After nearly five years of relative calm, northern Syria has once again become a focal point of intense military activity and security incidents. Since November 27 2024, Syrian opposition factions have launched a surprise offensive targeting regime forces and Iran-backed militias in towns and villages across the western Aleppo countryside and areas east of Idlib (see Map 1). The offensive has resulted in significant territorial gains. The ongoing clashes have triggered widespread speculation and divergent interpretations regarding the causes and potential outcomes of the confrontation. This is unsurprising given the prolonged chaos in Syria, the involvement of multiple actors and the conflicting interests of nations operating within the Syrian arena which complicate efforts to decipher the conflict’s dynamics and future trajectories.
First: The Operation’s Contexts and Objectives
The military campaign titled Deterrence of Aggression marks the most significant shift in territorial control and influence in northwestern Syria in years. This operation has altered the frontlines between local Syrian factions and the regional and international forces present in the area, breaking a long period of relative calm maintained by the 2020 Sochi de-escalation agreement brokered in Moscow between Syria, Russia, and Turkey. The campaign includes a diverse coalition of opposition groups, with Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham playing a leading role alongside other factions like the Free Idlib Army and groups active in western Aleppo, Hama, Latakia, and the Idlib countryside. Opposing these forces are the Syrian government troops, backed by what the Syrian army describes as “friendly forces,” referring to Russian and Iranian forces operating in support of Damascus.
Map 1:The Structure of Military Control in Northwestern Syria (November 29, 2024)
Source: Baladi News Network https://bit.ly/3D2jSP4
The military factions announced that their operations against Syrian government forces and Iranian militias were a response to sustained attacks by Damascus in Idlib throughout October 2024. However, the factions’ actions extend beyond defensive measures, reflecting ambitions to expand their influence and control. At the time of preparing this report, they had seized key positions in the western Aleppo countryside, including the strategically significant 46th Regiment, a major base used by Assad’s forces for launching attacks on opposition-held areas. Their advances have also targeted Aleppo’s center and eastern Idlib, capturing the pivotal city of Saraqib, a critical junction connecting the Damascus-Aleppo (M5) and Aleppo-Latakia (M4) highways. Additionally, the factions pushed toward Hama, taking control of several villages and towns before retreating following the arrival of government reinforcements and the establishment of new security positions by Syrian forces.
Second: Analyzing the Motives and Positions of the Various Actors Toward the Military Campaign in Northern Syria
The military campaign has unfolded amid shifting local, regional and international dynamics which may have influenced this renewed escalation along Syria’s northern front. Below is an analysis of the most likely motives:
1-Multiple Operational Motives
The military factions’ statement following the operation indicated that their assault was a response to the regime forces and Iranian militias’ heavy bombardment of Idlib in recent months, with the latest attacks targeting opposition-held civilian areas in northern Syria in October 2024. Alternatively, some analysts view the operation as an inevitable development that many Syrians had been anticipating, given the ongoing political impasse in the country and Assad’s efforts to maintain power. This context played a role in unifying the Syrian opposition forces under a single leadership, culminating in the unexpected announcement of the operation.
2-Regional and International Motives
The actions of the Syrian military factions are unfolding amid a series of regional changes, including the ongoing Israeli war against Gaza and Lebanon, which have put pressure on the Syrian regime and its Iranian allies. This pressure is further compounded by recent developments in Lebanon, particularly Hezbollah’s acceptance of Resolution 1701. As such, the operation can be seen as a natural response to regional dynamics, offering the factions a chance to shift the lines of engagement in the city and gain leverage over Syrian government forces.
Additionally, these movements appear to align with Turkey’s interests, a key player in northern Syria. Turkey has sent mixed signals, at times expressing a desire for reconciliation with the Assad regime, while also making statements against him in an effort to bring him to the negotiating table. This comes after more than a year of diplomatic calls for normalizing relations, as reiterated by Turkish officials, including President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
Some observers suggest that Ankara’s actions may be a preemptive move in response to President-elect Donald Trump’s impending inauguration. This perspective posits that Erdogan is strengthening his negotiating position, particularly regarding his demand to diminish Kurdish influence in northern Syria, a stance backed by Washington. Supporters of this view point to the possibility that Trump may decide not to withdraw US forces from their primary bases in Kurdish-controlled areas. As a result, both Ankara and Moscow, each with its own objectives, are preparing for the new US administration’s approach to the region.
