Operation Deter Aggression, launched on November 27 by the military coalition led by HTS (Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham – Organization for the Liberation of the Levant), has created a new situation that has upended the current balance of power in Syria. Shortly after the operation began, the military coalition captured all of Idlib province and a significant portion of Aleppo province, including the city center of Aleppo. As of December 3, the coalition had taken control of more than 200 settlements, including cities, towns, villages, and military bases, previously under the regime’s control. Concurrently, military forces linked to the Turkish-backed Syrian National Army (SNA) launched Operation Dawn of Freedom, which pushed YPG (Yekîneyên Parastina Gel – People’s Defense Units) forces out of the Tel Rifaat region. Additionally, military clashes occur in the Deir ez-Zor region between regime forces and the SDF (Syrian Democratic Forces), of which the YPG is a part, with the SDF maintaining its military advance in this area.
This new development in Syria occurred amid ongoing regional and international tensions, including the Al-Aqsa Flood Operation initiated approximately 14 months ago by the Hamas-led military coalition, which was followed by the Zionist state’s genocidal campaign in Gaza, its deepened annexation in the West Bank, and its increasing military aggression toward the region, particularly against Lebanon and Iran. Many on the left characterized this new development in Syria as a new aggression directed by Israel and the US in the background, in addition to the propaganda of the Assad regime/Russia/Iran and their proxies in this direction.
The events of the past week in Syria undeniably represent a critical turning point, creating a dizzying pace of developments that many activists and militants struggle to interpret. On the other hand, leftist factions that analyze the process through a traditional Stalinist “campist” and/or culturalist lens have once again rushed to glorify the Assad regime and their idealized “axis of resistance.” Meanwhile, the racist and expansionist conquest rhetoric propagated by trolls of the Erdoğan government on social media has further complicated understanding the situation.
In his famous article on the 1905 Revolution, Lenin titled it “New Tasks and New Forces.” Undoubtedly, a long time has passed since the popular uprising that began on March 15, 2011, as part of the North African and Middle Eastern revolutions. Particularly in recent years, Syria has experienced a “frozen” period on the map. However, the recent developments have ended this frozen period and created a “new” situation, while the tasks at hand retain their “old” character. In this article, we will try to summarize the main outlines of a revolutionary and internationalist policy from a perspective that considers the latest developments not as a “surprise of the past week” but within the framework of “13.5 years + 1 week.”
“External Dynamics” or “Internal Dynamics”?
The regime, with massive assistance from Iran, Hezbollah, and Russia, had managed to regain control of the territories it had lost, including the city of Aleppo, over the course of five years. For this reason, the military opposition doubling the area under its control in just six days seems, at first glance, an almost incomprehensible development. This situation is undoubtedly the result of a combination of external and internal dynamics.
First and foremost, the recent weakening of the regime’s primary allies is the most evident factor. Putin’s regime is grappling with the fallout from its failed annexation attempt in Ukraine. Iran’s mullah regime, shaken by the revolutionary uprisings of 2022, is now contending with Israeli aggression on its own soil. Hezbollah, facing off against the Zionist aggression, is no longer in a position to provide the paramilitary support to Assad that it once could. Without the military and material aid from these actors, it would have been impossible for the Assad regime to emerge victorious from the civil war.
Was this offensive orchestrated by the US and Israel? We will address the regime’s relationship with imperialism and Zionism shortly, but for now, let us state the following: neither the US nor Israel has ever supported the overthrow of the Assad regime or the establishment of a democratic regime in its place. Instead, they have always preferred the existence of a weakened Assad regime for their own security. The developments since 2011 provide countless pieces of evidence supporting this stance.
Is Turkey behind these operations? Could Erdoğan, who until recently repeatedly sought dialogue with Assad, have pivoted and paved the way for military operations? Despite the government’s statements to the contrary, considering that the factions comprising the Syrian National Army (SNA) are backed by Turkey and the government’s covert ties with HTS, such a possibility cannot be ruled out. While the regime’s trolls on social media portray this image, it seems that the Erdoğan government stands to benefit the most from the current changes. However, recent years have clearly shown that there is no direct chain of command between the Turkish government and these armed groups. Moreover, given the weakened state of Erdoğan’s One Man regime both domestically and internationally, suggesting that it is leading such a risky venture might overestimate its capacity.
