by Igor Pejic
The Syrian crisis is slowly reaching its seventh year. Violence, radicalization, civil displacement, fragmentation and deterioration of the Syrian society are reaching unprecedented levels. International and regional actors, thus far, have largely failed in their attempts to reach a compromise or a sustainable solution in order to control the crisis and quell the radical groups which are running rampant across the region. Despite Russian, Turkey’s and Iranian latest effort to reach some-kind of peaceful agreement, the situation on the ground still remains very turbulent. Assassination of the Russian ambassador in Turkey, renewed IS advance in the east of the country and the constant refusal by the insurgent groups for any kind of deal with the government are showing a rather grim picture of the future.
In order to understand the Syrian future we need to analyse key actors which are active at the moment and will be part of the country’s future. But before that we need to map out the key drivers of the Syrian conflict:
- High level of foreign involvement. After the initial uprising during the Arab Spring various regional and global powers saw their opportunity in Syria. Funding and supporting “the rebel” forces the foreign powers quickly turned Syria into a proxy-war area.
- Instrumentalization and radicalization of sectarian, ethnic and religious identities. Armed actors along media organizations have managed to abuse these identities in order to accomplish their narratives. Relations between Sunni and Shia as well as Sunni and Alawites have deteriorated rapidly during the conflict. These deteriorating relations were quickly exploited by the government as well as terrorist forces in order to recruit or justify their actions.[1]
- Rise of the Islamic State. Rise of this rouge state is a new phenomena in security and global politics. The Islamic State acts as a beacon for various jihadists across the globe as well as a tool which can be employed to destabilize the region. The fact that this entity still exists proves that various global players see it as an instrument that can still serve their interests.
- Highly fragmented opposition forces. After the initial rise of Free Syrian Army (FSA) the opposition forces began to crumble away. Further fragmentation of these forces allowed radical groups to “kidnap” the revolution. At present “moderate opposition” usually refers to groups which are at different levels of extremism and Salafist Jihadism.
Main actors in the Syrian conflict include: President Assad and the Syrian forces, Russia, US and its allies, Iran and Hezbollah, Turkey, Kurdish forces and various opposition or terrorist groups including the Islamic State. Conflicting interests and agendas between these actors is also one of the key factors that push the Syrian crisis further.
At the moment President Assad, along with the Syrian Arab Army, is the only legitimate and legal force in the country. Despite constant accusations and calls for his removal Assad is the only force that can maintain some kind of order across the Syrian state. Even the Western powers who were the most persistent at their calls for removing Mr. Assad are now changing their tone. At this moment any kind of political transition would need to include the regime forces and the Syrian government in order to establish a stable situation on the ground. However, Syria as it was established by the colonial powers will be reshaped and this process will require certain degree of cession from the government. Centralized Syria as it once was will be decentralized in the future for a couple of reasons. Firstly, certain parts of the country have been cut off from the rest of the state and the capital for quite some time. During this period areas which had been cut off have established a certain degree of “governance” either on their own or pressured by the militants. Secondly, though there seems to be an overwhelming support for the government at the moment (mainly because of the current situation) people will demand certain political changes when the crisis is resolved. These political changes will include democracy, civil liberties etc. and most probably decentralized state. Finally the Kurds which have proven to be an excellent ally against the Islamic State and have managed to free much of the northern parts of Syria will influence the decentralization process. Decentralization is nothing unusual moreover it can be often seen in many countries which have gone through a civil war, economic and political crisis or something similar.
Many would say that Russia and the US are using Syria as another battleground to wage a proxy war and weigh their power. Though this is accurate to some extent (global powers have always used similar situations to indirectly measure their strength), there are other goals and interests that aren’t visible at the first glance. Main Russian interests in Syria are focused on restraining Islamist radicalism (Salafism and Jihadism) so it won’t spill over to Caucasus and destabilize the region; also positioning itself in Syria Russia will be able to secure its presence in the Mediterranean Sea via Latakia and Tartus naval bases. For Moscow both of these goals have a great strategic significance. Likewise in order to complete or secure these interests Russia will be involved in the shaping of the future Syrian state.
