Blows of fate: why the "violent actions" of the Syrian authorities alarmed the EU and the United States

On the night of January 11, the United States attacked targets of the Islamic State terrorist organization (IS, banned in Russia) in Syria. On the one hand, the operation carried out by Washington plays into the hands of the current authorities in Damascus, as it relieves them of some of the burden of fighting opponents of the regime. On the other hand, the Syrian leadership still needs to independently seek a compromise with other forces inside the country. Threatening to weaken the partnership, it is not only the United States that is demanding this, but now Europe as well. Meanwhile, fierce fighting between government-controlled forces and Kurdish formations took place in Aleppo for several days. The risks of another possible destabilization of the situation in Syria are described in the Izvestia article.

Operation "Hawkeye Strike"

The second stage of the American operation against ISIS, like the December strikes, was justified by revenge for the deaths of two American servicemen and a Syrian interpreter at the hands of radicals in Palmyra. However, this time the United States acted on a larger scale: the strikes were carried out from Jordanian airspace using Jordanian F-16s. American F-15E, A-10, AC-130J and MQ-9 drones were also involved in the operation. In total, according to the Central Command of the US Armed Forces (CENTCOM), 35 facilities were attacked. It is known that, among other things, the strikes were carried out west of Deir ez-Zor (using helicopters), but the list of targets was not disclosed.

"Today's strikes against ISIS throughout Syria are part of our continued commitment to rooting out Islamic terrorism against our military personnel, preventing future attacks, and protecting American and partner forces in the region," CENTCOM said in a statement.

A significant number of targets hit indicates the preservation and some development of the IG infrastructure in transitional Syria, Grigory Lukyanov, an employee of the Center for Arab and Islamic Studies at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Deputy Dean of the Faculty of Oriental Studies at the National Academy of Medical Sciences, draws attention. According to him, this is due, among other things, to the active inter-factional struggle that has unfolded in the new elites.

— The political narrative of turning the Syrian political space into a space under the control of Sunnis, which is promoted by Ahmed al-Sharaa (President of Syria for the transitional period. — Ed.), does not look like a consensus with the ideas of many of those who fought under the banners of both Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (banned in the Russian Federation - Ed.) and other organizations. In addition, al-Sharaa itself has many enemies, many of whom are building communication with ISIS, receiving funding and resources through their network," the expert notes.

In this context, the current Syrian administration is ready to work closely with the United States and provide support in the interests of destroying any alternative to its own dominance in Syria.

It is noteworthy that the operation against ISIS is limited to the air component: the Syrian troops did not conduct ground operations in the attacked areas. This is partly due to the reputational losses that Damascus suffered as a result of the terrorist attack in Palmyra: the radical who attacked the soldiers, Tariq Satuf Al-Hamad, served in the Syrian General Security Service and on the day of the attack was sent to ensure the security of future targets. Washington, in turn, is waiting for the results of the investigation from Damascus.

However, as Lukyanov notes, even the current format of cooperation with Washington is beneficial to the Syrian leadership, since it makes it possible indirectly, that is, through the hands of the Americans, to put pressure on opponents who are openly opposed by the status quo in the Syrian elites.

The Aleppo crisis

Shortly before the start of the Hawkeye Strike, the transitional Government had to resolve the crisis in the north of the country, in Aleppo. Despite the fact that the city had been under the control of the army since the end of 2024, in a number of neighborhoods — Sheikh Maqsoud, Bani Zeid and Ashrafiya, populated mainly by Kurds - the influence of the "Syrian Democratic Forces" (SDF) remained, with which Damascus did not have the best relations.

The conflict escalated after the failure of negotiations on the integration of Kurdish militias into the Syrian armed forces. The SDF demanded 30% of senior positions in the Syrian Ministry of Defense, the formation of three divisions under the command of their commanders and the restriction of the presence of non-Kurdish units in the provinces of Al-Hasakah, Raqqa and Deir Ez-Zor. Damascus did not agree to any of the points, demanding that the Kurds make a deal without preconditions. And as a measure of pressure, he launched a "counter-terrorism operation" in Aleppo. A few days later, the disputed neighborhoods were forcibly returned to the control of the central authorities.

