Ahmad Al Khaled sends this information about himself:
I’m a freelance journalist mainly focused on the Middle-East and North Africa. I’ve been covering various conflicts in the region and notable political events for the past 7 years.I’ve had my articles published by leading regional and global media (Youm7, Jerusalem Post, Times of Israel, Ahval, etc.). Here are examples of my previous work:
https://www.jpost.com/
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/
https://globalsecurityreview.
After a four-year freeze in the conflict established as a result of negotiations between Turkey and Russia, the situation in Syria has changed dramatically. Within ten days of a rapid offensive, the fighters of the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham group established control over most of the country, forcing the government troops to retreat.
On the morning of December 8, armed opposition forces led by the HTS captured the capital of Damascus, thereby formalizing the fall of the Assad clan, which had been ruling Syria for more than 50 years. According to the latest information, former President Bashar Assad left the country and requested asylum in Russia.
The day before three guarantor countries — Turkey, Iran, and Russia — met in Qatar’s capital of Doha and stressed the need for political dialogue between the parties of the conflict to peacefully transfer power in the country and prevent bloodshed. In turn, the HTS command guaranteed the security of state institutions, diplomatic missions, and military facilities, including Assad’s allies — Russia and Iran.
Currently, due to the rapid changes taking place in Syria, it is difficult to predict how the situation in the Arab country will develop. However, the factors and circumstances that ensured jihadists’ success on the battlefield and their quick rise to power can already be studied in detail.
The new tactics of using small mobile groups on light automotive equipment, the use of reconnaissance unmanned aerial vehicles and strike f irst-per-view drones, as well as the timing suggest that the HTS could not organize an operation of such range alone. In this case, the question arises: who helped the HTS or at least played into its hands?
The role of Turkey
Answering this question, it is fair to say that Damascus and its allies, Russia and Iran, have closely watched the threats posed by the HTS. For the past three months, local media have been full of circulating reports of an impending attack by militants.
After establishing the ‘Idlib de-escalation zone’ as part of an agreement between Russia and Turkey in 2020, the HTS was able to get the most out of the calm at the front. This faction, formerly known as Jabhat al-Nusra, was previously part of Syria’s al-Qaeda terrorist organization but then distanced from it and emerged as one of the dominant forces in the northwest of Syria.
Since the observation points of the Turkish Armed Forces were deployed along the front line, they served as a kind of shield, behind which the HTS was able to hide and calmly build up forces without fear of a possible attack from Damascus and its foreign backers. Therefore, it is safe to say that Ankara’s diplomatic and military patronage directly contributed to the strengthening of the HTS stance, not to mention economic assistance and the supply of electricity and fuel to Idlib through Turkish umbrella companies.
Taking advantage of the fragmentation of other opposition groups, the HTS, led by its leader Abu Muhammad Al-Julani, managed to consolidate power in the rebellious province of Idlib. It completely captured the economic sector and has been ruling the so-called last bastion of the Syrian opposition through the puppet Syria Salvation government. Militarily, the HTS has also greatly strengthened, uniting under its banners many independent groups and foreign fighters from among Caucasians, Turks, and Uyghurs.
All these factors allowed the HTS to accumulate a sufficient margin of safety to make constant raids against government forces and even claim to expand the zone of influence in northern Syria. At the same time, its status as an independent group also provided it with additional opportunities, without limiting freedom of action to agreements with third countries.
Thus, Ankara de facto helped to nurture the HTS military machine, but de jure can avoid responsibility for its actions, as the HTS does not obey it entirely like the Turkish-affiliated Syrian National Army.
The role of Ukraine
It is not an exaggeration that any HTS activity was constantly the focus of attention of the main actors in Syria, especially Russia. Recently, Moscow has repeatedly stated that there is close cooperation between the HTS and its geopolitical adversary — Ukraine.
The Turkish newspaper Aydynlyk reported that Ukrainian instructors were training Syrian militants in the production and use of FPV drones to strike at military facilities of the Russian Armed Forces in Syria. It also said that in exchange for drones, Kyiv asked the HTS to allow its foreign militants, mainly immigrants from Caucasian and Central Asian countries, to reach Ukraine and fight against Russia.
Ukrainian media have also repeatedly published videos in which Syrian rebels in cooperation with Ukrainian intelligence hit Russian targets in Syria with strike drones. In one of these videos, the opposition fighters struck the facilities of the Russian Armed Forces at the Quwayres air base, east of Aleppo.
