Syria: ‘A New Cold War’
| Author | Tasawar Ashraf,Umut Korkut,Tarik Basbugoglu |
| DOI | 10.1177/2041905820978841 |
| Published date | 01 December 2020 |
| Date | 01 December 2020 |
DECEMBER 2020 • POLITICAL INSIGHT 31
The civil war in Syria began
peacefully. In March 2011, unarmed
demonstrators in the city of Deraa
took to the streets to protest against
authoritarianism and widespread corruption
under the regime of Bashar al-Assad. The
peaceful protests, however, were met with
government violence. What began as a demand
for justice turned into a civil war involving
dierent factions in Syria’s north and a ‘cold
peace’ in the rest of the country. As an armed
struggle gripped the country, civilians ed and
foreign powers became increasingly active. The
involvement of Turkey, Iran, the US and Russia,
as well as Kurdish and Islamist factionalism, led
to the extreme violence which has gripped the
country for the past decade.
At the outset of the ‘Syrian Revolution’
protesters – looking at similar struggles against
dictatorships in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and
Yemen – called on President Assad to resign,
chanting the slogan ‘It’s your turn doctor!’
The regime’s response was ruthless: in Deraa,
protesters were arrested, summarily executed,
and their dead bodies given to their families.
Later, the Baathist security forces opened re
on Syrian protesters who sought to release
prisoners. The violence that the regime waged
transformed the Syrian revolutionaries into
armed rebels, who started to collect weapons
to defend themselves from government attacks
in the summer of 2011.
After the eruption of military conict in Syria,
international and regional players came to
play signicant roles in the region. Initially, the
US and Turkey sought to support the Syrian
rebels in order to change the Assad regime
without having to put ‘boots on the ground’.
Syria: ‘A New
Cold War’
Almost a decade of conflict in Syria has brought death, destruction
and displacement. The civil war has also brought foreign states
involved in Syria into new alliances and tensions, as Tarik Basbugoglu,
Umut Korkut, and Tasawar Ashraf report.
The Russians reacted by defending their military
assets in Syria, and used the war to boost their
economic and political standing in the Middle
East. Finally, Iran considered Syria as a Shiite
bastion and extended its support to the Assad
regime against the US-Turkish-Saudi backed
Sunni rebels.
As a result, Northern Syria turned into a
patchwork of various factions at war with each
other. The ethnic Kurds established free cantons,
the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) – a
common enemy of all involved parties – waged
tremendous violence on civilian populations.
After 2016, Turkey became more actively
involved, while Turkish politicians presented
Syria as Turkey’s domestic aair. To consolidate
nationalist public support at home, Turkey
invaded Northern Syria to ght against Kurdish
forces and extended its support to rebels in
Idlib province. As Syria turned into a terrain
of constant ghting among foreign, state,
and non-state actors, civilians ed and huge
numbers of refugees arrived in the West to
escape a ‘new cold war’ at home.
The US: Fighting Assad and ISIS
The Obama administration did not intend to
become involved in Syria, even if it sought to
topple Assad. Wary of the heavy economic and
political price of the Iraqi War, the US President
refrained from directly attacking the Assad
regime. The US worked within the framework
of the United Nations system to devise a
legitimate response to the Syrian crisis. The
Obama White House also rejected the idea of
creating a ‘no-y zone’ over Syria and, unsure
about the future of Syria after the fall of the
Assad regime, remained unwilling to support
Syrian opposition forces, fearing that this might
be utilised by the jihadist forces to further
extremism.
Instead, the US resorted to pushing its
allies, mainly Turkey and Saudi Arabia, to bring
down Assad. Still, the Obama administration
considered the deployment of chemical
weapons against the protesters by the regime
as a ‘red line’ that could not be crossed and sent
six destroyers to the Eastern Mediterranean to
pressure President Assad. However, when the
Syrian regime launched chemical weapons
in East Ghouta, killing almost 1,500 civilians,
the US did not act. The Obama administration
rejected calls to strike, citing a veto from
the US Congress. The US hesitancy to attack
encouraged regime forces to violently suppress
Syrian civilians. Moreover, the lack of US military
intervention also contributed to Syrian rebels’
© Press Association
Political Insight December 2020 BU.indd 31Political Insight December 2020 BU.indd 31 10/11/2020 15:4610/11/2020 15:46
To continue reading
Request your trial