The Syrian Conflict: Entangled Interests and Escalating Complexity from an American Perspective

The Syrian conflict, a multi-faceted civil war that began in 2011, has recently gained renewed attention due to the takeover of Aleppo by Hay ‘at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a prominent rebel group affiliated with al-Qaeda. This development marks a significant escalation in the war, as Aleppo, once Syria’s largest city and a key battleground, had been under the control of the Assad regime for several years. The fall of Aleppo to HTS represents a dramatic shift in the balance of power in the region, signalling the fragility of Assad's hold over the country and the continued volatility of Syria's fractured landscape. This event has reignited global concerns over the dynamics of the conflict and the involvement of external actors like the U.S., Russia, Iran, Israel, and Turkey. all of whom have vested interests in shaping Syria’s future.

Background

The Arab Spring and Early Unrest

The Syrian conflict has its roots in the broader wave of uprisings that swept through the Arab world in 2011. Inspired by the successes of pro-democracy movements in Tunisia and Egypt, Syrians took to the streets to demand political reforms, an end to corruption, and greater freedoms. However, the Assad regime responded with brutal crackdowns, arresting and torturing protesters, which further inflamed public anger.

The protests gradually turned into an armed rebellion as defectors from the Syrian military formed the Free Syrian Army (FSA). What initially appeared to be a fight for democracy quickly morphed into a sectarian conflict, with Sunni-majority rebels clashing against a government-backed by Alawite and Shiite factions.

The Fragmentation of the Conflict

By 2013, Syria had become a fragmented battleground. The rise of Islamist groups, including Jabhat al-Nusra (later Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, HTS) and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), introduced a new and dangerous dimension to the war. Competing interests among rebel factions weakened the opposition’s ability to mount a united front against Assad.

At the same time, external powers began intervening, transforming Syria into a geopolitical chessboard. This foreign involvement added layers of complexity and ensured the conflict's persistence. What started as a peaceful uprising, in the midst of the Arab Spring, against Bashar al-Assad’s authoritarian regime has evolved into a protracted civil war with a mosaic of actors, including regional powers, global superpowers, militant groups, and sectarian factions. These actors pursue divergent and often conflicting objectives, further entrenching the war's devastation.

As the conflict drags into its 14th year, Syria remains a microcosm of global power struggles, marked by competing alliances, shifting battlefronts, and a complex array of interests from both local and international actors. With the latest developments in Aleppo, the stakes have been raised once again, with implications for regional stability, the future of the Assad regime, and the role of key players like the United States.

Key Players in the Syrian Conflict

The Assad Regime and Its Allies

1.     Bashar al-Assad’s Government: The Assad regime remains the dominant force in Syria, controlling much of the country’s urban and coastal regions. Assad’s ability to survive over a decade of war is largely due to the unwavering support of powerful allies, including Russia, Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah.

o   Russia’s Role: Moscow has been a critical backer of Assad, providing diplomatic cover and military support. Russia’s intervention in 2015 marked a turning point in the war, as its airstrikes helped the regime regain lost territory. For Russia, Syria is more than just an ally; it is a strategic foothold in the Middle East and home to its naval base at Tartus. Syria also serves as a testing ground for Russian military technology and a platform for asserting its global influence.

o   Iran’s Involvement: Tehran views Syria as a crucial link in its “Shiite Crescent” strategy, which aims to create a corridor of influence from Iran through Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. Iranian militias, including the Quds Force and proxies like Hezbollah, have played a decisive role in supporting Assad on the battlefield. Iran’s presence in Syria is also motivated by its opposition to Israel and its desire to project power in the region.

o   Hamas and Hezbollah: Although Hamas and Hezbollah operate with distinct objectives, their backing of Assad aligns with broader Iranian goals. Hezbollah, in particular, has provided military expertise and fighters, while Hamas offers ideological and occasional logistical support.

Rebel Factions

2.     Fragmented Opposition Groups: The opposition to Assad is a patchwork of groups with varying ideologies, ranging from moderate factions to Islamist extremists.

o   Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS): Evolving from al-Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate, HTS is now the dominant force in the rebel-held Idlib province. Backed indirectly by Turkey, HTS claims to have distanced itself from global jihadist ambitions, though its extremist roots remain a concern.

o   Moderate Rebels: Groups like the remnants of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) struggle to maintain relevance amidst the dominance of Islamist factions. Turkey supports some of these groups to counter both Assad and the Kurdish militias in northern Syria.

3.     Kurdish Forces: The Kurds, primarily represented by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and its backbone, the YPG (Yekîneyên Parastina Gel), or "People’s Protection Units," the primary militia of the Syrian Kurdish political organization, the Democratic Union Party (PYD), have been pivotal in the fight against ISIS. However, their aspirations for autonomy in northern Syria have brought them into conflict with Turkey, which views the YPG as an extension of the PKK, a designated terrorist organization. Despite their alliance with the U.S., the Kurds remain vulnerable to attacks from Turkey and other hostile actors.

