Thread by @ThreshedThought

The last week has seem some momentous changes in Syria.

Here are some first thoughts.

A 🧵

Firstly, we should see the fall of the House of Assad as a function of a weak and rotten Syrian government, and stretched and weakened allies of Iran and Russia - more than HTS or any other rebel movement becoming vastly more competent.

The Assad government has grown progressively weaker - this generally happens when corruption is utterly rampant - I mean who wants to die when your officers are skimming your pay and selling your ammunition?

But the collapse in Syria should be seen as a consequence mostly of the weakening of Iran and Russia

Iran has been dealt several blows by Israel recently - not least via the humbling of Hezbollah (assassination of leader, destruction of communications networks, etc.).

Iran is also suffering from major unrest at home.

And Russia is massively overstretched at the moment - all its military assets are prioritised for Ukraine, particularly right now as it is trying to make as much progress as possible on the ground before Trump gets in a ‘makes a deal’.

The fall of the House of Assad (due to diminished Russian support) should be seen in a similar category to Azerbaijani gains at the expense of Armenia in Nagorno-Karabakh (Armenia was a Russian ally).

In short, Russia has overstretched itself in Ukraine, and is unable to project power in what it has traditionally (self)perceived to be its sphere of influence.

(We will come back to this theme later on in the thread).

So what’s actually going on in Syria?

NB Maps of Syria require a lot more colours than maps of Ukraine

(caveat: this map is highly inaccurate and changing by the minute).

Red - area controlled by HTS
Green - area controlled by Kurds (with US support)
Yellow - buffer zones established by Turkey and Israel respectively (Israel’s one established over weekend).
Blue - US base and buffer zone.
Purple - variety of rebel groups.

The main takeaway from this map is that no-one is in charge of Syria, and no-one has the military power to bring the entire country under a monopoly of control

There are a few other things worth noting:

- The US is taking this opportunity to launch a MAJOR air blitz against Islamic State (amongst other jihadi targets, I would imagine). They do not want IS to be able to take advantage of this.

- Israel has established a buffer zone near its border, and is also striking targets across Syria.

On everyone’s minds are the chemical weapons that Assad almost certainly still has.

Where are they? Which rebel group controls them / could gain control of them?

Obviously jihadis with chemical weapons is a disaster for everyone, especially everyone who lives in a European city.

I would imagine the US, UK (even Russia) will be trying to find and neutralise these stockpiles.

(As an aside, Assad has been given asylum in Russia - if I were the Russians, I would have done that as a trade for him telling them where the chemical weapons are so they can be neutralised. Now that Assad doesn’t control them, the Russians - who have their own jihadi problem - do not want them floating about).

So what about the wider repercussions of the collapse of Assad?

It is a disaster for Russia.

In 2017, Putin declared that Russia would be in Syria permanently. Now Assad has been pushed out and Russia’s Naval and Air base (marked with a blue cross) is in serious jeopardy.

Now according to Russia they have been speaking with HTS and HTS has guaranteed their basing arrangements.

But I simply cannot believe this will last - especially now that the Russians have given asylum to the Butcher of Damascus: Assad.

And if Russia loses that base …. it loses its presence on the Mediterranean.

Blue = current Russian naval bases
Black = Russian war ships can’t cross here as it is a belligerent in the Ukraine War (due to the Montreux Convention).
Red = a selection of NATO bases
Yellow = Suez Canal

I think this is nothing short of disastrous for Russia and really exposes how Ukraine has overstretched them.

It also underscores to us all that things that the Russians declare as ‘permanent’ - i.e. presence in Syria - might not be that permanent.

And it is a disaster for Iran.

Not only has it lost a close ally in Assad, but they have also lost a land corridor to their client Hezbollah in Lebanon.

A vastly weakened Hezbollah in Lebanon, will mean that Lebanese politics will start to evolve with the other factions able to take advantage.

Turkey has done well: lots of Syrian refugees are already starting to return home.

(Turkey hosts 3.6 MILLION Syrian refugees!)

And it is hugely destabilising for Jordan, who were very worried about increased instability in Syria.

And finally - what does this look like for the poor Syrians who have suffered so much?

In a sense, this map says it all.

Syria is in multiple zones of control & Damascus is not even controlled by one group.

Some of these groups e.g. the Kurds and some of the Turkish groups are continuing to clash with each other.

The situation is extremely fluid and unstable.

I would imagine there are two pathways going forward.

And a lot depends on what the US (Trump) does.

Either the US doesn’t engage in which case we can expect Syria to descend into a much worse version of Libya with armed factions competing for control, and with neighbouring powers increasingly reaching into Syria to protect their interests.

Or the US does engage in some way - perhaps by providing a kind of framework nation support for the international community which in turn would support a Syrian political transition to some sort of pluralist government.

Obviously that could range from full on nation building (no chance), to super light touch.

Either way - Western forces, and probably the Russians, will want to maintain a counter-terrorism focus on Syria.

None of these options look good for Syrians, who have endured so much over the last 13 years.

And finally - what is in the UK’s interests?

I think it is particularly important that the UK focuses on what its interests are, and doesn’t confuse them with what its values are.

We all want a pluralistic, democratic Syria, that protects minorities (of which there are many different types in Syria).

But there is very little we can do to influence that outcome as the UK.

The best outcome for the UK is a very light touch Syrian-led internationally sponsored process that seeks to establish a political order in Syria.

For this to happen it is essential that Assad is brought to justice for his extraordinary crimes against humanity.

And within Syria there must be a process of peace and reconciliation which allows others to seek acknowledgement, if not justice, for the crimes that have been committed by many.

The UK should contribute to all these processes but should not get distracted by them - we have graver strategic concerns (e.g. Ukraine), and we do not want to get sucked into Syria - we should remember that we will have limited impact on the outcomes.

Ultimately, the fall of Assad is a strategic boon for the UK and its allies, and it is a disaster for Russia and Iran.

We should bank that.

Instability in Syria is nothing new, and even if it gets worse, we do not want to get too heavily involved.

We must keep a watching eye on jihadi threats, and work with partners to secure the chemical weapons stockpiles (including working with Russia, if they have information on their locations).

Everyone should be watching to see how the US (Trump) responds.

/ENDS