Notably, until the last HTS offensive, Ukrainian officials preferred to ignore the media claims about cooperation with Syrian rebels. However, after the capture of Aleppo, Kyiv finally made a sincere confession and said that the “Khymyk” group of Ukraine’s Main Directorate of Intelligence was preparing the HTS militants to use attack drones against Russia.
The role of the US
But if cooperation with the Ukrainian special services can explain the increased combat capabilities of the HTS in terms of the use of unmanned technologies, then the start time of the jihadists’ offensive indicates possible coordination with the United States. While the US has officially denied any involvement in current developments in Syria, there is direct and indirect evidence that suggests otherwise.
Firstly, the launch of the HTS offensive on Aleppo suspiciously coincided with the entry into force of the US-initiated peace treaty between Israel and Lebanese Hezbollah on November 27. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to assume that the Syrian opposition waited for Israel to defeat Hezbollah to begin a campaign against the regime forces without fear that Lebanese fighters would come to help Assad.
Thus, it is clear that the United States played a major role in weakening Assad’s allies, which directly led to the HTS decision to attack.
Secondly, it should be noted that although the United States recognized the HTS as a terrorist organization, it did not interfere in any way with its trade ties with Turkey, also contributing to the economic strengthening of the HTS. This approach to the terrorist organization was in stark contrast to Washington’s unprecedented sanctions pressure on Damascus.
In addition, the United States and its allies in the International Coalition maintained close ties with the HTS. In particular, they exchange information in order to launch air strikes against field commanders of some independent armed groups active in Idlib province. Syrian opposition fighters on social networks repeatedly accused the HTS of providing the United States with accurate data on the whereabouts of the fighters hiding in the rebel-held areas. According to them, the US UAVs hit them almost immediately after meetings with the leaders of the HTS.
In addition, the United States and the EU over the past years have unofficially worked to “whitewash” the reputation of HTS to exclude it from the list of terrorist organizations. To present him as a leader of moderate opposition, several American publications conducted interviews with Abu Muhammad Al-Julani, in which the jihadist leader appeared in a business suit, and also abandoned his characteristic fanatical slogans in favor of more secular and pragmatic rhetoric. During the last offensive, Al-Julani also made some demonstrative statements in which he warned his fighters against illegal actions against civilians and their property, and also called for “respect for the cultural diversity of Aleppo”.
Given the covert interaction between the United States and the Al-Julani group, there is reason to believe that after the end of hostilities in Lebanon, the Biden administration could initiate another escalation in Syria, using the HTS militants as a proxy. Thus, the White House probably planned to weaken the position of its geopolitical rivals, Russia and Iran, before the imminent transfer of power to the newly elected president Donald Trump. Judging by his pre-election statements, the latter would hardly agree to such an adventure and would prefer to deal with domestic problems, rather than create the next hotbed of tension in the world or a particular region.
But Joe Biden’s foreign policy staff, finalizing the last two months of his term, could decide differently, especially when all the necessary conditions were ripe for the Syrian militants to attack. Russia withdrew the main troops from Syria and is fully focused on the war with Ukraine; another main ally of Damascus — Tehran is weakened as a result of constant attacks by Israel and threw its main forces to support affiliated formations in Palestine and Lebanon; and Hezbollah, which also played an important role in establishing the former status-quo in Syria, suffered significant losses during the IDF operations and can no longer help the Assad government.
Given the acute contradictions between the two political camps that emerged during the last elections in the US, it is not difficult to assume that the Democrats wanted to make it as difficult as possible for Trump upon entering office. They sought to shackle opportunities to later accuse him of failing to fulfill the promises he gave to American voters. Therefore, the new round of escalation in Syria can be seen as a desperate attempt by the current US administration to influence Trump’s future policies, to force him to wallow in endless conflicts and rivalries with other countries instead of solving more important problems related to domestic policy.
The large-scale HTS offensive has already dealt a heavy blow to civilians throughout Syria, significantly exacerbating the migration crisis and increasing the suffering of ordinary Syrians from renewed clashes and shelling. At the same time, regardless of the further development of events in the Arab country, the United States, as the main international actor, has done nothing to prevent the strengthening of the HTS. Moreover, Washington purposefully encouraged the HTS to use it as a counterweight to Damascus and its rivals in the region — Russia and Iran. And while the winners in this geopolitical game are unclear, the loser is already obvious: this is the Syrian people, who once again became a “bargaining chip” and are paying with blood for other states’ ambitions.
