Where Does Syrian Conflict Lead
Syrian Conflict through the Lens of Realism
Over the past six years, the world has watched in horror as hundreds of thousands of innocent lives have been lost in the Syrian Civil War. According to the European Union, the instability fomented by this conflict has displaced 6.5 million people within Syria, 4.4 million refugees have fled to Syria’s neighboring countries, and well over a million more have requested asylum within Europe. In addition, weak territorial and political control over many areas and institutions in Syria has made room to grow for one of the most violent terror groups in recent memory.
All of these terrible crises and challenges have weighed heavily on the world’s conscience. Most of the world’s nations are in agreement—something must be done to stop the carnage. International good will however, has not brought about peace as international governmental organizations have failed, and continues to fail, to bring an end to the conflict. It is clear therefore that, while such organizations do have value in other situations, international governmental organizations will not be the primary negotiator or guarantor of peace in Syria. Instead, the conflict must be looked at through a realist’s perspective. One must look at all the parties vying for power in the conflict with particular attention paid to the recognized states and governments involved. But first, let us take a look at the history of the Syrian Civil War and the current state of affairs surrounding the conflict.
The History of The Syrian Civil War
In March 2011, pro-democracy protests erupted in the southern city of Deraa. The immediate cause of these protests was “the arrest and torture of some teenagers who painted revolutionary slogans on a school wall” (BBC News). Security forces opened fire on demonstrators which led more people to take to the streets. These protests quickly grew and became part of the Arab Spring revolutionary wave that was spreading throughout the Middle East and Northern Africa.
By July 2011, hundreds of thousands took to the streets to demand the resignation of President Bashar Al Assad. Syrian security forces continued to employ brutal tactics to attempt to quash the rebellion. Opposition supporters began to take up arms initially to defend themselves and later to expel regime forces from their local areas. Rebel brigades began to form to fight regime forces for territorial control. By 2012, fighting reached the capital of Damascus and the second largest city of Aleppo.
Meanwhile in Iraq, renewed sectarian tensions began to take hold of the country. The Sunni minority, repressed and abused by Shia government forces, supported the resumption of insurgent warfare. The Iraqi government’s control over Western Iraq’s Anbar province began to weaken. In this power vacuum, a new terror group began to form consisting of elements of Saddam Hussein’s Republican Guard and Sunni terror groups including Al Qaeda in Iraq. The so-called Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) took advantage of the precarious situation that both the Iraqi and Syrian governments found themselves in to establish a territorial foothold in both countries. President Bashar Al Assad, believing that allowing criminals to prowl about the streets would scare rebels back into their homes, released terrorists from prisons throughout Syria. President Assad believed he later would be able to recapture and imprison these terrorists after the rebellion was quashed. Instead, these terrorists joined ISIS and strengthened terrorist forces. These terrorist forces have taken on fighting against both the regime and rebel forces adding a third dimension to the civil war. Over time, the conflict took on sectarian overtones with rebel groups separating into Sunni and Shia factions. Due to this sectarianism, there has been much inter-rebel fighting that has impeded and undermined the rebel groups’ fight against the regime.
All combatant parties involved have been accused of war crimes “including murder, torture, rape, and disappearances” (BBC). ISIS has waged a campaign of terror to keep control over the territory it holds. It has “inflicted severe punishments on those who transgress or refuse to accept its rules, including hundreds of public executions and amputations. Its fighters have also carried out mass killings of rival armed groups, members of security forces and religious minorities, and beheaded hostages, including several Westerners “(BBC).
Regime forces have used civilian suffering, “such as blocking access to food, water, and health services” (BBC), to weaken civilian support for rebels. Recently, the world watched in horror as the city of Aleppo descended into a hellish state as supplies were cut off to the city’s remaining population. Civilians have been used as shields by rebel groups and terrorists against airstrikes. This has not prevented the regime from dropping barrel bombs in highly populated areas. The United Nations has declared that such attacks “constitute massacres” (BBC). In addition to the indiscriminate use of barrel bombs, the Syrian regime has been repeatedly accused of the usage of chemical weapons in populated areas.