The US interests are somewhat vague. Although they are promoting democracy and free society the unwillingness to deliberately resolve the problem of Islamic State (at least in Iraq) is smearing their “good guy” image. Further US involvement in the Syrian crisis will be determined by the next US President and its politics towards Israel and Saudi Arabia as major regional allies. Washington may withdraw from the Syrian crisis and leave these issues to be resolved by other more involved players (such are Iran, Turkey and Russia). Though this might sound reasonable it will echo very badly in the region as well as in the global politics for the US global supremacy. Action such as this may possibly signify that the US has finally acknowledged the emerging multi-polar world. The other path suggests that the Washington will try to implement its own visions of the future Syria by strengthening its presence in the region (not involving Turkey in the process). Sadly at this point it is very ungrateful to predict the moves of the next American President, since he will take office at the end of January. Whatever the results of the Syrian crisis are the US presence in the region won’t simply disappear. CENTCOM still covers the whole Middle-Eastern and Central-Asian area and it is at the intersection of three continents inhabited by more than half a billion of people. No global power would ever easily withdraw from a similar strategic area.
Main goal for Tehran is to maintain a pro-Iranian government in Syria. This doesn’t necessarily need to include President Assad as long as there is a Shia orientated regime, something similar to Iraq. Iran mainly sees Syria as a gateway to Lebanon and a stable support for the Shia population and Hezbollah in that country. If somehow the future government of Syria has an anti-Iranian stance the position of Hezbollah in Lebanon as well as in the region would be seriously threatened. In that manner Iran will be ready to make certain concessions in order to maintain its presence in the region.
In the past couple of years Turkey has had a very interesting foreign policy. From opposing the Syrian government and Russian intervention while supporting insurgent groups in the northern part of the country, to implementing cooperative peace deals with Russia and Iran trying to resolve the Syrian crisis. Turkey can make a great political impact in Syria and Iraq, though it is playing a dangerous forth and back game between the West and Russia. The situation in the region has direct consequences on Turkish security and overall stability of the country, naturally one of the main goals would be to stabilize the situation and suppress future terrorist efforts in the region. The second goal is to restrain the Kurdish forces and its progression along the Turkey-Syria border. This will be very important since the Kurds in Syria will try to acquire some kind of autonomy in the future. Finally if the Turkey succeeds in its foreign policy and emerges as a victor in the Syrian crisis its influence will spread much further. Revivification of the Ottoman power will be possible if Turkey plays its cards right.
The Kurdish forces in Syria have had a remarkable success in the northern part of the country. Fighting the Islamic State YPG managed to reclaim much of the border region with Turkey and establish some kind of autonomy thus providing a stable hub for further operations against the terrorists. Relations with the US are also an important factor for the Kurds. During this year the US special forces have actually managed to get on the ground thanks to the YPG. These US-Kurdish relations can potentially influence the future demands for the Kurdish autonomy. Although this is a primary goal for the Kurdish people absolute autonomy will be more or less impossible to achieve. Allowing any kind of a higher level of autonomy for the Kurds in Syria would automatically trigger a similar reaction for the Kurds in Turkey, Iraq and Iran. However, decentralization is the most probable outcome for the Syrian state therefore the Kurds can expect a seat in the future government and a regional autonomy within the country.
Although there are still years ahead before the Syrian crisis is absolutely resolved we can expect a positive shift in the near future. Of course this will be determined by the regional actors and the future American administration. Nevertheless there are two issues that can further derive from the Syrian crisis and potentially be exploited. Firstly there is the Islamic State and various fighting groups across Syria. These extremists won’t simply disappear. Some of them will return home which will further complicate those country’s security situation (especially in Europe) and others will seek more suitable regions to continue their operations (North Africa most likely). The second issue that may potentially destabilize the region is the Kurdish question. In Iraq and Syria the Kurds have been fighting extremists since the beginning of the conflict’s escalation. Even so regional powers haven’t showed any respect nor gratitude towards these actions. Furthermore Ankara’s violent actions against the Kurds are heating up the hostilities. External players may exploit the Kurdish issue for autonomy if the regional powers can’t resolve this problem. This can be especially problematic for Turkey since President Erdogan is clearly trying to shift the country’s foreign policy and change its traditional allies.
