south and other areas retaken from rebels, often ring hollow for those at the receiving end. The regime appears bent on reasserting its full authority and repressive apparatus, with security agencies as its essential tool. As for Russia, it has not attempted to prevent the reconstitution of regime control. Its overarching objective appears to be to facilitate the reimposition of regime control, not to resist or redirect it.

This, too, carries lessons for the future. For parts of Syria still beyond Damascus’s control, it remains to be seen whether they will be reintegrated into a whole Syria through negotiations, or whether the regime will seek to retake them by force – an undertaking that would require Russia’s military support and, almost inevitably, would be enormously costly and bloody. Moscow wants Damascus to regain control over all of its territory; it also aims to rehabilitate the Syrian regime politically and economically, and to this end has tried to achieve buy-in for a constitutional process and reconstruction, in particular from European countries.

All of these objectives would be jeopardised in the case of violent takeovers of the remaining areas out of government control. In contrast, if Russia could broker negotiated solutions, it would advance its goals: a return of the Syrian state; establishing Russia as the one arbiter who can move the conflict in Syria toward a non-violent denouement; and better prospects for European re-engagement. But what is happening in the south is not encouraging Syrians in areas that still escape Damascus’ control to accept the state’s return.

Negotiations between Damascus and the Syrian Democratic Forces in Syria’s north east have previously stalled over questions of the Syrian state’s authority and the restoration of its security apparatus. Prospects for a negotiated return of the Syrian state to the north east would be improved if Russia could convince the regime to consent to a degree of local self-governance, with local security remaining in local hands to the extent possible. The Syrian Democratic Forces do not currently find themselves in the same dire straits that the south west’s rebels did in June 2018; they are militarily stronger and reaching some arrangement involving the U.S. and Turkey remains at least plausible. To secure a consensual, negotiated deal in the north east, in other words, Russia would need to improve on what it delivered in Syria’s south west. That should not be impossible: indeed, Russia has shown that it can have at least some mitigating effect on regime behaviour, even if it has not truly stood in the way of the regime’s return. The Russian military has curbed practices liable to overly antagonise the local population and has protected some former rebel leaders with whom it built relationships.

Western donor countries should press for humanitarian access to the south and refrain from enabling refugee returns unless and until conditions improve.

Facebook Email



Russia can play a positive mediating role on behalf of the north east’s residents and interested foreign countries. Not only in the north east, but nationwide: if Moscow wants Europeans and other donor countries to invest in Syria’s reconstruction and to normalise relations with Damascus, it should press the regime to improve international humanitarian access to areas that have returned to regime control and moderate the regime’s treatment of local residents. For donors who do not have direct or useful communications with Damascus, Russia can be their interface with the regime and their advocate on the ground inside Syria as they demand that Syria be a country they can responsibly rebuild.

Concerning the reported presence of Iranian proxies and the danger of a conflict with Israel, external actors should be prepared to step in to prevent incidents, such as those in May 2018 and January 2019, from spinning out of control. Russia should live up to its own commitments to Israel, and press Iran to refrain from behaviour that is liable to lead to a larger conflagration, even as it presses Israel to exercise restraint. Keeping the south quiet is in Moscow’s own best interest: a major confrontation between Israel and Iran could destabilise the region and cause serious damage to Russia’s Syrian ally. Recurrent military altercations at the current scope and pace obstruct efforts to move toward reconstruction and deter potential investors. For their part, European governments that have strong relations with Israel and maintain communication channels with Iran should urge both countries to avoid steps in the south that would destabilise the area all over again.

VI. Conclusion

When the Syrian regime sent its army south in mid-2018 to wrest the area from rebels, who had run the area for seven years, Russian mediation limited the bloodshed. Since then, the regime has committed insufficient resources to the south’s restabilisation, restricted humanitarian access and re-established authoritarian rule. As a result, security and living conditions remain precarious, militating against safe refugee returns. Meanwhile, Iran-aligned groups reportedly are trying to establish a presence close to the armistice line with Israel on the Golan Heights.

Following its success in the south, the regime is looking northward, determined to reclaim areas that remain outside its control: Idlib, now under the control of Hei’at Tahrir al-Sham; the Turkish-occupied zones of Euphrates Shield and Afrin; and the north east, which is run by the Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces. Negotiated solutions may limit violence. But achieving them may be contingent on how rebels view the southern precedent. Moreover, far better post-conflict conditions will be needed to enable safe refugee returns and reconstruction. So far, Russia has acted according to the letter of the agreements it mediated, but it has made scant effort to curb the regime’s authoritarian practices or push for better governance.

Western donor countries should press for humanitarian access to the south and refrain from enabling refugee returns unless and until conditions improve. Russia should seek stronger security guarantees from the regime for people in previously rebel-held areas. And countries with good relations with Iran and Israel should work with both to prevent escalation.

Beirut/Brussels, 25 February 2019

Appendix A: Map of the Area of Separation

CRISISGROUP/Mike Shand

Appendix B: Text of 1 July 2018 Busra al-Sham Agreement

Statement of Agreement

Representatives of the Free Syrian Army and representatives of the Syrian government, with Russian mediation, have agreed on the following:

An immediate and comprehensive ceasefire.

Handover of heavy weapons starting from today.

Residents to return normally to villages and towns in which the army [i.e., Syrian Arab army] is not present; and residents to return to villag-es in which the army is present in the company of Russian military po-lice and the Red Crescent, with a guarantee from the Russian military police of those residents’ safety.

Handover of medium weapons in the areas covered by the ceasefire to begin.

Resolving of the status of residents of areas covered by the ceasefire.

Resolving points to be distributed geographically according to need, within the agreed-upon mechanism.

The Syrian flag to be raised simultaneously with the entrance of civilian state institutions.

Fighters who resolve their status and wish to fight Daesh [ISIS] to join the [5th] Assault Corps, first and foremost in the southern region.

Resolving the status of defectors and those wanted for compulsory service, with a delay of six months.

Work on the return of all employees to their government jobs.

The problem of detainees and kidnapped to be solved in the Astana [working] group, and bodies of those killed to be exchanged between the two sides.

This agreement covers the area from Daraa to the west until the town of Smad to the east, and from Busr al-Harir in the north to the Jordanian border to the south.

The guarantor for this agreement is the Russian side.

Sunday, 1 July 2018

Appendix C: Text of 6 July 2018 Busra al-Sham Agreement

In Busra al-Sham on 6/7/2018, the Syrian government and armed opposition factions, with the mediation of the Russian side, arrived at the following:

There shall be a ceasefire, beginning from today, as the armed opposition factions begin to hand over their heavy and medium weapons in all cities and towns.

All militants shall have the right to resolve their status, with guarantees of Russian protection.

Those among the militants who do not wish to resolve their status shall be able to leave southern Syria, and to that end their exit with their families to Idlib will be organised.

The conditions for beginning to implement the exit of the armed factions shall be as follows: The handover of all observation points along the Syrian-Jordanian border, such that they are under the control of the Syrian government.

The handover of all armed opposition factions’ positions along the front with Daesh [ISIS] to Syrian Arab Army units.

All residents who left their cities and towns shall be able to return to them with guarantees of Russian protection.

The Syrian flag shall be raised, and state institutions shall return to carry out their work in these cities and towns, following the exit of those who do not wish to regularise their status.

The problem of defectors and those absent from serving the flag and reserve duty shall be resolved, and they shall be given a grace period of six months.