In August 2013, rockets filled with Sarin nerve agent were fired into the suburbs of Damascus. The international community responded with widespread condemnation. Facing the prospect of US military intervention, President Assad agreed to the “complete removal and destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal” (BBC) in an agreement facilitated by Russia. However, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons has documented the repeated and systematic use chlorine gas in rebel-held areas. On April 4, 2017, regime forces used Sarin gas in an attack in the Idlib province. Over 70 civilians including women and children were killed. Evidently, not all chemical weapons were disposed of as the international agreement required. A few days after the attack, the United States launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at the airbase from which the attack was launched to deter the regime from continuing such attacks.
The human cost of this war has been immense. According to the UN and Arab League Envoy to Syria, 400,000 people have been killed in the fighting. According to the Syrian Centre for Policy Research, 11.5% of Syria’s population has been killed or injured due to the conflict and 45% of the population has been displaced. Many of those displaced have fled to foreign countries where the influx of immigrants and recent ISIS inspired terrorist attacks throughout Europe have stoked nationalistic fervor in Western nations.
This is a very basic overview of the history of the Syrian Civil War. The role of foreign nations in the civil war has been intentionally omitted as, before we can discuss their role in the conflict, we must first review the fundamentals of the Realist Theory of International Relations.
The Realist Theory of International Relations
The Realist Theory of International Relations is based on eight basic tenets. The first tenet is that human nature is flawed. Human beings behave in a selfish and untrustworthy manner. The second tenet is that the state is the principal actor in international relations and that it acts as a rational unitary actor. When we speak of a rational unitary actor we mean that the state makes decisions based on reason and that it does so in a monolithic fashion. The third tenet is that anarchy rules the world—there is no worldwide policeman. The fourth tenet is that states feel that they exist in a perpetual state of insecurity. In light of this, each state takes steps to mitigate that feeling of insecurity. This is how arms races begin. The fifth tenet is that in the absence of a global enforcer, states are responsible for ensuring their own safety and security—they must engage in ‘self-help’. The sixth tenet is that each state pursues power to enhance their security. The seventh tenet is that, in pursuing power, states make other states feel nervous which creates the perpetual state of insecurity. Unfortunately, this feeling of insecurity never goes away. When one country takes a step to reduce its insecurity, another country will take measures to counteract those steps. This is how arms races begin and how high risks of conflict are quickly generated. The final tenet of the realist theory of international relations is that military power reigns supreme as the decisive factor in international relations. Those with military might have more power, influence, and leverage over those who don’t have it.
The States Involved and Their Interests
The Syrian Civil War would have, most likely, come to an end if not for the resources and military aid foreign nations have funneled to their respective interests in the conflict. This aid has fueled the civil war. The United States, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, while not engaging a direct firefight with the Syrian regime, have aided, both passively and directly, ‘moderate’ rebel groups. Russia and Iran support the Syrian regime and provide direct military aid to armed forces.
In all likelihood, the Syrian regime would have already collapsed if not for the foreign assistance granted to the regime by Russia. Russia considers Syria its most critical ally in the Middle East. Russia leases its sole naval base in the Mediterranean Sea at the Syrian port of Tartous. Russia, having little to no year-round warm water ports on its own territory, considers any threat to its warm water ports a direct threat to its national security. As evidenced by the annexation of Crimea during the Euromaidan protests, Russia will go to extreme and, if necessary, violent means to naval maintain access to warm water ports. Russia has provided the regime with a steady supply of arms and other military aid. It has stationed thousands of soldiers in support of Syrian military ground operations. Starting in September 2015, the Russian air force has conducted air strikes against ISIS and other groups it considers to be “terrorists”. Western nations, however, allege that some of the groups targeted by Russian airstrikes are not terrorists but rather moderate anti-regime forces. Some of those forces have been supported by Western nations.
Syria’s other major ally is Iran. Iran considers Syria to be its greatest Arab ally. It utilizes Syria as a passage way to supply and support the Hezbollah terror group operating in Lebanon against Israel’s interests. Iran fears that if the Syrian regime were to collapse, a Sunni government would take power. Iran, being a majority Shia nation, sees such a regime change as a threat to its national interests and security. In light of this, Iran has given aid to the Syrian regime and has directed Hezbollah, and other groups supported by it, to assist the Syrian regime in fighting against rebel forces.
Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, seeing an opportunity to challenge Iran’s interests and security, has funneled aid and resources in support of Sunni rebel forces. In this sense, the Syrian Civil War has developed into another battlefield of the Saudi Arabia-Iran proxy war. This proxy war has been become part of most conflicts throughout the Middle East in places such as Yemen.
