What is unfolding in Syria feels eerily familiar—a kind of “déjà vu” that evokes memories buried deep in the collective psyche. Some of these memories are bittersweet, but most are painful and grim. For over a week, reports have indicated unusual mobilizations among Syrian Islamist factions, prompting analysts to speculate on their significance. Many predicted limited movements aimed at breaking the stagnant status quo that has gripped northern Syria for nearly five years—a period during which Israeli forces freely struck Iranian or Iran-linked targets, leaving them severely weakened.
However, what transpired went far beyond expectations—monumental in the most literal sense of the word. While many commentators rushed to frame the events as “predictable” or “natural,” such hindsight explanations fail to grasp the scale of what occurred. Within 48 hours, opposition factions—Fath al-Mubin, Ahrar al-Sham, and elements of the Syrian National Army—swept through vast territories held by the regime and Iranian forces. In just 24 hours, they seized control of Syria’s second-largest city, Aleppo, undoing in a day what took Assad’s forces, with Russian air support, four months to achieve in 2016.
The speed of the regime’s retreat raises familiar questions. How could Assad’s forces dismantle and withdraw so quickly? Isn’t this another form of déjà vu, reminiscent of the hasty withdrawal from Lebanon in the summer of 1976?
A Nation Addicted to Euphoria
Like many oppressed peoples, Syrians cling to fleeting moments of triumph that momentarily lift their spirits after years of despair. These episodes ignite an emotional surge, unleashing celebrations on the streets—real and virtual—where joy is shared alongside anger and sorrow. Videos, congratulations, and even curses flood social media, as people channel their pent-up frustrations into collective expressions of relief.
There is no fault in euphoria itself, except that it often ends with a slow descent in mood, passing through all stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and finally acceptance of reality. Sometimes, after every rapid ascent, we find ourselves plunging down again. This happened on October 6, 1973, when the sudden joy drove us to the rooftops to watch the aerial battles and the downing of Israeli missiles, convinced that we had truly regained the Golan Heights—perhaps even gone beyond it to reach Tel Aviv. But on October 12, we were stunned by the halt of the Syrian offensive, its reversal, and the advance of Israeli forces, who seized new villages, adding more displaced people to Damascus and its countryside. We denied, grew angry, bargained, became depressed, and finally submitted in humiliation. For decades, we lived under the same ruler who lost the war twice but declared victory twice. We were forced to adopt his narrative of victory, only to later face his weapons turned against us and our brothers in Lebanon.
A Repeated Cycle
Once again, Syrians find themselves in a familiar loop. There is no doubt that the regime in Damascus has plunged the country into an abyss of poverty, hunger, and despair. Millions of displaced Syrians dream of returning home, and escalating regime attacks—breaching de-escalation agreements—have only fueled public demands to halt these violations. The bombing of a school in Ariha last week, killing civilians, including children, was the latest in a string of atrocities.
Yet, the decision to initiate military action did not come from within Syria. Instead, it was orchestrated by a foreign power, occupying parts of Syrian territory, and motivated not by the plight of Syrians but by its own strategic goals. Turkey’s role in the recent offensive is undeniable, even if opinions differ on the extent of its involvement—from implicit approval to direct leadership.
Turkey’s Strategic Calculations
It is difficult to imagine that groups like Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham and Ahrar al-Sham, which have clashed violently in the past, would voluntarily unite and coordinate such a well-executed operation. This level of precision and collaboration suggests Turkish planning, guidance, and leadership, supported by intelligence capabilities far beyond what these factions possess.
Operation Deterrence of Aggression: Opposition Forces Redraw the Map in Northern Syria
Turkey’s involvement aligns with its broader strategic objectives: maintaining influence in northern Syria, countering Kurdish groups like the YPG, and consolidating its position against both Assad and Iran. The offensive offers Ankara an opportunity to secure territory in Aleppo and Hama, creating conditions to repatriate Syrian refugees while simultaneously undermining Kurdish aspirations for autonomy.
Reports suggest that Turkey has unified extremist factions under the umbrella of the Syrian National Army and Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, facilitating joint operations and tactical coordination. This reflects Ankara’s advanced strategy for achieving its military and geopolitical goals.
Not for Syria’s Sake
It is crucial to note that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s actions are not driven by altruism toward Syrians. Erdoğan spent over a year attempting to reconcile with Assad, mediated by Russia, but negotiations failed due to irreconcilable demands, including Assad’s insistence on a full Turkish withdrawal. The current conflict underscores Ankara’s refusal to relinquish its strategic foothold in Syria.
Erdoğan’s broader objectives include repatriating Syrian refugees, curbing Iranian influence, and eliminating the Kurdish presence in northeastern Syria. The capture of a major city like Aleppo, alongside surrounding towns, could enable Erdoğan to resettle a significant portion of the three million Syrian refugees in Turkey—potentially up to two-thirds.
Turkey’s role also reflects its calculated effort to counterbalance Iran. By targeting Iranian-backed militias near Aleppo and Idlib, Ankara disrupts Tehran’s logistical and strategic hubs, weakening its regional influence.
The Kurdish Question
At the heart of Turkey’s strategy is the Kurdish issue. Ankara views the Kurdish PYD and SDF as extensions of the PKK, which it considers a terrorist organization. While Erdoğan’s ultimate goal may not be the downfall of Assad, his primary focus remains dismantling Kurdish autonomy in northeastern Syria.
This goal resonates with many Syrians, particularly in northern regions, where nationalist sentiments align with Erdoğan’s stance against Kurdish self-rule. However, such alliances between Turkish and Arab chauvinists jeopardize the principles of Syrian unity and human rights.
Despite criticisms of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, it has established a more inclusive and progressive governance model than anything under Assad or Erdoğan. The Kurdish community, as Syrian citizens, deserves rights and protections and treating them as outsiders undermines the very ideals of the Syrian revolution.
A Fragile Hope
Amid the chaos, one question lingers: Could the current reshuffling of alliances and weakening of traditional powers—Russia, Iran, Hezbollah, and Assad—pave the way for a comprehensive solution in Syria?
A recent statement by the Syrian National Coalition offered an unusually balanced vision:
“Syria must be brought to safety and protected from divisive projects. We seek a sovereign, independent state with full control over its territories, governed by democracy, justice, and freedom, ensuring the rights and freedoms of all its citizens.”
If such a vision finds genuine support among Syrians and the international community, it might just set Syria on a path toward resolution. Whether this hope materializes remains to be seen, but it is a glimmer worth pursuing.