What is often overlooked in all these evaluations is the Syrian people themselves. Despite enduring massive devastation over the past 13 years—and despite the desire of many to forget—the Syrian people still exist! This enduring reality remains the key to understanding recent developments: the overwhelming rejection of the Assad regime by the Syrian people and the extent of the regime’s decay. The extraordinary losses faced by the regime are fundamentally driven by the “13.5 years + 1 week” formula.
The military operations against the regime are led by a political coalition of reactionary forces, ranging from radical Islamists to nationalists. This leadership reflects the hijacking and corruption of the revolution throughout these years by an “international counter-revolutionary front”. Yet, no military or political organization exists in a vacuum; each is shaped within the society to which it belongs. The recent developments that have upended the Syrian map can only be understood through this lens: On the one hand, the defeat of a rotten regime that has lost its social base and survives with the military support of foreign powers; on the other hand, the military advance of a political coalition that, with all its reactionary character, distortedly reflects the legitimate popular demand for the overthrow of the dictatorial regime. This emphasis on “internal dynamics” once again brings to the fore another essential component of this dynamic, the Assad regime and its fundamental characteristics.
Is the Assad Regime Anti-Imperialist and Anti-Zionist?
Over the past week, many leftist factions have begun their statements or reports on the new situation in Syria with terms like “gangs,” “jihadists,” and “terrorists,” but have avoided expressing any views on the Assad regime. In some cases, they have even described the Assad regime as the “legitimate government” of Syria. Yet Bashar al-Assad’s “legitimacy” as the president of Syria stems from being the son of Hafez al-Assad, who came to power in a military coup in 1970!
The 2011 revolution, epitomized by the slogan “The people want the fall of the regime!”, shook this “legitimacy” to its very foundations. The regime survived by transforming this popular uprising into a bloody civil war. The result of this policy was utter devastation: over 500,000 people lost their lives, more than 10 million were displaced, and over 5 million were forced to flee the country.
A long list could be compiled detailing the relationships of the Baath Party, which has been in power for over 60 years, and the Assad dynasty, which has ruled the country for 54 years, with imperialism and the Zionist state. Instead, let us focus on a few recent examples. The Syrian army has not conducted any attacks against US soldiers stationed in its own country, nor against Israel, which has been expanding its borders in the occupied Golan Heights since October 7 and has continued its airstrikes without interruption. By contrast, in its ongoing operations against the Idlib region, the regime has caused the death of 30 to 200 civilians every month over the past several years.
Is the Assad Regime Secular and pro-Kurd?
The Baath regime has always exploited sectarian divisions to suppress the working masses and has been a staunch enemy of the Kurdish people. Until the revolution began in 2011, 400,000 Kurds in northern Syria were without identification documents because the Assad regime refused to grant them citizenship. The pragmatic relationship it established with the PYD (Partiya Yekîtiya Demokrat – Democratic Union Party) during this period was merely a temporary concession aimed at preserving the regime’s survival. Even in its weakest moments, the Assad regime consistently avoided taking any steps toward officially recognizing the status of the Kurdish people.
The Assad regime, which built itself on sectarian divisions, portrayed itself as a secular government in opposition to radical Islamism. However, when the revolution began, the regime filled its prisons with activists demanding freedom while releasing militants who would later become the founders of radical Islamist organizations like al-Nusra and ISIS. The regime never engaged in direct confrontation with ISIS, instead collaborating with it in eliminating the democratic and secular opposition.
Stereotypes and Simplifications Are Misleading. Reality is Contradictory and Revolutionary
Let us return to our initial emphasis: the recent developments in Syria can only be understood through the “13.5 years + 1 week” formula. The “new” situation in Syria brings the “old” task back to the forefront: the realization of the Syrian people’s demand for freedom, the overthrow of the Assad regime, and the withdrawal of its supporters from the country. However, it is impossible for this legitimate demand to be fulfilled by HTS or other reactionary forces. Therefore, ensuring the broadest unity between all opposition forces and the Kurdish people for the defeat of the regime remains a vital priority. Equally important is rebuilding the grassroots self-organizations of the masses—such as the local coordination committees of the past—in all areas liberated from the regime.