The United States sees regime change as an integral part of Syria’s future but recognizes that such a change must come through a negotiated settlement. The US “supports Syria's main opposition alliance, the National Coalition, and provides limited military assistance to "moderate" rebels” (BBC). That being said, the United States’ operations in Syria do not directly target regime forces but rather focus on fighting against ISIS. The American military ran covert operations to train and arm 5,000 Syrian rebels to fight against ISIS. The effort has mostly been an embarrassing waste of resources as few of the fighters ever reached the frontlines. More effective in the fight against ISIS have been the “air strikes on ISIS and other jihadist groups in Syria as part of an international coalition against the jihadist group. But [the coalition] has avoided attacks that might benefit Mr. Assad's forces or intervening in battles between them and the rebels.” (BBC). Even though US military operations in Syria are not directed toward the Syrian regime, the US has not hesitated to voice its opinions and perspectives on the international stage. The United States has repeatedly brought up United Nations Security Council resolutions aimed at formally sanctioning and condemning the Syrian regime. Russia, however, has vetoed every single motion aimed at undermining and legitimizing the Syrian regime at the United Nations.
Even though it cannot secure the legitimacy of a United Nations mandate, the United States has threatened to intervene unilaterally to prevent heinous war crimes from being committed. In August 2012, President Obama warned the Syrian regime not to cross the red line that would be the usage of chemical weapons. By August 2013, it was clear the Syrian regime did, in fact, use Sarin nerve agent in populated areas. Initially, it appeared as if the United States might intervene in Syria in direct opposition to the regime. Instead, Russia negotiated a settlement that had the regime relinquish all of its chemical weapons stockpiles to be destroyed by a third party. The Obama administration accepted this agreement and the United States did not intervene. President Obama was said to have lost much of his credibility on the international stage by not enforcing the ‘red line’ he established. Moreover, Russia’s role in securing an agreement preventing an American military intervention increased the respect it commands in conducting diplomacy.
However, on April 4, 2017, the Syrian regime launched another Sarin gas attack. The United States, realizing that Syria did not hold up its end of the agreement to relinquish all of its chemical weapons stockpile, launched a cruise missile attack. This has so far been the first and, so far, only intentional direct attack against Syrian regime forces by the United States.
Of all the foreign countries involved in the Syrian Civil War, Turkey has, arguably, borne the greatest burden of them all. Currently, 1.7 million registered displaced Syrians are living in Turkey That number is much larger if unregistered refugees are taken into account. In addition to the millions that reside in Turkey, millions more have transited through Turkey en route to continental Europe. The refugee crisis has created a humanitarian crisis and has been the source of many diplomatic and political challenges for Turkey. In addition, the US-led coalition air campaign against ISIS has utilized Turkish airbases to launch air attacks. Turkey has expressed some displeasure with the coalition as some of the airstrikes have supported Kurdish forces that Turkey considers to be terrorists.
Moreover, Turkey’s support of the US coalition has created tension between Ankara and Moscow as Russia considers the US-led coalition to be undermining and threatening the Syrian regime through the close proximity of their military forces. There are many other players and elements involved in the Syrian Civil War. This set of information, however, is sufficient for a prediction to be made about the future of the conflict through a realist’s perspective.
Realist Theory in the Syrian Civil War
When one looks at the Syrian Civil War, we find that the actions and conduct of all the parties involved are nearly perfectly explained through the realist theory of the international relations. Russia’s conduct in the conflict is the best example of this reality. Russia’s engagement in Syria is not based on any loyalty it has for the Syrian regime itself. It is based primarily on the concerns it has for its own security and its interests in Syria. Syria is Russia’s closest Middle East ally. Losing an ally in such a strategically important region in the world would undermine Russian influence abroad.
As mentioned previously, Russia’s sole naval port in the Mediterranean Sea is in the Syrian port of Tartous. Losing the lease of this critical warm water port would be a massive blow to Russian naval power. Russia already feels insecure in the face of the supremacy of the United States navy. They are faced with the reality that they must count on themselves to counter American military supremacy in some substantive way. Russia’s history has made the politics of Russia very militaristic and defensive. As such, Russian political and military strategy is very sensitive to any perception that it is losing military power. It is with all this in mind, that Russia considers losing power in Syria to be intolerable for the future of its national security.