Terrorist Organizations

4.     ISIS and Other Extremist Groups While ISIS has been territorially defeated, its sleeper cells continue to pose a threat in eastern Syria. The group exploits the chaos to regroup and carry out attacks. Similarly, other extremist organizations like HTS capitalize on the conflict to expand their influence and resources.

External Powers

5.     Turkey Turkey’s involvement in Syria is driven by multiple objectives: countering Kurdish ambitions, supporting Sunni rebel groups, and establishing a buffer zone along its border. Ankara’s military operations, including the occupation of parts of northern Syria, have strained relations with both the Assad regime and the U.S.

6.     Israel Although not directly involved in the Syrian civil war, Israel has conducted numerous airstrikes targeting Iranian assets and Hezbollah in Syria. These actions aim to prevent Iran from establishing a permanent military presence near Israel’s borders.

The Role of the United States in the Syrian Conflict

The United States has been a key external actor in the Syrian conflict, shaping its trajectory through a mix of direct intervention, alliances, and proxy engagements. The U.S. role, while ostensibly focused on counterterrorism and humanitarian concerns, has also been driven by broader strategic imperatives, including the containment of adversaries such as Iran and Russia, the stabilization of regional allies, and the prevention of extremist resurgence. The Biden administration’s policies continue to evolve amidst mounting tensions, revealing the complexities and contradictions inherent in U.S. involvement in Syria.

Biden Administration: Continuity and Adjustments

Military Presence and Operational Strategy

The Biden administration has retained a significant military presence in Syria, continuing the strategic deployment of approximately 900 U.S. troops in the northeast. This presence serves multiple roles, including combating ISIS, protecting vital oil infrastructure, and countering the influence of Iranian-backed militias. Counterterrorism remains the foremost priority. The U.S., in partnership with the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), conducts targeted operations to dismantle ISIS remnants. These missions focus on eliminating leadership figures, disrupting insurgent networks, and preventing the resurgence of extremist activities that could destabilize the region further.

The control of oil fields in Syria's northeast also constitutes a critical aspect of U.S. operations. By preventing these resources from falling into the hands of either the Assad regime or ISIS, the U.S. not only cripples key revenue streams for its adversaries but also strengthens its bargaining position. Moreover, the presence of U.S. forces serves as a deterrent against Iranian-backed militias operating in the region. The Biden administration has authorized retaliatory strikes when these militias target U.S. assets, signalling a commitment to safeguarding American personnel and interests.

Diplomatic Isolation of the Assad Regime

On the diplomatic front, the Biden administration has intensified efforts to isolate the Assad regime. The application of the Caesar Act sanctions has targeted individuals and entities complicit in the regime's atrocities, further crippling Syria’s economy. Unlike previous administrations, which occasionally entertained the prospect of Assad’s integration into the international community, Biden’s strategy firmly opposes normalization. By lobbying Arab states and international organizations, Washington has sought to prevent Assad's rehabilitation within regional and global forums, such as the Arab League and the United Nations.

However, the U.S. also faces the delicate task of maintaining regional alliances. Relations with Turkey are particularly challenging, given Ankara's concerns over the U.S. partnership with the SDF, which Turkey views as an extension of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK). The Biden administration has sought to navigate this tension through diplomatic channels, emphasizing counterterrorism collaboration while resisting Turkey's calls to sever ties with Kurdish groups.

Humanitarian Commitment and International Coordination

The U.S. remains one of the largest donors of humanitarian aid to Syria, with the Biden administration emphasizing the importance of cross-border assistance to reach millions of displaced Syrians. This aid, delivered through UN mechanisms and non-governmental organizations, provides essential services such as food, healthcare, and shelter in regions devastated by the conflict. Biden’s emphasis on multilateralism is evident in these efforts, as the U.S. continues to work with allies and international institutions to address the humanitarian crisis. This approach aligns with broader U.S. priorities of rebuilding alliances and demonstrating global leadership in addressing complex crises.

Strategic Priorities and Interests

Counterterrorism and the Fight Against ISIS

Counterterrorism remains a cornerstone of U.S. strategy in Syria. Despite the defeat of ISIS's territorial caliphate, the group continues to pose a significant threat through sleeper cells and insurgent tactics. The Biden administration has prioritized dismantling these networks to ensure that Syria does not once again become a breeding ground for global terrorism. U.S. operations in the region are characterized by targeted strikes and intelligence-sharing with local and international partners, aiming to prevent ISIS from regrouping and re-establishing its influence.

The broader counterterrorism strategy extends beyond ISIS. The U.S. remains vigilant against the activities of other extremist groups, such as Hay ‘at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which operates in opposition-held territories. While HTS has attempted to present itself as a more moderate alternative to groups like ISIS, its links to al-Qaeda make it a persistent concern for U.S. policymakers.

Containing Iranian Influence

Iran’s entrenched presence in Syria poses a direct challenge to U.S. strategic objectives in the Middle East. Through its support for Assad’s regime and the deployment of proxy militias, Tehran seeks to establish a land corridor from Iran through Iraq and Syria to Lebanon, enhancing its influence across the region. The Biden administration has prioritized containing this expansionist agenda by supporting Israeli airstrikes on Iranian targets in Syria and maintaining U.S. military deployments in areas of strategic importance.

