Rising Tensions in Syria’s Political Landscape
The ongoing crisis in Syria has continued to intensify, with different regional powers blaming each other for Syria’s instability. Recently, Turkey’s Foreign Minister, Hakan Fidan, stated that the main reason for the current crisis in Syria is the refusal of President Bashar al-Assad to engage in political talks with the opposition. This view contrasts sharply with Iran’s perspective. Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, blamed external interventions, particularly from Israel, for aggravating the situation in Syria. Despite their differing opinions, both sides agreed on the necessity of holding an urgent summit involving Turkey, Iran, and Russia—the three main external powers involved in Syria’s conflict.
Since 2017, these three nations have been part of the Astana process, aimed at finding a solution to Syria’s complex political situation. However, there has been little progress. Turkey believes that Assad’s refusal to negotiate with opposition forces has hindered any meaningful political resolution. According to Fidan, the solution lies in Syria’s government engaging with its people and the legitimate opposition, in order to stop the destruction of cities and prevent further displacement of citizens.
Divided Support Among Regional Powers
The Syrian conflict has attracted the involvement of various regional players, each with their own interests. For instance, Turkey has consistently supported opposition groups like the Syrian National Army (SNA), which is linked to Turkey’s own political goals. The SNA, formerly known as the Free Syrian Army, has made significant territorial advances, especially in Aleppo. Turkey has refused to call for a withdrawal from these areas, raising concerns among other nations about the possible fragmentation of Syria.
In contrast, Iran and Russia, which are staunch allies of Assad’s government, have urged Turkey to convince its supported forces to halt their advances. They fear that continued conflict may lead to the breakup of Syria or allow extremist groups to gain control of the country. Both countries are also deeply concerned about the growing influence of Islamist militias in Syria, such as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and other rebel factions that have seized important territories from Assad’s forces. While Turkey claims to support these groups, there are growing suspicions that the country’s involvement could be part of a broader strategy to counter the Syrian government and further its own regional interests.
Conflicting Views on External Influence
In a joint press conference, Fidan emphasized that external intervention was not the primary cause of Syria’s crisis. Instead, he highlighted the need for a peaceful resolution and the importance of reconciling Syria’s divided population. Fidan stated that Turkey’s goal was to mediate between the armed opposition groups and Assad’s government, preventing further escalation and ensuring refugees could return to their homes.
On the other hand, Araghchi expressed concern over what he referred to as “terrorist groups” in Syria having connections to the United States and Israel. His comments specifically targeted the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a Kurdish militia supported by the U.S. but regarded by Turkey as a terrorist group due to its links with the PKK, a Kurdish separatist group operating inside Turkey. This difference in views underscores the deep divisions within the region over how to handle the crisis.
The Struggle for Influence
The Astana process, which was established to find a peaceful solution to the conflict, has become increasingly difficult to navigate. Despite holding numerous meetings since its inception, the process has failed to produce any substantial results. One of the key challenges is the lack of progress on establishing a new Syrian constitution, which remains a significant point of contention. At the latest meeting in Kazakhstan, discussions on this topic failed to yield any agreement.
The involvement of multiple actors has further complicated the situation. Iran and Russia continue to support Assad’s regime, while other countries, including Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the United Arab Emirates, have also shifted their stance by normalizing relations with Syria. However, many of these states have expressed a desire to limit Iran’s influence in Syria, which has further strained relations. Despite this, the normalization of ties with Syria has not brought substantial changes or concessions from Assad’s government.
Syria’s Complex Crisis: Regional Interests and Political Deadlock
Iran, in particular, has shown concern about the growing influence of Turkish-backed forces in Syria, particularly in regions like Aleppo. The potential weakening of Assad’s position would also undermine Iran’s strategic interests, especially in maintaining supply routes to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Both Iran and Russia have emphasized the need for stability and a restored constitutional order in Syria, yet the political impasse remains unresolved.
Turkey’s involvement in the conflict is also driven by its own concerns. With more than 2 million Syrian refugees living in Turkey, the country has a vested interest in resolving the crisis. The conflict has become a political burden for President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, as public dissatisfaction with the growing refugee population continues to rise. Turkey has been calling for Assad to engage in negotiations, but the Syrian leader has repeatedly rejected such offers, insisting that Turkish forces withdraw from Syrian territory as a precondition for talks.
The Syrian conflict remains a complex and multifaceted crisis, with no easy solutions in sight. Regional powers have different agendas, and while some have pushed for political dialogue and negotiations, others are focused on securing their strategic interests in the region. The involvement of external actors, combined with internal political divisions, has made it difficult for Syria to move toward a peaceful resolution.