In a development that has stunned both military analysts and the international community, Syrian opposition forces, primarily led by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and allied groups, have mounted an astonishingly swift and effective offensive, capturing the city of Aleppo and large swathes of northern Syria. This operation, unfolding over just a few days, marks one of the most significant shifts in the Syrian civil war since the regime’s recapture of Aleppo from rebels in 2016.
In addition to HTS, the coalition includes several smaller rebel groups operating under the umbrella of the “al-Fatah al-Mubin” operations room (“The Great Conquest” in Arabic). Among them is the “Turkistan Brigade,” composed of jihadis from Central Asia, as well as the Syrian National Army (SNA), a coalition of rebel forces formed in northern Syria in 2017 and backed, funded, and trained by Turkey.
The SNA’s goal is not only to confront Assad’s army but also to oppose Kurdish forces, with whom it has long competed. Kurdish forces in Syria are trained and equipped by the United States.
The execution of this campaign was meticulously planned, suggesting the significant involvement of one or more states with advanced technical, technological, and military capabilities. The rebels moved rapidly and with a level of coordination that indicated a unified command structure—something often missing among opposition groups in the past. Their ability to seize strategic locations, such as Aleppo’s airport and key highways, demonstrates a tactical approach that prioritized mobility and control of supply lines.
The speed at which Aleppo fell was particularly shocking. Cities like Aleppo are not just military targets but symbols; its loss in 2016 was seen as a turning point that solidified Assad’s hold on power. The rebels’ recapture of this city in a matter of days, with minimal resistance, is an ominous sign for the long-term leadership of Bashar al-Assad.
Why did the six-year-dormant Syrian civil war suddenly reignite—and why now?
One clue lies in the timing: this offensive occurred just one or two days after the ceasefire agreement between Israel and Lebanon took effect. Syria—and Aleppo in particular—is critical for the Lebanese resistance as a supply route for weapons, troops, and coordination. It’s not far-fetched to conclude that this offensive was part of a plan orchestrated by the United States and Israel to further dismantle Hezbollah by severing Syria’s supply line, making it difficult for the movement to rebuild after the devastating Israeli bombardment. This theory has gained traction, bolstered by the swift fall or surrender of Aleppo.
However, there is another hypothesis—one I am inclined to support—that ties this revival of the Syrian civil war directly to Ukraine. You may wonder: What does Ukraine have to do with Syria?
Syria is deeply entangled with broader geopolitical events involving Ukraine. It was no coincidence that Russia’s intervention in Syria (September 2015) followed less than a year after its annexation of parts of Ukraine. This marked the first modern deployment of Russian troops to the Middle East. Historically, since the 1917 communist revolution, Russia had considered military interventions as imperialist exercises—actions it condemned and attributed to Anglo-American powers. Yet, faced with evolving global circumstances, Russia abandoned its ideals, revealing its true latent imperialist nature.
For Russia, annexing parts of Ukraine was relatively straightforward, but retaining control required leveraging another major geopolitical event to distract and secure concessions. From Moscow’s perspective, Ukraine posed a direct security threat, but Syria served as a geopolitical master card due to its proximity to Israel—the West’s Achilles’ heel. Meanwhile, Turkey’s President Erdogan viewed Syria as a platform for projecting rising Turkish influence and reviving the Ottoman Empire’s legacy.
These divergent objectives inevitably led to conflict once Russian troops entered Syria. This conflict became evident when Turkey shot down a Russian jet, killing two pilots, after claiming it had violated Turkish airspace. Russia asserted the plane was in Syrian airspace and accused Turkey of provocation. In response, Putin imposed severe economic and diplomatic sanctions on Ankara.
Turkey, angered by the sanctions and accusations, sought NATO’s support to counter Russia. However, NATO remained conspicuously neutral, prioritizing diplomacy over intervention, a stance many speculated was influenced by considerations for Israel—a non-member—over Turkey, one of NATO’s key members.
Putin’s move to deploy troops in Syria bore unexpected fruit, catching many off guard. For Erdogan, however, it was a personal and national blow. Over time, Erdogan adjusted his position, easing opposition to Russia’s presence in Syria and shifting his hostility toward American and Kurdish forces. Ankara even targeted the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a US-backed Kurdish-led coalition, to slow their advance into Syrian government-held territories. This indirectly aided Assad’s regime—an outcome Turkey had vehemently opposed before Russia’s arrival in Syria.
In parallel with these military maneuvers, Turkey sought economic ties with Russia, signing trade agreements and exploring the acquisition of Russian S-400 air defense systems—a move NATO opposes due to security and integration concerns.
