New Delhi, Dec 2 2024-
Violence is never far from the surface in the restive Middle East. Hardly had the guns gone silent on the Lebanon-Israel front, fierce fighting has broken out further north in Syria as a terrorist outfit has suddenly become active, raising the danger of renewed instability and escalation due to the competing strategic interests of several superpowers and regional powers in the country.
Islamist terrorists of the Hayat Tahrir-al-Sham — formerly known as Jabhat al-Nusra and said to be affiliated with Al Qaeda, and its allies, moved out of their “sanctuary” in Syria’s Idlib last Wednesday (November 27) to attack Aleppo, the country’s second-biggest city, in the largest incident of its kind since the 2020 truce. Rebels are said to control a large part of the city and are seeking to advance southwards into Hama and further.
While Syria has mobilised its forces to tackle the insurgents, allies Russia and Iran have lent diplomatic and military support as the situation remains fluid. The latter flare-up also has to be seen in consonance with the ongoing conflict in Gaza, the tensions between Iran and Israel, the far-from-settled situation in south Lebanon, and the coming presidency of Donald Trump in the US.
While the motivations of the terrorist group are yet to be known, save from the usual rhetoric, several theories are already doing the rounds. And the bedrock of all this is the point of who benefits — or suffers — from the unfolding situation.
Take your pick from Syria’s freshly embattled President Bashar Al Assad, Russia, Turkey, Iran, the US, or Israel.
The Syrian President is the hardest hit by the development given his regime is still grappling with the aftermath of over a decade-long civil war, sanctions by the West, and diplomatic isolation. However, the support extended by fellow Arab states, especially the Gulf monarchies, will be a boost amid fears that the domestic conflict could be rekindled.
Turkey comes into prime focus given it had supported groups fighting against the Syrian regime after the revolt broke out in 2011 amid the ‘Arab Spring’, that it retains a military presence in Idlib, and its reaction to the outbreak of the fighting has been equivocal.
However, since this year, it has been pressing for a rapprochement with Damascus, and the renewed violence can only affect the normalisation process — or be a gambit to force it. Furthermore, it also hinders Ankara’s action against Kurdish militias which it considers a major threat.
On the other hand, Russia, which helped turn the tide for Assad after it intervened on his side militarily in 2016 and has deployed aerial power against the advancing terrorists, is perceived as another — indirect — target of the current episode.
Russia holds an edge against Ukraine and steadily making battlefield gains against its neighbour, which faces a shortage of men and materiel and is apprehensive of the changes the Trump presidency might bring. In such a situation, the brewing crisis in Syria may be intended to distract Moscow — more than the Kursk incursion did — to rush to support one of its oldest allies.
Similarly, for Iran, which intended to turn a new page in its fraught relations with the West under a new moderate President and obtain relief from sanctions, the Syrian flare-up is the latest hindrance in its efforts. Even as President Masoud Pezeshkian and Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi seek to better relations with Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries, the situation in Gaza, the missile exchanges with Israel, the row in the International Atomic Energy Agency, and what it sees as attempts to curb its influence by degradations of its regional allies such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and now, Syria make their task harder.
Predictably, Araqchi, who has reached Syria, and President Pezeshkian himself have blamed Israel, the US, and some European nations for the upsurge of violence and destabilisation.
On the other hand, the US, which continues to maintain a military deployment in oil-producing areas of eastern Syria, can only welcome the disquiet that the new round of fighting will evoke in Syria, as well as Russia and Iran. Israel also would not take amiss the renewed tension in one of its more long-standing and obdurate foes, and a blocked Iran-Lebanon route.
However, the consequences could be sombre. In the short term, the new wave of refugees who would seek to flee to Turkey and further would further exacerbate tensions in Europe, where immigration is increasing a right-wing, populist, and nativist tilt — which does not augur well for the EU.
In the long term, the use of Islamist terror in advancing strategic goals is a reckless gambit that perversely seems attractive — despite the resultant and fatal blowback.
How the Syrian crisis will pan out can only be anticipated. (Agency)