- The Syrian conflict: A systems conflict analysis. ARK Group DMCC. February 2016. p. 48. (http://arkgroupdmcc.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/ARK-Syria-Conflict-Analysis-Digital-copy.pdf accessed 25.12.2016) ↑
IGOR PEJIC graduated Political Science Foreign Affairs Department at the Faculty of Political Science and MA in Terrorism, Security and Organized Crime at the University of Belgrade, Serbia. Igor Pejic is Editor-in-Chief of Strelok Analysis – Geopolitical Analysis, an independent project http://strelok-analysis.com/.
Subversion of national unity by sectarian agitation — check.
Fragmenting Syria into mini-states; Kurds semi-independent — check
All expected in advance and accomplished some time ago.
So now what ?
This article makes key unsubstantiated assertions about the likelihood of partition and self-rule for Syria, particularly the assertion that areas of the country are already under some measure of self-governance apart from Damascus. To the contrary, Damascus was still paying the salaries of government official in Aleppo even under occupation and the same for other occupied townships. They even airdropped exam papers to students.
Also, the shape and reform of the Syrian state is already well under way with the surrender process that is seeing armed groups hand over their weapons and return to civil life, a trickle that is becoming a flood. The Kurds are an unknown, but otherwise there will not be any Syrians left outside this unity process to bargain with. Just holdout terrorists and mercenaries to eliminate.
This article is not to the Saker’s usual standard, disappointed.
Same here. Anyway, Igor Pejic wrote that – MA in Terrorism, Security and Organized Crime at the University of Belgrade, did he studied in USA for a year or two? it’s the norm when talking of terrorist training in the region (can’t find info about his resume). As I recall, it was Russia which proposed about 3 months ago an autonomy region for Kurds (no idea why) – proposal rejected by Syrians, and the Russian side didn’t (officially) pressed the matter. Reports about forceful dislocation of population – be they Syrians, Turks, Muslims or Christians – by the Kurds, to be replaced by people of Kurdish origin don’t disappear just because Israel – and USAndistan – supports the idea of a Kurdish state (and presumably the Kurdish fighters). Poor Kurds, fighting ISIS… for greater Kurdistan. They bloody well fight, it’s their chance AND their promise by USA, Israel and Saudi Arabia. Not so by Turkey, no need to rattle one’s brain why’s that. So – what goes there? The extremists will be hunted. Those caught in the middle – cities, villages, forming their one guards, trying to stay alive – will be pardoned. I wouldn’t offer autonomy – why the hell fought everyone so far? The Syrian soldiers are exhausted – that much you can see – but they are fighting for seven years now, they are hard fighting men – those still standing, anyway – and will be a match for any regional group around. Think of the Vietnamese-Chinese war: in comes China with a man-wave only to break it’s teeth in the battle-hardened and confident veterans of the Vietnamese-French-Usa war. I don’t want to fight men who were in combat and fought back – they will fight because they can and know how. So, USA is in retreat until further orders. ISIS takes a beating. Saudis have Yemen up their arse. That leaves Quatar and Israel as the potential hostile forces – bear in mind that Hizbullah just torched part of Israeli Hatzor Airbase in response to the attack of the sirian Al-Mazza airbase, so they have to think hard before trying new things, nuclear deterrent notwithstanding. I don’t know the background of it all, but those are facts on the ground. So far, facts say syrians will fight to reclaim all of their land. And that any force around is rather tied up. So, no need to apease Kurds.
No need, perhaps, although the Kurds have also been fighting hard so the “battle-hardened” applies equally to them. When two groups of hard fighters clash there’s gonna be blood and tears, so why? Is there some reason the Kurds shouldn’t get some degree of autonomy?