These actions drew sharp criticism from American foreign policy hawks. Senators Lindsey Graham and Bob Menendez pressured then-President Trump to adopt a tougher stance against Turkey. Trump, however, chose to approach the matter diplomatically, opting to discuss Turkey’s position directly with Erdogan. Their conversation seemed to shift Trump’s perspective, leading him to sympathize with Turkey’s frustrations over delays in acquiring F-35 fighter jets, which Ankara had already paid for but had not yet received.
Over time, Trump and Erdogan developed a close relationship, united in their mutual disdain for NATO’s bureaucracy and the so-called “deep state.”
This growing rapport between Trump and Erdogan was often characterized as a “bromance,” marked by mutual admiration and direct communication. Trump openly praised Erdogan’s leadership style, calling him a “friend” and a “hell of a leader.” Their personal relationship allowed them to bypass traditional diplomatic channels and collaborate on solutions to regional and global challenges, including the conflicts in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria.
Trump’s decision in 2019 to withdraw U.S. troops from northern Syria—seen by some as tacit approval of Turkey’s Operation Peace Spring, which targeted Kurdish forces—reflected this partnership. Turkey regards these Kurdish forces as terrorists. Although the move faced significant criticism from within the U.S., Trump remained steadfast in defending it, emphasizing his trust in Erdogan to handle the situation.
However, the Pentagon and other U.S. government agencies pushed back against a full withdrawal, maintaining an American military presence in Syria. Trump later expressed frustration over this resistance, famously accusing the “Military-Industrial Complex” of obstructing his policies. In a Fox News interview, he described the pushback as a de facto coup, highlighting the challenges he faced in implementing his agenda.
Under the Biden administration, Turkey’s geopolitical importance has grown, particularly following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Erdogan played a key role in early diplomatic efforts to mediate the conflict, hosting the first round of peace talks between Russia and Ukraine in February 2022, just four days after the invasion began.
Erdogan also brokered the Black Sea Grain Initiative, facilitating the safe transport of grain and foodstuffs from Ukrainian ports during the war. Turkey further cemented its role as a critical player by offering a temporary haven for Russian oligarchs facing Western sanctions. For example, Roman Abramovich, a Russian-Israeli oligarch, docked his superyacht, Eclipse—the world’s largest private yacht—in Turkish waters to avoid seizure.
Israel’s interests in Syria are also deeply intertwined with Russia’s presence. While Israel opposed Russia’s support for Assad, it struck an agreement with Moscow to tolerate its presence in Syria under two conditions:
- Russia would refrain from supplying Assad with advanced weaponry or transferring military technologies.
- Russia would permit Israel unrestricted access to Syrian airspace for conducting aerial bombardments against Syrian and Hezbollah targets.
In exchange, Israel would lobby the West to ease sanctions on Russia and temper its criticism of Moscow’s actions in Ukraine. This arrangement underscores how valuable Israel is to both the West and Russia.
Israel was so deeply invested in Russia’s Syria-for-Ukraine strategy that it even coordinated this plan with Trump’s campaign manager, Paul Manafort, during the 2016 election. According to the Mueller Report—the investigation into the Russian collusion with the Trump campaign—a former Israeli defense minister urged the Trump team to adopt Russia’s stance on the Ukraine border issue. This approach closely mirrored Trump’s proposed solution to the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
Since this was the primary reason Russia intervened in Syria, it readily accepted Israel’s offer. Between 2018 and 2024, Israel conducted thousands of airstrikes on Syria, many of which could have been prevented had Russia fulfilled its role as a true ally by training and equipping Syrian air defense forces.
The Connection to the Latest Syrian Offensive
The recent rebel offensive marks a stark shift in the dynamics of the Syrian civil war. This push does not appear to originate from traditional U.S.-backed forces but rather from groups aligned with Turkey. It seems inconceivable that such a significant operation could have occurred without Ankara’s approval.
The timing and scale of this offensive suggest a broader geopolitical agenda. While the rebels may aim to weaken Assad, their actions also stretch Russian resources, forcing Moscow to divert attention and assets away from Ukraine. By opening a new front against Russia, Trump and his regional allies aim to pressure Moscow into agreeing to an immediate deal, rather than a prolonged one where Russia holds the upper hand and dictates the terms.
While everyone, including Russia, wants a deal, there is a disagreement on how it should be presented to the public and how its outcome will be perceived. Ukraine wants an agreement that doesn’t make it appear defeated or submissive. Russia seeks to be recognized as the victor. Israel wants Syria to remain weak and divided. Erdogan wants to be seen as the indispensable power in the region, while Trump wants to be recognized as the most feared and influential leader on the global stage—the one capable of brokering impossible peace deals. The only way this can happen is if Trump secures the Ukraine deal within 24 hours of his inauguration, though it would be even more beneficial if he achieves this before then.
To stay in his good graces, Erdogan, Netanyahu, Putin, and even Zelensky are locked in a fierce competition to see who can deliver this for Trump. So far, it appears Erdogan is leading the race