The administration's strategy also includes diplomatic efforts to rally regional and international actors against Iranian encroachment. By strengthening ties with Gulf allies and encouraging a unified approach, Washington aims to limit Tehran’s ability to exploit divisions among its adversaries.

Balancing Regional Dynamics

The U.S. faces the complex task of navigating a web of competing interests among its regional partners. Turkey's operations in northern Syria, aimed at curbing Kurdish autonomy, complicate U.S. relations with both Ankara and the SDF. While the Biden administration has sought to address Turkish security concerns, it remains committed to its Kurdish allies, who are instrumental in the fight against ISIS.

At the same time, Washington continues to coordinate closely with Israel, whose security concerns are heavily influenced by Iranian activities in Syria. The U.S. supports Israel’s pre-emptive strikes on Iranian positions, viewing them as crucial for regional stability. Meanwhile, efforts to engage Arab Gulf states in a cohesive strategy against both Iranian and Russian influence in Syria underscore the administration’s broader goal of maintaining regional balance.

Geopolitical Rivalry with Russia

Syria represents a critical theatre in the broader geopolitical competition between the U.S. and Russia. Moscow's support for the Assad regime, including military intervention and economic aid, has bolstered its influence in the region. The Biden administration views Russia’s role in Syria as part of its broader strategy to challenge U.S. leadership and expand its global footprint.

By maintaining a military presence and supporting opposition groups, the U.S. seeks to counterbalance Russian dominance in Syria. Moreover, Washington’s sanctions on the Assad regime indirectly target Russian interests by impeding Moscow’s efforts to stabilize its Syrian ally. The U.S. also leverages its control over key oil resources in Syria to limit the Assad regime’s ability to recover economically, further complicating Russia’s strategy in the region.

Securing U.S. Interests Amidst Fragmentation

Ultimately, the U.S. strategy in Syria under Biden reflects a balancing act between pursuing specific objectives—such as counterterrorism and containment of adversaries—and managing the broader complexities of the conflict. By maintaining its presence and influence in Syria, the U.S. aims to secure its interests in a region that remains pivotal to global stability and power dynamics. While direct confrontation with adversaries like Iran and Russia is avoided, the U.S. continues to exert pressure through a combination of military, economic, and diplomatic tools, underscoring its determination to shape outcomes in Syria despite the challenges of prolonged conflict.

Prospects Under the Upcoming Trump Administration

The re-election of Donald Trump marks a potential pivot in U.S. engagement with Syria. Trump’s presidency is characterized by a transactional and strategic approach to foreign policy, often prioritizing immediate U.S. interests over sustained involvement. His earlier decision to withdraw U.S. troops from northeastern Syria, citing the defeat of ISIS, signalled a clear departure from prolonged military engagements in the Middle East.

Under his renewed leadership, the Trump administration is likely to revisit its policy in Syria through a lens of "America First." This could result in scaling back troop deployments, leaving only a minimal presence to protect oil fields and conduct counterterrorism operations. Trump’s reluctance to engage in nation-building efforts may lead to a further erosion of American influence, allowing Russia, Iran, and Turkey to assert greater control over the conflict’s trajectory.

Trump’s approach to alliances will also shape his Syria strategy. During his first term, he showed an affinity for bilateral deals, often at the expense of multilateral frameworks. This trend might continue, with efforts to negotiate directly with Turkey and Russia to stabilize the situation, potentially sidelining Kurdish allies such as the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). The SDF, instrumental in the fight against ISIS, could once again find themselves vulnerable to Turkish offensives as Washington prioritizes its ties with Ankara.

While Trump may highlight counterterrorism successes, his preference for disengagement risks deepening Syria’s instability. The recent takeover of Aleppo by Hay ‘at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) underscores the fragile nature of the conflict, which may worsen as the U.S. steps back, ceding ground to rival powers and extremist groups. In this context, Trump’s re-election signals a recalibration of U.S. involvement, marked by reduced commitments, shifting alliances, and a narrower focus on protecting core American interests.

The Road Ahead

The recent escalation in Aleppo serves as a reminder of the complexity and intractability of the Syrian war. Assad’s regime, though weakened, remains entrenched, relying on Russian and Iranian support to retain power. Rebel groups like HTS, emboldened by their recent victory, pose a renewed challenge to the regime and complicate international efforts to stabilize the country.

Meanwhile, the Kurdish-led SDF continues to navigate a precarious existence, caught between U.S. support and Turkish hostility. Regional powers like Turkey, Iran, and Israel pursue their own agendas, further entrenching the conflict. As the U.S. reassesses its role under Trump, the fate of Syria hangs in the balance, with no clear resolution in sight.

The Syrian conflict remains a tragic testament to the challenges of modern warfare and geopolitics, where competing interests and shifting alliances perpetuate a cycle of violence and instability. The latest developments in Aleppo underscore the urgency of a coordinated international response, though such an outcome remains elusive in the face of deep-seated rivalries and divergent strategic goals.