PNN – According to an expert on Syrian issues, the Aqaba operation in Syria was a plan that the United States had designed for March 2020, but at that time Turkey and Jordan strongly opposed the implementation of this plan and it was not carried out, and now with the subsequent developments region and the weakening of the resistance forces, and led to the fall of the Assad regime.
Not many hours have passed since the announcement of the ceasefire agreement in Lebanon, when the news of the beginning of conflict between some opposition groups in northern Syria attracted attention, so that this region does not see the color of peace by entering into new conflicts in which traces of incendiary activities of some countries can be seen. The story started when the ground movement of the Salafi groups under the support of “Tahrir al-Sham” began towards the city of Aleppo with 2 million people near the Turkish border. And by taking advantage of the presence of resistance forces in this area due to the Lebanon war, they were able to take control of significant parts of Syria’s Aleppo province within 60 hours, and then other Syrian cities fell into their hands without resistance.
In March 2020, based on the agreement between Iran, Russia and Turkey known as the “Astana Agreement”, these groups agreed to a ceasefire in these areas to reduce tension in the region; And at the same time, with the mediation of Turkey, the joint attacks of Russia and the Syrian army on their positions in Idlib were stopped and instead, Turkey had committed to stop the armed terrorists in Idlib.
But how did the Tahrir al-Sham group take control of most of Syria? Was there a deal on Syria? These are the issues that “Alireza Majidi”, an expert on Syrian issues, raised in order to provide a clearer picture of the field and political conditions of these days in Syria.
Read more:
What has been the obstacle of the forces opposing the Assad regime in Syria?
Majidi: Türkiye invested in the region for years to turn the current opposition in northern Syria into its proxies. Except for the opposition present in the Idlib region, he integrated all these forces into “Jish al-Watani”; Of course, this group has reorganized and changed its structure at least three times. “Jish al-Watani” was established in 2016 and has undergone three rounds of structural changes so far and the entire system of internal systems of this group has been transformed.
These changes were made with the aim of step-by-step strengthening Türkiye’s influence in Jish al-Watani at different levels in all areas; That is, for them, it was not enough to influence and choose the command; For this reason, their operatives penetrated even in the groups that felt they had more independence and created a flow inside the structure of those groups, the peak of this action can be seen in the widespread splits in “Jabhat al-Shamiya”.
In line with this policy, Türkiye simultaneously opened the hands of Tahrir al-Sham in Idlib; While as much as possible, he suppressed other opposing groups and forced them to flee to the territory of “Afrin” or “Efrat Valley” in order to force these groups to submit. Of course, it should be noted that the relations between Tahrir al-Sham and Türkiye were defined in a different way. Tahrir al-Sham was more independent than other opposition groups, and it can be said that Tahrir al-Sham is not a proxy group; rather, it is considered a hostile force with Türkiye. It can be claimed that the command of Tahrir al-Sham operates independently, but in fact it is considered a coalition group for Ankara.
What is Türkiye looking for in the current situation?
Majidi: The answer to this question is very difficult. You see, in the occupation of Damascus and the fall of Assad, Türkiye does not want to lose its influence in the opposition groups, especially Tahrir al-Sham. Because this group has more range of action and independence than other groups; therefore, in the end, it is associated with all these groups; Because it keeps opponents in its orbit. But it is definitely undesirable for Türkiye that these groups can establish foreign relations outside Ankara’s channel, which will result in the implementation of such a victory. We must pay attention to this distinction; Turkey was definitely forced to accompany the operation of occupying Syria, but from that point of view, in the logic of cost and benefit, Damascus should not have been conquered with the idea of the Americans, and this is the unfavorable point for Turkey.
But there is another point, that the more important goal was the issue of the governance system and the type of governance over Syria. It seems that in the current situation and the current field situation, we must say that Türkiye has received extensive support so that it can participate in the administration of Syria. Of course, this type of participation means taking the initiative, without wanting to be under direct guardianship like “Al-Bab, Afrin and Azaz” and not like Idlib, but it wants Syria to be governed according to Ankara’s opinion.
Which opposition groups were involved in these operations and what is their flow?
_ Majidi: In this operation, whose think room was named “Fath Al Mobin” operation room, its components were never announced by the opposing forces; Of course, there was an intention that none of the groups participated in the operation with their logos and specifications. But if we leave aside Golani’s last night show, which tried to highlight the role of himself and Tahrir al-Sham, what was seen in the field with the leak of information was the presence of the “Ansar al-Tawheed” group in the Saraqeb axis conflict.