Neither official Damascus nor the SDF has disclosed the exact number of casualties. According to the Syrian side, as a result of the decisive assault, "several dozen" fighters of the Asayish Kurdish police unit were captured, and two hundred more militias voluntarily defected to the side of Damascus. The SDF resources, in turn, speak of isolated cases of "surrender," simultaneously recording the destruction of several units of army armored vehicles and the elimination of "dozens of al-Sharaa soldiers." At the same time, both sides agree on one thing: more than 80% of the SDF militia voluntarily left the besieged neighborhoods through the "green corridor" opened by the authorities and headed in an organized manner to the city of Al-Tabqa (Raqqa province).

In any case, the clashes in Aleppo have complicated the already difficult negotiation process, said Ivan Bocharov, INF program manager, in a conversation with Izvestia.

— The Syrian central authorities are striving for the integration of the SDF to take place in such a way that it is not some kind of isolated, semi-autonomous structure. Now that these outbreaks of violence are taking place, they are even less willing to compromise. Similarly, from the position of the autonomous administration of northeastern Syria and the SDF: they have become convinced that only the presence of their forces, which are not diluted in the general Syrian army, can ensure their security. As a result, we can even observe some disintegration in the northeast of Syria," the expert notes.

At the same time, Bocharov drew attention to the fact that the model of resolving disagreements between the SDF and Damascus is largely a "showcase", it is analyzed and projected onto other Syrian forces.

— The Druze, Christians, Alawites, and everyone else are watching how the dynamics in relations between the SDF and the central authorities are developing. Any outbreak of violence, like the crisis in Aleppo, can strengthen centrifugal tendencies to some extent," he concluded.

Between Washington and Brussels

No sooner had the active phase of the fighting ended than a delegation of American officials led by Special Representative Tom Barrack arrived in Damascus to meet with the Syrian transitional leader. Despite the fact that the conversation was conducted in "warm" tones, Washington's key message turned out to be harsh: the United States expects greater flexibility in interacting with ethnic and religious minorities and does not welcome Damascus' desire to use power tools.

American officials also reminded their Syrian counterparts that the SDF has played a significant role in anti-IS operations, supporting the coalition "on the ground" for several years, and, more importantly, remains Washington's partner to this day. Therefore, the United States will not turn a blind eye to attempts by Damascus to change the status quo by force. Especially in the absence of the Syrian army's operational capability to conduct a systematic fight against terrorists.

The topic of compromises was also raised by the head of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, who traveled to Damascus on January 9 during the active phase of the fighting in Aleppo. As part of the first visit of high-level European representatives to Syria since the regime change, the head of the European Commission called on the al-Sharaa cabinet to "listen and hear" the wishes of local minorities in order to increase the level of trust in Damascus undermined by the civil war. "We know that the path to reconciliation and reconstruction is difficult. Because healing, restoring lives, and building trust in institutions take time," she said.

As political analyst Dastan Tokoldoshev pointed out, the accents placed by der Leyen are almost entirely consistent with Washington's rhetoric regarding Damascus. "The European Union actually copied the reaction of the United States, calling on both sides for peace and dialogue in order to prevent bloody wars. By the way, the European Union itself also supports both the Kurdish formations and the transitional Syrian government, he noted.

Despite the fact that European and American officials are saying essentially the same thing, there are different categories of partnership at stake. The United States focuses on the security sector, emphasizing its special contribution to the fight against the terrorist underground, as well as to the mediation of conflicts in Damascus with both ethnic and religious minorities and its neighbors (primarily Israel). The economic component (including the lifting of sanctions against Damascus "in advance") also remains part of this policy.

Europe is trying to motivate the Syrian authorities, first of all, with money, promising in return an aid package of about €620 million and an intensification of trade and economic partnership. At the same time, the issues of the political partnership between Damascus and Brussels are deliberately relegated to the background.

In general, the presence of an "intersection point" in the interests of the two players is beneficial to the Syrian authorities, as it will allow them to receive double dividends from each right step. However, this is also the main threat: both Washington and Brussels tend to judge Damascus' flexibility based on its dialogue with the SDF. If negotiations reach an impasse again (and after the clashes in Aleppo, the Kurdish commanders demonstrate their intention to tighten the demands), the transitional cabinet risks facing consequences from both sides at once.