I know who they fought in Iraq – their former oppressors, the rank and file of former Iraqi army, today known as ISIS. Who have they been fighting in Syria? ISIS? Only insofar to clear a safe region for Kurds. “Is there some reason the Kurds shouldn’t get some…”? In regard to battle-hardness: because numbers (and technology) matter. Syrian side has the numbers (while under the USandistan “scope” didn’t have the technology) – AND is the wining side. Regarding some degree of autonomy: Kurds don’t ask for that, they want federalization. The Obama admin, the Saudis and Israel promised that much (why would they give up on that? now is their finest our, when they can achieve something; and will fight for it – which is exactly what Syria needs now, another enemy). Even if they would scale down their demands, the fact that the Kurds purged the regions they “protected” doesn’t elevate them as an negotiation partner – from a syrian point of view – or a turkish one, for that matter. Answer my this, Purple: have the kurds been repressed in Syria?
The role of israel-usa-eu in supporting the terrorists, running them, actually, is neglected in this article. That is like a discussion of the physical states of H2O that neglects the role of temperature. The terrorists are portrayed as an independent phenomenon, which we already know to be nonsense.
This article comes of way short on analysis on many points.
Chief among them are:
neglecting to mention the roles of Saudi Arabia and Qatar in funding and shaping the conflict.
What are the objectives of these 2 dysfunctional Gulf States in this conflict?
Jordon is also never mentioned, despite offering up its territory as a CIA Training Camp for militants for the conflict.
Well we all know that Jordan has to do whatever its US and Gulf masters ask, so its objectives are not important.
But, Israel is also overlooked, despite giving Al Nusra free medical care and allowing its terrorists free rein in the occupied Golan Heights, among other things. And also constantly targeting assets of Hezbollah and the Syrian government.
What are Israel’s objectives in this conflict?
These are just a few glaring ommissions from the “analysis”.
this goes @ other commenters:
don’t be too critical about Igor’s analysis. this is his first work on TheSaker
we get to read. Don’t shut him down immediately. First baby steps are always shaky.
Игоре,
претпостављам да коментаре читаш, па ћеш прочитати и ове моје речи подршке.
Немој дозволити да те обесхрабре речи претходних коментатора – да су имали добре намере они би само допунили твоју анализу са пар прескочених тачака, а не да те
цинично нападају као недовољно стручног аналитичара.
Сакереров сајт је пун страних шпијуна којима не иде у корист да се користи и шири
стратешки начин размишљања, ем зато што здраво размишљање и истина иду против
њихових лажи и обмана, ем зато што им такви као ти представљају конкуренцију.
Са својим негативним коментарима они покушавају да те обесхрабре, да одустанеш од даљег рада. Али ја кажем – само напред!
MOD:
Translation from Serbian:
Igor,
I suppose you read the comments, and you will read these words of mine support.
Do not let this discourage previous commentators say – that they had good intentions, they would only complement your analysis with the pair skipped points, not to
cynically attacked as insufficiently professional analysts.
Sakererov site is full of foreign spies who would not benefit from that used and spread
strategic thinking, em because healthy thinking and truth go against
their lies and deception, em because they are as they compete.
With his negative comments they are trying to get you down, to give up further work. But I say – go ahead!
Saker’s site is also full with people with good intentions, common sense and reasonable ethics, and their comments are often insightful. Sometimes best feedback comes from the ugliest comments. Yes, this analysis is incomplete , perhaps even erroneous, and so is Das Kapital in spite of its 3 volumes. If the shoe does not fit, ignore it, that is, caveat emptor.
All the best, Spiral
The Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party which has been running Irak and Syria for many years was able to avoid major conflict between the communities having different faith or ethnic origine.
The central power was strong to balance the power of the different clan leaders and to make sure that those Sheickhs were not comploting to blow-up the internal peace.
The western concept of democracy is not applicable to the Arab countries for they are a society based on clans and social reforms imply a concensus between clan’s leaders before being implemented.
