The Aims of Foreign Powers in Syria

In response to what was alleged to have been yet another use of chemical weapons by Syria’s armed forces against rebels in that country, the United States, France and the United Kingdom launched more than 100 missiles against Syrian government targets, the largest direct attack on Syrian government forces by the West since that country’s civil war began in 2011.  So far, Western involvement in Syria’s civil war has been far too small to tip the balance of power there, although US support for Kurdish and Sunni rebel groups did contribute to the near-total defeat of the radical Islamic State militant group last year.  Moreover, Western involvement in Syria has been at times both inconsistent and contradictory to the wishes of the West’s leading partners in the region. 

At no time has the West’s commitment to the Syrian Civil War matched the commitment shown by the primary backers of the Assad regime in Syria (Iran and Russia) as these countries stand to suffer a major strategic setback in the Middle East if the Assad regime were to be ousted from power.  Nevertheless, a renewed Western presence in Syria could prevent the Assad regime from completing its mission to retake control of all of Syria’s territory, but it might also result in a major prolongation of the conflict, as well as potential clashes between two or more of these outside players.

Over the past 18 months, there has been a dramatic shift in the situation on the ground in Syria.  In the west of the country, the Assad regime, which appeared likely to lose the war as late as a couple of years ago due to its shrinking manpower and resources, is now in firm command of much of the territory in that region.  Of course, this is due in large part to the support of the regime’s foreign backers, most notably Russia, Iran and Hezbollah, which have provided the regime with the manpower, airpower and financial backing it needed to turn the tide in the west.  In fact, Syrian government forces are now in the process of mopping up many of the rebels’ final strongholds in the west. 

In the east of Syria, the Islamic State (IS) has been all but completely defeated, having lost control of all of their urban strongholds in that region, as well as in neighboring Iraq.  This change was due largely to an increase in support from the United States for rebel groups battling the Islamic State and the overstretching of the Islamic States’ resources in its efforts to control so much territory. 

In the north of Syria, Kurdish militias now control most of that region, having received significant support from the United States.  However, a wary Turkey has moved to drive the Kurds out of the Afrin enclave in northwestern Syria and may yet launch an attack on Kurdish positions further east, a move that could put them in conflict with US forces based there.  Altogether, the past 18 months have witnessed some dramatic changes in Syria, but the war that has already lasted far longer than anyone could have imagined is still far from over.

For the outside powers that are backing the Assad regime, their goals in this conflict are all quite obvious.  For Iran, a friendly Assad regime provides Iran with a land link to their Hezbollah allies in Lebanon and allows Iran to have access to the Mediterranean.  Meanwhile, Hezbollah desperately needs this land link with Iran, as that country is the primary provider of the funds and arms that Hezbollah needs to remain a leading player in Lebanon’s convoluted politics.  For Russia, its intervention in Syria’s civil war was driven by a desire to maintain a long-standing presence in the eastern Mediterranean and to revive its position in the wider Middle East.  Another power that is playing a larger role in Syria these days is Turkey, but its motivation is driven mostly by a fear that a de facto Kurdish state could arise in areas of northern and eastern Syria that are now under Kurdish control. 

While these aforementioned powers all have clear aims in Syria, the goals of the three Western countries that recently launched attacks on Syrian government forces are less clear.  Sure, each of them hopes to prevent the further use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government.  However, the United States’ primary focus on Syria has been its desire to see the total destruction of the Islamic State, a goal that it has largely achieved.  Meanwhile, France, and to a lesser degree Britain, see Syria as being within their historical sphere of influence in the Middle East, and both countries a fearful of the potential implications that the spread of chemical weapons in that region could have for European security.

Syria’s prolonged civil war has exhausted many of the key players in this conflict and this is playing a significant role in the recent developments in this conflict.  Of course, despite its materiel and manpower exhaustion, the Assad regime is in ascendance, although this has come at the cost of the regime’s total dependence upon its foreign backers.  This reliance has exposed these backers to numerous risks of their own.  For example, while Iran is tied down in Syria, it faces a growing threat from a more aggressive Saudi Arabia, which has received the full support of the United States in its disputes with Iran.  For Russia, its involvement in Syria has proven far costlier than Moscow will admit, and despite claims that it will soon withdraw its forces from Syria, Russia appears likely to have to remain in Syria for a long time to come.  As for the various rebel forces involved in this conflict, most of them have been exhausted by the conflict, with some, including the radical Islamic State, facing total defeat. 

Of course, the United States and its European allies have the power to intervene in a major way in this conflict should they choose to do so.  However, while they have the means, they do not appear to have the will to stage such as intervention.  As such, the war will continue, with the risk of a clash between two or more of the foreign powers involved in the conflict steadily rising as the war drags on.  What is clear is that this story is far from over, and the risks stemming from this conflict remain dangerously high.