The Syrian civil war has undergone various transformative phases since its eruption during the Arab Spring of 2011. From the initial waves of protests and uprisings to the drawn-out chaos of war, Syria has seen a series of cycles characterized by the rise and decline of various factions. Over the past four years, the conflict appeared to reach a relative stalemate. However, the events of the past week have shattered this equilibrium, signaling a seismic shift in the war’s trajectory.
In recent years, Syria’s situation map exhibited remarkable stability compared to earlier phases of the conflict. The government of Bashar al-Assad, with support from Russia and the tacit cooperation of the PKK/PYD-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), maintained its hold on key territories. Sporadic bombardments in Idlib persisted, but the status quo remained largely unchallenged. The PKK/PYD, operating primarily east of the Euphrates River, maintained enclaves in the west, while Türkiye-backed Syrian Interim Government forces and the Syrian National Army (SNA) consolidated control over northwestern Syria. Meanwhile, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) consolidated power in Idlib, overseeing over three million people.
This fragile balance has now been disrupted, as offensives by HTS and the SNA have exposed the vulnerabilities of Assad’s forces and their allies, sparking questions about the shifting roles of major regional and global actors.
In a swift and coordinated offensive, HTS forces advanced into Aleppo, encountering minimal resistance before capturing the city’s center. Their momentum continued southward into Hama, with their forces approaching yet another critical population center at the time of writing. Concurrently, the Türkiye-backed SNA launched an offensive targeting Tel Rifaat, a key PKK/PYD-held town in the west of the Euphrates. Facing little resistance, PKK forces evacuated, and SNA fighters swiftly consolidated their positions.
The rapid collapse of defensive lines has raised questions about the apparent absence of Iran-backed militias and Russia’s once-dominant air support, both of which were instrumental in Assad’s earlier successes. The muted responses of these key allies reflect the complex challenges they currently face.
Iran’s once-formidable presence in Syria has significantly weakened. Its proxy militias, including Hezbollah, are overstretched across the Middle East. Hezbollah, in particular, is grappling with multiple challenges, including retaliatory attacks by Israel and domestic instability in Lebanon. The precarious cease-fire between Lebanon and Israel has diverted Hezbollah’s focus, leaving it with insufficient resources to sustain Iran’s ambitions in Syria.
Additionally, Iran’s strategy of controlled escalation with Israel—a tactic used to project influence in the region—has faltered. With domestic and regional pressures mounting, Tehran appears to be prioritizing retrenchment over confrontation, limiting its ability to provide Assad with the military support needed to repel the latest offensives.
Russia, another critical ally of Assad, has adopted a cautious approach. The ongoing war in Ukraine has drained Moscow’s resources and diverted its attention. The dismantling of the Wagner Group, which previously played a key role in Russia’s overseas operations, has further constrained Moscow’s capacity for intervention in Syria.
Moreover, Russia’s reluctance to engage decisively in Syria may also be influenced by broader geopolitical considerations. Russian President Vladimir Putin appears to be weighing his options carefully, particularly in light of potential negotiations with former U.S. President Donald Trump, who is campaigning for a return to the White House. Trump’s stated goals of applying maximum pressure on Iran and brokering an end to the Ukraine war could dissuade Putin from aligning too closely with Iran or Hezbollah in Syria.
Despite these limitations, Russia remains committed to safeguarding its strategic interests, including the Tartus naval base, a vital gateway to the Mediterranean. While Moscow may not prioritize restoring Assad’s control over Aleppo, it is likely to intervene if the rebels threaten Tartus or Damascus.
Amid this shifting landscape, Türkiye has emerged as a decisive and proactive actor. Ankara’s primary focus remains the elimination of PKK/PYD influence in northern Syria, a goal rooted in its longstanding security concerns. Following the defeat of ISIS, the PKK/PYD expanded its footprint in Syria, creating a perceived threat to Türkiye’s border security.
Seizing the opportunity presented by the chaos, Türkiye has intensified its efforts to dismantle PKK/PYD-held enclaves west of the Euphrates. The swift fall of Tel Rifaat underscores the interconnectedness of Assad’s and the PKK/PYD’s fortunes; as Assad’s forces abandoned Aleppo, PKK/PYD positions quickly crumbled. Türkiye’s next likely target is Manbij, another critical PKK/PYD stronghold.
Türkiye’s actions reflect a clear strategy: prevent the PKK/PYD from exploiting power vacuums while expanding the influence of its allied Syrian Interim Government and SNA. Ankara’s ability to act decisively amidst the disarray highlights its unique position as a capable and committed actor with a defined endgame.
HTS, the dominant force in Idlib, is capitalizing on the weakening of Assad’s forces and their allies. Its rapid territorial gains suggest a strategy aimed at expanding and consolidating its influence over newly captured areas. With over three million Syrians under its control, HTS’s ambitions could reshape the dynamics of the conflict, particularly as it positions itself as a formidable power in opposition to Assad.
The resurgence of HTS also raises concerns about the humanitarian implications for the civilian population, many of whom have already endured years of displacement, violence, and deprivation. The group’s strict governance and militant ideology could further exacerbate the challenges faced by those living under its rule.
The recent upheaval in Syria underscores the complex interplay of local, regional, and international actors. For Assad, the loss of Aleppo and the inability to counter the latest offensives reflect the erosion of his military and political power. The regime’s reliance on external support has left it vulnerable as its allies face their own limitations.
For Iran and Russia, the developments in Syria highlight the challenges of maintaining influence amidst competing priorities and constrained resources. While both countries remain invested in preserving their interests, neither appears willing or able to fully restore Assad’s dominance.
The U.S., meanwhile, has largely shifted its focus away from Syria, prioritizing other foreign policy challenges. This vacuum has allowed regional powers like Türkiye to assert greater influence, shaping the conflict’s trajectory in pursuit of their own objectives.
As the conflict in Syria enters a new phase, the implications for the country and the region are profound. The rapid advances of HTS and the SNA signal a weakening of Assad’s grip on power, while the reduced engagement of Iran and Russia underscores the shifting dynamics of external involvement. Türkiye’s assertive actions, driven by clear strategic goals, position it as a key player in shaping Syria’s future.
For the millions of Syrians caught in the crossfire, however, the latest developments are yet another chapter in a decade-long saga of upheaval and suffering. The international community’s limited engagement leaves the burden of addressing Syria’s challenges largely on regional actors, raising questions about the prospects for stability and peace.