The proposal to explode Syria into many little kingdoms is just going to further the conflicts betwwen all the communities which will all practice local cleansing to insure their local powers.
It is a worst case approach where every Syrian will suffer and the only winner will be Israel which will be able to annex further land.
The “Western concept” of democracy wasn’t applicable to Europe either, since it was a society based on aristocratic fiefdoms. Does anyone ask the people in these clans whether they agree with or think much of these clan leaders?
Please don’t take this as support for the idea of breaking up Syria into little bits, that’s not what I’m trying to get at. I just don’t think that tradition is destiny. People are people, and I say power to them people whether they’re in Yemen or Indonesia or the belly of the beast, USA. Mind you, what we currently call democracy hasn’t been too successful lately in having any actual rule by the demos. One of the more interesting examples of some more genuine democracy is actually happening right now . . . among the Syrian Kurds. I guess they didn’t get the memo about the whole “Can’t work because clans” thing.
“An agreement signed by Russia and Syria stipulates that up to eleven Russian warships will be able to dock in the Syrian port of Tartus at any one time. The move is designed to boost defense capabilities, the document states.
“The maximum number of the Russian warships allowed at the Russian naval facility at one time is 11, including nuclear-powered warships, providing that nuclear and ecological security rules are observed,” the agreement says.”
https://www.rt.com/news/374372-syria-russia-tartus-agreement/
Never heard of this guy before, and I’ve been reading Serbian alternative blogs for quite a while!
If he graduated from the University of Belgrade within the last 16 years, then I fully understand why this “analysis” turned out this way.
For some of you it might sound unbelievable, but there are areas on that “university” totally under control of the US (et al) embedded staff (= the alphabet agencies) inaccessible to the ordinary Serbian students and staff — especially the social sciences. They are the ones who run the show, design programs, choose and dis/allow topics, etc. In short, it’s a joined criminal enterprise to enforce the zionazi colonial occupation in full!
Case in point, on this permanent topic of “terrorism,” the modern Serbian political “analysts” are not allowed to write about the ZATO-occupied terrorist-run Kosovo.
Good point. Nor discussion of Tito’s traitorous role as Britain’s well-paid puppet.
Concerning the United States: “Although they are promoting democracy and free society”
This needs to be corrected. The US is saying things like this to maintain a veneer of legitimacy with the US public, and the public in other Western countries. This is the propoganda.
As usual, what the US is ACTUALLY doing is supporting the politcal aims of its mideasten partners like KSA, UAE and Qatar, to create conditions where a coalition-controlled pipeline that will bypass Russian-affilited routes to get coalition state oil to the EU can be built.
Also, after the US got snookered in its attemp to gain control of Sevastopol via the Ukraine, Russia has a clear route out of the military encirclement the US has been trying to build for decades. Russia now controls the Black Sea, and it’s base in Syria gives it a forward site outside the ring of encirclement, as well as a real-time presence in the Mediterranean.
The US knows that as long as the Assad government is in power, the Russians will be entrenched in its Syrian naval station. Now, as usual, it seems the Americans have no idea how they would actually kick the Russians off their station if the Syrian state collapsed into anarchy, but they seem to be addicted to the “tear it down first, and sort the details out later” model. That’s how they screwed themselves so royally in the Ukraine (did anyone in State ot the Pentagon ever stop to ask themselves about the reality of what the Russian response to an attempt by the US to station ships in Sevastopol would be?)
“did anyone in State ot the Pentagon ever stop to ask themselves about the reality of what the Russian response to an attempt by the US to station ships in Sevastopol would be?” – yes, i think they did: it was expected a georgian reaction, russian tanks rolling in Sevastopol, with ukrainian tanks rolling in return to stop invasion, suported by all NATO air power and fleet, and finally the NATO’s generals wet dream of a war on russian soil, ukrainians nicely sacrificed, with the 5th russian column in place (suported by some NGOs?) for a palace revolution. It was a good plan. Too bad that NATO generals play poker, while russian generals play chess.