That is exactly the reason why Russia is the key to predicting what will happen next in the Syrian conflict. Of all the foreign powers involved, Russia is the most willing to make use of its military power to accomplish its objectives. The United States, while also conducting itself in accordance with the realist theory of international relations, lacks the public support and will to enter yet another war in the Middle East. American commitment to fighting the Syrian regime is nowhere near the resolve of the Russian federation to prop up the regime. The recent air strike in Syria is evidence of this fact. The United States only intervened after the Syrian regime violated the 2013 chemical weapons agreement and even then the response from the United States was relatively limited and surgical. That being said, while American resolve to combat the Syrian regime may be very low, polls indicate widespread public support for the military destruction of ISIS.
Predicting the Future
It is with all of this in mind that the following prediction can be made about the future of the Syrian Civil War: the Syrian regime led by President Bashar Al Assad will survive the civil war. This conclusion was reached due to multiple factors. First the Russian government will continuously supply and aid Syrian government forces with whatever assistance they may need. Russia will never abandon the Syrian regime so long as it as naval interests in Syria. Second, the US-led coalition against ISIS combined with Iraqi army ground operations will weaken and eventually destroy ISIS. Public support for the air campaign against ISIS will ensure that the United States will not cease operations until the terror group is no longer able to function. Territories claimed by ISIS will be quickly retaken by Syrian government forces.
These two factors indicate that Syrian government forces will be well supplied and with one less enemy to fight against. Rebel groups, whose foreign support is far smaller compared to the Russian support for Syrian forces, will find it difficult to repel the advance of Syrian regime forces. Iran, seeing that the Syrian regime is secure, will devote resources to other military operations in its proxy war against Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia, seeing that its support of rebel groups could never match Russian aid to the Syrian regime, will cut its loses and cease aid to rebel groups. Like Iran, Saudi Arabia will devote its resources to other causes in its proxy war with Iran.
The United States, seeing that the rebel groups will not be able to defeat Syrian regime forces, will seek a negotiated settlement between the regime and the rebel groups to ensure that the rebels are treated humanely and fairly. At this time, Western nations will lack the leverage necessary to induce a peaceful transition of power from President Bashar Al Assad. However, Western nations will continue their position of economic, diplomatic, and political isolation of Syria and Russia until a regime transition occurs.
Turkey, seeking peaceful coexistence with its neighbors and a resolution to the refugee crisis it is facing, will reach out to Russia and, through Russia, to the Syrian regime to end hostilities and animosity between countries. This is already playing out as President Recep Erdogan has challenged Western interests and has ‘cozied up’ to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
After a couple of years of relative peace and continued isolation by Western countries, Russia will clandestinely communicate to President Bashar Al Assad to begin grooming his successor and preparing for his comfortable retirement. His successor’s policies will be identical to President Bashar Al Assad on issues of Russian and Syrian security. However, this individual will also be someone who is relatively pleasing to the sensibilities of Western nations.
Most likely, Najah al-Attar, the incumbent Vice President of Syria will be chosen to be as Assad’s successor. Vice President Najah al-Attar is the first Arab woman to be Vice President of Syria. Regardless of the circumstances of her ascending to the Presidency of Syria, a woman as the head of an Arab nation is almost unheard of. It will signal somewhat of an embrace of Western values and give hope to those seeking reform. Western nations, hoping to encourage such liberal reforms to take root in Syria, will begin to remove the economic, political, and diplomatic isolation placed on Syria. Most importantly, however, Russia will have an amicable President in power in Syria while giving it credibility in its campaign to end the isolation placed on it by the international community.
Conclusion
I must disclose that I am sympathetic to the cause of the Syrian rebels. The conduct of the Syrian regime’s military has been nothing less than a series of war crimes. Regardless of my own opinion however, the fact remains that international political resolve is simply not on the side of the rebel cause.
Foreign nations that are sympathetic to the rebel cause possess immense military powers. But fears that Syria may become another failed state combined with a lack of public support has all but ensured that no substantive military intervention will occur in support of the rebels. Military power is one of the most decisive factors in international relations. Russia’s unwavering support of President Bashar Al Assad has all but guaranteed the survival of the Syrian regime. I must conclude therefore that the Syrian uprising against the regime will inevitably fail and the rebels will lose the civil war.