Where did Ansar al-Tawheed branch from? There was a terrorist group in Idlib called “Jandal al-Qassi” that split into two; A part of them migrated to ISIS territory and officially became members of this group, and another part stayed under the protection of “Turkestani” in Idlib and stayed with the guarantee of “Islamic Party of Turkestan” or the same “Chinese Uyghurs in Idlib”. Later, this second group united with a very radical Salafi Jihadi group called “Ansar al-Din” and founded the “Ansar al-Tawheed” group. In the clashes in Aleppo and then in other places such as Homs and Hama, Tahrir al-Sham definitely had the upper hand, and it was also observed in the room of “Fath Al-Mobin” that this upper hand is in the hands of Tahrir al-Sham.
Another group that can be mentioned is “Alzanki”. In fact, the body of Al-Zanki group is from the same western reef of Aleppo and they belong to these areas; for this reason, they consider these areas as their territory and have a great desire to participate in this operation, and as a line-breaking force, the people of this group were initially used.
After 2020 and the Astana agreement, where were these forces stationed and what were they doing?
Majidi: Most of these groups lived in Afrin and Idlib and had agreed to a ceasefire until today. Tahrir al-Sham ruled Idlib and this supremacy exists even now. Therefore, he stood several times in front of other groups such as Ansar al-Tawheed, which repeatedly tried to violate the ceasefire. But specifically, within the limits of two areas, one in the suburbs of “Jabal-Akrad” and in a city called “Kabinah” and the other in the area of ”Jabal Al-Zawiyah”, Ansar al-Tawheed had movements; including the widespread missile launches that led to controversies.
Why were Tahrir al-Sham forces chosen to occupy Aleppo and other major cities in Syria during this period of time?
_ Majidi: There was this analysis that Lebanon’s Hezbollah had 17 bases in the “Western Rif of Aleppo” according to the available maps. It was certain that the resistance has a great contribution in stabilizing the western fronts of Aleppo, and in general, the resistance has a strong presence in three points in Syria. In other areas, it is just a supplementary force and ordinary power. The resistance in these three points in the east of Syria is the first word and in a way the last word.
The reason for this operation was an American plan that was blocked by Türkiye and Jordan
The reason for this operation was an American plan and it was designed by the United States for March 2020. At that time, Türkiye and Jordan strongly opposed the implementation of this plan; Their main argument, especially Turkey’s, was that the Americans’ plan eventually sought to merge the opposition forces and the “Syrian Democratic Forces” (Syrian Democratic Forces “Syria al-Demkratia Forces” supported by the United States and the PKK), and Turkey stood firm during that period and claimed the government of Bashar al-Assad.
The leadership of this group is with the PYD party, and Türkiye believes that this Kurdish group is the Syrian branch of the PKK, and this is a threat to Türkiye’s territorial integrity. Therefore, Türkiye sees Qasd as a very big danger and did not go under the burden of this plan.
About three months ago, after the “Majdal Shams” incident, the United States came to Tahrir al-Sham again and demanded to start operations in Syria, of course, with Turkey’s reservations. Therefore, the US abandoned the participation of the opposition forces and the SDF in the operation and demanded that the operation be carried out independently by Tahrir al-Sham; The Americans estimated that the resistance would move a major part of its forces to southern Lebanon.
Türkiye has recently been trying to restore relations with Bashar al-Assad
At that time, Türkiye was trying to restore relations with Bashar al-Assad; This issue was being discussed at the highest level of the Turkish government; Of course, the desired good relations means bilateral cooperation with Assad in the fight against SDF; A collaboration in a specific issue but with a strategic effect. However, Bashar Assad did not accompany.
The second reason that Türkiye opposed was the simultaneous discussion with Israel’s attacks against Palestine and the killing of this regime in Palestine and Gaza. But with the change of field conditions in the region, Türkiye’s position also changed.
Israel also blocked all communication routes between Syria and Lebanon in the two days leading up to the ceasefire; In other words, the volume of bombing and destruction was so high that all roads were blocked. The outcome of this action was that if the ceasefire was implemented, the resistance forces would not be able to easily return from Lebanon to the north of Syria, and this large gap in those conditions allowed the opponents to launch this operation at that time.
In your opinion, was there a secret deal to carry out this operation?
Majidi: It is difficult to answer this question, but we take two things for granted:
It seems that Türkiye and Russia had agreed on handing over Aleppo to Türkiye; that too two years ago; Of course, this was a multilateral agreement. This privilege had been given to Türkiye and in return, Türkiye had given significant privileges to Russia; both inside Syria and at the level of global equations. One of the pillars of this privilege inside Syria was that Turkey should have recognized Bashar al-Assad and entered more seriously into the political solution process of the Syrian crisis. As the saying goes, it weakened the conflict; however, a “quasi-de facto” (illegal) state was created in Syria.