The Financial Times
A Russian-brokered plan this month to divide Syria’s battlefields into “de-escalation zones” aims to halt fighting that has raged for six years. Instead, it may set off a fierce international struggle for influence in the war-torn country.
Sign up By signing up you confirm that you have read and agree to the terms and conditions, cookie policy and privacy policy.
Even as a shaky ceasefire is observed in some parts of Syria, rebels and diplomats fear a scramble for control of southern and eastern regions. The brewing struggle — much of it over land held by militant Islamist group Isis — could pitch US and Iranian-backed proxies into a fight that has little to do with the Syrian conflict and more to do with the powers’ strategic interests.
Rebels and western diplomats say tensions were set off by the deal agreed at talks in the Kazakh capital of Astana, which led to the creation of four de-escalation zones. These are seen by many involved in the conflict as marking out potential spheres of influence for foreign powers backing different forces on the ground. Rebels fighting against President Bashar al-Assad and regional diplomats warn that the deal edges Syria towards partition.
“The situation in Syria after Astana is not the same as it was before,” one regional diplomat said. “Whether the Astana deal becomes a map to partition or power sharing, the race now is to get the biggest share.”
The deal struck in Astana by Russia, Iran and Turkey focuses on freezing fighting in parts of the central provinces of Homs and Hama, as well as southern and northern regions. But parts of the east and south were left unmarked.
The east holds critical resources for Syrians, including oil and agriculture, and important strategic prizes for the international patrons who help secure its recapture. The winner will have the power to link or block Iran’s strategic route from Tehran all the way through Iraq and Syria and to its critical proxy, Hizbollah, the Lebanese Shia militant group.
Syria’s conflict began as a protest against Mr Assad’s rule but has devolved into a messy internationalised war. While disparate rebel groups have fought to oust Mr Assad, Kurdish forces and jihadi groups such as Isis have carved out their own enclaves. Foreign powers have intervened on nearly all sides, with the US, Turkey and Gulf states backing rebels, while Iran and Russia have deployed troops to prop up Mr Assad.
Western diplomats say the US and UK are trying to negotiate with Moscow to get a deal for a western-backed southern buffer zone, potentially with Jordanian troops on the ground. Control of the south will either lead to a potential US-supported “buffer zone” or the presence of Iranian-backed forces right on the doorstep of their main regional foe, and Washington’s biggest Middle East ally, Israel.
Some diplomats believe that the Russians are willing to make a deal with the US, which under former President Barack Obama became marginalised in Syria. Others argue Russia is seeking to undermine advances by US-backed forces in eastern Syria and let the regime and its regional allies, such as Iran, take the rest of that territory for themselves.
“Russia’s entire strategy for a year has been building up to this,” one western diplomat said. “The Damascus and Moscow strategy is clear: exploit the calm from Astana to push to link to Deir Ezzor [in eastern Syria].”
“This is heading towards partition . . . And the last thing [foreign powers] are listening to is what the Syrian people want,” said Hassan Hamadeh, a US-backed rebel commander in northern Syria.
Regional officials whose governments are in talks with Russia over the Syrian war say Moscow seems stuck between its own rivalry with Tehran over the dominant role in Syria and its realisation that it is a pivotal force in the war.
“Russia is critical of Iran for not supporting efforts for creating a stable ceasefire and for still believing in a military solution in Syria. But they understand they need Iran because Iran is really the force on the ground,” a senior Gulf official said.
He added that it was “very difficult to see that the post-conflict Syria is going to look like the pre-conflict Syria”.
“You might have a Iraqi Kurdistan-type scenario where you have the state but it does not control certain areas,” the official added.
This is heading towards partition . . . And the last thing [foreign powers] are listening to is what the Syrian people want
Western diplomats argue that the immediate goal of a southern zone, using Jordanian troops, would be to block Isis forces from trickling down from their embattled strongholds in Iraq and eastern Syria and heading south towards Jordan. But rebels say it is really about Washington seizing eastern Syria to block Iran’s land route towards Lebanon.
Small skirmishes emerging highlight how serious the struggle may be - potentially putting Iranian-backed regime forces on a collision course with US-backed rebels.
Regime forces are advancing in eastern Syria toward the Iraqi border, and are now less than 80km away from the al-Tanf rebel base, where US and British special forces are often present. At the same time, pro-regime media accused US special forces of deepening incursions in that area.
Meanwhile, Syrian media reported Israeli forces conducting training exercises along the shared border with southern Syria, at the same time Iranian-backed forces were pushing to advance southward. Iranian-backed Shia militias in Iraq have also moved into territory along Iraq’s border with eastern Syria. Last week, Syrian warplanes bombed a US-backed rebel group in an area where it was fighting Isis.
“The regime is trying to cut us off from our front line with Isis because they want to be the ones to move from the southern desert up towards eastern Syria and Deir Ezzor,” said Tlass Salameh, the commander of the group. “Imagine that: they have Isis behind them and instead they’re bombing us, the ones fighting Isis there.”