لحظة ادراك

 

Armed Groups on the Edge of the Levant

Within hours of Friday afternoon, November 29, armed groups stormed Aleppo, the capital of northern Syria and the second-largest city in the country. The following day, they attacked Hama and its countryside, ultimately capturing Tel Rifaat on the third day, an area previously controlled by Kurdish militias. Over the next few days, these forces continued their advances in the rural regions of Aleppo and Hama.

These rapid developments left military and political analysts stunned at the ability of these armed groups, known as Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), to execute such a coordinated operation. With a strength of 30,000 fighters in uniform and under a single banner—the Syrian Revolution flag—the attack was unparalleled in scale and organization.

In the aftermath, multiple parties denied involvement or prior knowledge of the attack, including the United States and Turkey, the latter being the official sponsor of many of these groups. Two days later, U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan stated that the U.S. was not surprised by the events, attributing them to a security vacuum caused by the weakening of Iran and Hezbollah following their conflict with Israel.

However, on-the-ground reports revealed critical facts that must be considered in analyzing the situation:

1. The Scale and Secrecy of the Operation:
   A force of 30,000 fighters prepared for such a large-scale attack could not have remained hidden from international intelligence agencies operating in areas like Idlib, where these groups are based. Moreover, Turkey, the primary financier of these groups, would not likely allow such a sensitive operation in areas governed by international agreements like the Astana Accord.

2. Sophisticated Planning and Execution:
   The high level of coordination, discipline, and strategic timing of the attack suggests the involvement of a state actor with significant resources, intelligence capabilities, and aerial reconnaissance tools—not something achievable by loosely organized militias.

3. Rapid Collapse of Syrian Regime Forces:
   The swift defeat of Syrian forces points to detailed intelligence regarding their capabilities, deployment, and vulnerabilities. Such precise planning could only be achieved by an advanced intelligence apparatus.

To decipher these events, one must identify the beneficiaries and those adversely affected while avoiding conspiracy theories. Some analysts speculated that the Syrian regime was complicit, citing its rapid withdrawal from key areas and lack of preparation despite its robust intelligence presence in militant-occupied territories.

Key Stakeholders and Their Responses:

1. The Syrian Regime:
   After regaining partial stability with Russian and Iranian support, the regime faced a severe blow. Its forces collapsed within hours, abandoning heavy weaponry, including tanks and aircraft, amidst the vacuum left by the weakened Iranian and Hezbollah presence due to Israeli strikes.

2. The Armed Groups:
   These factions, sidelined by the Astana agreements, viewed the Turkish-Syrian rapprochement as a betrayal of their sacrifices. Israel's attacks on Hezbollah and Iranian forces provided an opportune moment to strike back, even if indirectly aligned with ideological adversaries like Israel.

3. Turkey:
   Facing domestic pressure over the Syrian refugee crisis and seeking to assert its regional influence, Turkey likely saw this operation as an opportunity to force the Syrian regime to the negotiating table while weakening Kurdish forces under U.S. protection.

4. Russia:
   Russia, deeply entangled in the Ukraine war, is reluctant to open another front in Syria. While supportive of the Syrian regime, Moscow seeks balanced relations with Turkey and Israel, complicating its stance.

5. Iran:
   Reeling from Israeli strikes, Iran is limited in its ability to provide direct support. Internal political divisions and strained resources have further constrained its capacity to respond effectively.

6. The United States:
   U.S. policy in Syria has been marked by ambiguity—condemning the regime's actions while avoiding its downfall to prevent instability along Israel’s borders. Though not directly involved, Washington likely had prior intelligence about the attack but chose to let it unfold.

7. Israel:
   Israel created the conditions for this upheaval by targeting Hezbollah and Iranian forces. While unlikely to favor replacing the Assad regime with ideologically opposed militias, Israel benefits from prolonged internal Syrian conflict.

8. Arab States:
   Following Syria's readmission to the Arab League, Arab governments are likely to issue routine condemnations while refraining from substantive intervention.

Conclusion:

This operation appears to be a Turkish-orchestrated initiative, with the armed groups serving as executors. Turkey likely communicated the operation's goals to key players like the U.S. and Israel post-launch to minimize interference. However, while Turkey aims to pressure the Syrian regime into negotiations, the regime's likely response is to resist until the bitter end. Consequently, Ankara's objectives remain uncertain, as the conflict's complexities deepen.