Russia’s concerns about the situation in northern Syria are undeniable, especially considering its involvement and the speculation that arose shortly after the military operation began. Questions emerged regarding the absence of Russian forces, particularly its air force, during the initial days of the operation, which left the Syrian regime vulnerable to the military factions’ advances. This situation contrasts with Russia’s previous stance since its intervention in Syria in 2015. The delay in Russian intervention may be attributed to a decline in Russian capabilities, influenced by the ongoing war in Ukraine, or it could reflect a strategic move to pressure President Bashar al-Assad, weakening him and pushing him to align more closely with Moscow. This approach could be preparing the ground for a new phase with the incoming Trump administration or for the potential normalization of relations with Turkey.
Third: The Operation’s Outcomes and Potential Trajectories
The objectives of the military factions involved in the operation appear predictable given the internal Syrian context and the ongoing regional volatility. This military campaign is expected to exert significant pressure on the Syrian government, especially after years of relative stability in the control zones between local forces in northwestern Syria. Moreover, the operation will place other regional and international stakeholders in a position where they must make challenging decisions at a critical juncture in the region’s geopolitical landscape.
As the clashes persist and the military factions make progress, the potential outcomes, scope, and trajectory of the operation remain uncertain. These factors are largely dependent on a variety of local and political dynamics that could shape the course of the ongoing conflict. Some scenarios that could unfold include the following:
1- One potential scenario is the continued escalation by the military factions, should the momentum of their attack and field advancements persist. If the factions manage to secure additional strategic locations and receive increased external support, it could enhance their ability to challenge Assad’s forces. This, however, depends on the absence of Russian intervention to restore Assad’s control over the areas taken by the factions. If this path unfolds, it could mark the end of the de-escalation and monitoring mechanisms established through the Astana process, leading Syria into a new phase of conflict. This may result in the emergence of new Turkish-Russian agreements based on shifts in territorial control or could open the door to a prolonged conflict whose course and outcomes remain uncertain.
2- Another possible scenario involves negotiations or a temporary ceasefire. The military factions’ operation and their initial successes provide an opportunity to bring the issues of northern Syria and its residents’ demands to the forefront, both for the Assad government and the international community. However, such operations often struggle to maintain momentum without external support, which may push the factions to seek a temporary halt in the coming days. This path aligns with Turkey’s interests, as it sees an opportunity to exploit Assad’s weakened position for territorial gains, but it is also cautious not to provoke Russia into direct conflict, which could be costly. Additionally, Iran, under pressure both within Syria and in other regions, lacks the freedom of action it once had. Consequently, Iran is unlikely to lead a significant escalation in this operation and may instead opt for a calm approach to avoid further losses for its militias and influence in Syria. Furthermore, the large-scale displacement of populations resulting from the operation could intensify pressure on the international community and humanitarian organizations. This pressure may compel the conflicting parties to return to the negotiating table in search of diplomatic solutions or to de-escalate the situation. As a result, the parties involved might reach agreements that align with the parameters of the de-escalation agreement signed in 2019.
3- The operation dying down and Assad gaining control is considered one of the most likely scenarios, as the military factions may lack the resources and international backing necessary to maintain their advances. If Assad’s counterattacks intensify, he may succeed in regaining the strategic areas he lost, particularly around Aleppo. Despite the limited Russian intervention so far, it is crucial to recognize that Russia’s position in Syria is driven by a strategic perspective that transcends supporting the Assad regime. Russia aims to define its role in the broader international system, and it will not allow significant changes to the maps of control, or the loss of key territories held by the Assad government or Iranian forces, as this could undermine its influence. Consequently, Russia is likely to work toward creating an equation that forces the military factions and Turkey to halt and potentially expand the operation, ensuring the Assad regime’s position remains secure.
In conclusion, Operation Deterrence of Aggression in northwestern Syria marks a significant shift in the Syrian local and political landscape, as it has redrawn the lines of contact after years of relative stagnation. As the operation proceeds, its outcomes will be largely determined not only by the military capabilities of the factions on the ground but also by external factors and international support. The responses from the Syrian regime and its allies, particularly Turkey and Russia, will play a crucial role. The extent to which these powers are willing to test the balance of power on the ground and their readiness to escalate or pursue political settlements will shape the operation’s future. As such, northern Syria remains an arena for a range of potential scenarios, with far-reaching implications that should be carefully monitored, as the consequences may extend well beyond Syria’s borders.
