A striking irony of our current historical moment is that discussions of “conspiracies” against Syria are no longer confined to behind-the-scenes plots. Instead, they are openly published by international news agencies or announced by officials from the very countries orchestrating them. Even the pressure exerted by major powers on weaker states is now broadcast live.
In Syria’s case, this is evident in a recent Reuters report detailing Israeli-American discussions about the country’s future. Israel has openly stated its desire for Syria to remain weak and fragmented, with one of its key strategies being the continued presence of Russian military bases along the Syrian coast.
Russian Disregard for Damascus’ Decision on Tartous Port
Mere hours after that revelation, Reuters published another report quoting an official from the Russian company Stroytransgaz, who stated that operations at Tartous Port were continuing as usual and that no official notification had been received regarding the contract’s termination. The Russian official dismissed reports of the agreement’s cancellation as “just talk,” emphasizing that any annulment must go through parliament and the president, just as it did when the contract was originally approved. The phrase “just talk” was a direct rebuttal to the Syrian government’s announcement on January 22 that it had revoked the port investment contract.
Under normal circumstances, this development could have dominated public discourse in Syria, sparking debates about its implications, timing, and the underlying humiliation for Damascus. However, Syrians were preoccupied with escalating tensions in Jaramana and Israel’s brazen intervention in the ongoing security crisis there.
Shifting Russian Reactions
To understand the unfolding events, it is important to recall Moscow’s initial reaction to Damascus’ decision to revoke the Russian investment deal for Tartous Port. At the time, Asharq Al-Awsat quoted the first deputy chairman of the Russian State Duma’s International Affairs Committee, who stated that Syria had canceled the agreement because the Russian company failed to meet its financial obligations—specifically, an investment of $500 million to modernize the port’s infrastructure. This investment was a key condition in the 2019 contract signed with Bashar Al-Assad’s regime, which granted the Russian company control of the port for 49 years. However, the promised upgrades never materialized, and the new government in Damascus cited this failure as justification for terminating the deal.
In the same Asharq Al-Awsat report, a Russian diplomatic source expressed indifference toward the contract’s cancellation. He even revealed, for the first time, that the Qaterji Group, a business conglomerate close to the former Syrian regime, owned 50% of the port’s investment shares, while the other 50% belonged to the Russian side. The source described the contract’s termination as a logical response to private companies that had failed to meet their obligations and were tied to the corruption of the previous regime.
Russia’s Changing Tune
However, Russia’s tone gradually shifted. At the end of January, Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov visited Damascus and met with President Ahmad Al-Sharaa. He downplayed the port contract’s cancellation, calling it a technical and commercial issue rather than a political one. Bogdanov stated, “Tartous needs modernization, and an understanding can be reached to resolve all issues.” His delegation included representatives from Stroytransgaz, who assured Syrian officials of their willingness to continue operations and outlined the difficulties they had faced in fulfilling their contract.
Within weeks, the Russian position evolved further—from initial indifference to negotiations with the new Damascus authorities, and finally, to outright rejection of Syria’s ability to unilaterally terminate the deal. On March 2, the CEO of Stroytransgaz told Reuters that no official notification had been received regarding the contract’s cancellation, reinforcing the argument that Syria lacked the authority to revoke the agreement on its own. This statement coincided with reports that Israel had formally asked Washington to ensure Russia maintains its military bases in Syria.
Damascus’ Silence and Syria’s Growing Vulnerability
As of this writing, Damascus has issued no response to the confusion caused by Russia’s latest statements. The lack of any official clarification suggests a troubling new reality: after just one month, Syria’s ruling authorities have lost significant ground in their ability to assert sovereignty over foreign actors operating in the country. This vulnerability is not limited to southern Syria or the outskirts of Damascus—it is evident across multiple regions.
Some may attempt to rationalize this weakness by blaming minority groups who allegedly refuse to integrate into the new state. Others might attribute it to remnants of the old regime, particularly in areas where the government struggles to maintain security and governance. On the opposite end of the spectrum, critics of the new authorities resort to a counter-narrative, branding them as a sectarian, extremist leadership imposed by a dominant majority.
This superficial blame game, however, is exactly what Israel wants—a fragmented Syria, locked in internal strife, unable to rebuild itself as a stable nation. The country’s weakness has intensified dramatically over the past month.
The National Dialogue Conference: A Missed Opportunity?
It would be oversimplistic to attribute Syria’s current predicament solely to Israel’s growing involvement. In reality, Israel’s more overt intervention in Syria coincided with the deeply flawed National Dialogue Conference (NDC), a gathering meant to define Syria’s future but instead deepened internal divisions.
The conference was hastily prepared in three weeks, held over two days, and featured only a few hours of actual discussion. It excluded key groups, including Kurds, Druze, and other minority factions, and sidelined prominent opposition figures through last-minute invitations designed to prevent them from attending. Rather than fostering an inclusive transition, the event was widely perceived as a political maneuver aimed at granting Ahmad Al-Sharaa an internal mandate to consolidate his rule. The result? Backlash and further instability, according to initial indicators.
What Are the Options for Syria?
Syria is now at a critical juncture. There are two primary paths forward:
- A government that raises public expectations for genuine reform—one that is inclusive, integrates competent officials beyond the dominant political and military elite, and operates with broad executive powers.
- A revised National Dialogue Conference—a serious, inclusive process that involves all segments of Syrian society and not just a select few.
The alternative—a greater reliance on state violence under the pretext of enforcing order—would only accelerate Syria’s collapse. Such a scenario aligns perfectly with Israel’s interests, ensuring Syria remains weak, divided, and vulnerable to external manipulation.
At this moment, Syria stands at a precipice. Without meaningful change, the country may find itself slipping further into a deliberately engineered abyss, one eagerly anticipated by its watchful neighbor to the southwest.
This article was translated and edited by The Syrian Observer. The Syrian Observer has not verified the content of this story. Responsibility for the information and views set out in this article lies entirely with the author.
